"They stole our place on the patio!"

Apparently a local blogger has taken his intimidation classes seriously. 

Before the Council meeting last night, Geoff was upset that another group set their table in the place that his CM4RG (I think that’s the correct acronym and name) usually uses. So, he scowled, and mumbled incomprehensible comments as he photographed them. Huh! That’ll teach ‘em, I guess. But threatening mumbles and “documenting” their presence wasn’t enough – he accused them in today’s blog of being “childish” by usurping “CM4RG’s spot.”

I talked to the two guys handing out “Yes on Measure V” signs and neither had been aware that CM4RG was usually in that place – they just got there a little early so they’d have time to set up before visitors arrived. 

Different strokes

Different perspectives – and the usual ascribing motives, labeling . . . I don’t know if that’s Geoff’s normal tone or if he’s frightened by folks who would dare to disagree. Or something else, who knows; maybe it’s just a reflection of dyspepsia.

In comparing the folks at the two tables, I noticed a significant difference in use of some muscles. Those to the left of the door, and Geoff, apparently have weak zygomaticus majors* – they only smile at each other and at the two police officers in the room. The folks at the right-side table smiled at about everybody, including me and even Geoff as he scowled and mumbled. Their zygomaticus majors must be well-developed.

Need some adults

I had to leave the meeting early, so I didn’t get to watch the confrontation-as-entertainment that got going during the public comments. However, the description I heard was embarrassing, so I think that the video may be upsetting for someone new to Costa Mesa Council meetings. 

Some meetings remind me of the old (rephrased a bit) riddle: “What’s the difference between a Boy Scout Troop meeting and a Costa Mesa Council meeting?  The Boy Scouts have adult leadership.”

*Medical and dental folks recognize the zygomaticus majors as “smile muscles.”

PROPAGANDA SEEN THIS WEEK


Now let’s take another look at propaganda techniques being used in this election; last week we said we'd look for ad hominem attacks and repetition of a simple message or mantra, and look for evidence of perfidy.

According to Wikipedia, Propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience . . . (It) often presents facts selectively thus possibly lying by omission – or commission -- and uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational change in audience attitudes

Attack the speaker, not the idea!

We’ve seen some classic ad hominem attacks so far. (From last week, an ad hominem attack is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person supporting it.)  Candidate McCarthy has been lambasted by a Bubbling Cauldron blogger – and by Geoff’s followers -- for his posture and his imperfectly balanced expressions. That is, his facies and back shape are used to “prove” his cynicism and lack of interest in Costa Mesa.

We read some great ad hominem attacks on Steve Mensinger after his “Contract with Costa Mesa” appeared in the Daily Pilot. For example, we were told he faced a sexual harassment charge in 2004. Apparently the idea is that a person who attracted a sexual harassment charge eight years ago couldn’t be trusted to handle city business. But those charged with possessing and selling controlled substances, like some of the leading anti-3Ms? That’s OK, I assume, since the blogs and comments never mention it.

If you can't convince them, fool them

Perfidy is being deliberately deceitful or dishonest. Attorneys succeed in trials and earn large fees by deceiving the opposing counsel, and every parent has had a child “explain” using falsehood(s). Thus, deceit is common in everyday life, as it is in this campaign. Did you notice how the anti-3Ms, especially Geoff and his followers, scream in all caps LIE, LIER – then offer few facts, and usually only opinions in support of their assertions? What is true? We know for sure that perfidy is rampant in Costa Mesa this fall.

You're just a (%&()&^%**)

Name calling (which is “. . . a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against the idea or belief on its own merits.”). For example, both Mensinger and Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer frequently refer to labor representatives as “Union goons.” And name calling has been a staple of the “anti-3Ms group, with terms for folks who disagree with them like Harold’s “You are a pandering lobbyist . . . “Or, how about this example from a follower on Geoff’s blog (in response to Phil’s disagreement): “Phil, this sums you up: cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, spineless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey dung.” The list of appearances for this propaganda technique would fill pages – every week -- with more space required on weeks that the City Council meets and the CM4RG take the mics to call the Council members names.

Say it again, even if it's not true

We won’t forget repetition of a simple message or mantra. Does “can’t trust the 3Ms,” or “it’s what’s not said that’s so dangerous,” or, “but not this charter” sound familiar? After the first couple of hundreds of times, I’m starting to accept these phrases as the total content for the “anti 3Ms’” messages. That could lead me to miss some intelligent discourse, so I have to deliberately pay attention when I read those messages. What about folks who haven’t stopped to think about the mantras, though? Perhaps the mantras will seem true through repetition; remember Hitler’s advice from the last blog? It must have been effective – and maybe it still is. I guess we’ll see.

Use words that don't confine you to meaning

Some new techniques that struck me as I read blogs, columns and press releases this week:

Obfuscation, Intentional Vagueness, and Generalities: The intention is to (convince) the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application.  These techniques overlap, but are seen in various mixes in such phrases as, “A charter may be needed, but not this charter,” “We can balance the budget by negotiating (with the unions) in good faith,” and “(fill in name) is hiding his underhanded manipulations under his support for transparency.” You'll find lots of examples if you read a few columns or blogs.

Lookin' for. . .

And for a later blog of our own, we’ll look for examples of False Attribution (appeals to an irrelevant . . . biased or fabricated source in support of an argument), Out of Context (remove a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its meaning), and Paint with a Broad Brush (description of objects in general terms, without specific details, and without attention to individual variations).

You might enjoy looking for examples of all of these techniques of propaganda as you read and listen to the political messages this week. The politicians are, to one degree or another, trying to “use facts selectively, lie, and present loaded messages to influence your attitude emotionally." Are they succeeding?

Candidates Deserve Better Opposition

Re: “Contract with Costa Mesa” by Steve Mensinger in the Daily Pilot 14 Sep. http://www.dailypilot.com/opinion/tn-dpt-0914-commentary1-20120913,0,6784697.story

Too honest to be a politician

What a refreshing new perspective! A politician who says, “here’s what I believe our problems are, what I believe the city needs, and what I intend to do to solve the problems and meet Costa Mesa’s  needs." If we had such a statement from each candidate it would be easy to cast a relatively rational vote.

In the same issue Colin McCarthy attacks a city retirement that started at $145K/year at age 50 and is now up to $165K, but he isn’t clear about why the cop got that retirement – he seems focused on the unfairness issue. He does identify that retirement as a symptom of the problems, though.

 http://www.dailypilot.com/opinion/tn-dpt-0914-mailbag-20120913,0,1215179.story

Howling from the woods the night before

Then there are the commenters; blogger Geoff was out of the gates last night with a “foaming at the mouth” diatribe that asserts:  Mensinger made mistakes, he isn’t perfectly transparent, and he is motivated by dire and nefarious motives. Almost enough to convince me that if someone that bigoted is so very furious with a promise list by a candidate, the candidate is probably hitting some good points and I could just vote for him and forego the research. (If he has such a dogmatic, partisan and inflexible enemy, can he be all bad?)

Another comment in the Pilot by Geoff about McCarthy’s piece is similar. However, his blog today is at least coherent, although still an accusative and angry tirade without much substance. He doesn’t belabor Colin’s body habitus and facial muscle imbalance personally today, but his followers get right on it. Can body habitus serve as a sign of worthiness?  I have a fat belly; since I’m disagreeing with Geoff it must be evidence of some sinister trait. Besides eating, that is.

They deserve better, really

I think that Steve and Colin and the charter deserve a lot better opposition and criticism. And a lot better opponents. After all, there are some rational arguments against the charter and against Monahan, McCarthy, and Mensinger. But snide sarcasm, name calling, and accusations of vile intent,? Come on! And the three “anti-3M’s” can’t find better arguments against the charter than vague fear mongering -- “It’s what’s left out that’s important” (such as continuing to follow current practices under state law, I guess). Their arguments, if they can be called that, come under two headings: “monster under the bed,” and, “if it’s from them it’s bad, evil, wicked – and sneaky.”

If all you can do is "NAY!" then go away

If Stephens and Weitzberg, especially, and Genis to some degree (through her CM4RG support), conduct their campaigns by hate mongering, name calling, and making misleading statements about the charter they fear, how would they conduct Council business? Weitzberg has already asserted his pride about shouting down a dissenter, so maybe that’s how he’ll deal with a Council Member or a citizen who disagrees with him. Stephens charges a high hourly fee to listen to and research issues in his law office, but he hasn’t taken the time to research issues in this campaign, as both he and Genis admitted during their last “feet to the fire” debate. Will he be able to listen and do the research necessary to be informed – without an hourly fee?

We just need better opposition

McCarthy and Mensinger have taken large strides toward a positive, competitive campaign. Weitzberg’s only positive stance, that I’ve heard or read, is that he wants Costa Mesa to violate federal law and regulate “medical marijuana” dispensaries – like his wife’s – to keep their number small, and competition down I guess. 

Stephens is willing to study the issues someday, perhaps when he has time between his law clients. And Sandra looks pretty and perky and assures us nothing bad happened on her watch although “everyone” is trying to blame her for all of the city’s ills.

Mensinger and McCarthy, and Proposition V, deserve rational opposition.

Candidates’ Info Update 

I've attended a couple of Candidates’ Forums now, and some neighborhood meetings, and I’ve tried to communicate with each candidate personally and by email. I've had multiple contacts with two of “the M’s” and one of the CM4RG candidates...

Sandra Genis

I've spoken briefly with Sandra Genis, who is pleasant and cheerful, but has turned and walked away when I asked substantive questions. Perhaps she doesn’t like individual debate or maybe I just affect her adversely. In any case, she’s never answered an email either, to answer a question or to just acknowledge my thanking her for her presentations at each forum. However, I’m listed on her site as a supporter, and have a password to join the “members only” presentations and discussions that may occur.

John Stephens

John Stephens replied to my questions about how the Charter would affect the conduct of City Business by reiterating the abstract dangers he says are posed by what is missing from the Charter. He then handed me an envelope saying that he has to raise money to campaign because he wasn’t funded by “outside interests” and turned to talk to someone else before I could ask (tried at two events) who these interests might be. He also hasn’t answered any of my emails, either, so I don’t know where to go to hear either him or Sandy espouse their views except for the scheduled forums.

Gary Monahan

Gary Monahan has spoken persuasively to me at the forums about the Charter and his votes, although he attended only one of the local “get acquainted” meetings that I did. His email replies are erratic but courteous.

Colin and Steve

Colin McCarthy and Steve Mensinger have been happy to explain, discuss, or debate every issue I’ve raised, and have replied courteously and in depth to my emails. They repeatedly urge me to “just read it, read what the Charter says.” Since I’ve read through the verbiage fully seven times so far, I’m beginning to recognize even section numbers; but even with a copy in hand I’ve been unable to find fault with their explanations and arguments.

However,

On the other hand, Steve is unwilling to back off of his assault on the unions, and seems unable to see errors (at least in procedure) his Council has made. Colin pulls his family and commitment into many seemingly unrelated discussions, and Steve is happy to zip the discussion off to Estancia football and the needs of both youth and taxpayers in Costa Mesa at the end of any discussion.

If you bring them a problem . . .

I've noticed that Steve, Gary and another Council Member, Jim Righeimer, vigorously address problems brought to the Council’s attention. For example, a report of gang activity spurred Mensinger to take personal time to go observe the area, then discuss his observations with the police department. And, complaints about a cracked sidewalk led to instructions to the city staff to “fix it” and a follow up at the next meeting to determine progress. And, the complaints about crime in the Lyons Park area have led to Council member visits, and to city lighting, code compliance, Homeless Task Force, and police attention to the area. So, they certainly seemed responsive in the few City Council meetings I’ve attended.

Repeats same old story

Harold Weitzberg has answered my emails courteously. Unfortunately, he answers my questions with either accusative diatribe or the (canned) view seen on CM4RG’s website. (See blogs dated 8/27 and 8/31.) He gets quite emotional about some issues, but doesn’t debate facts or opinions. Instead, he just repeats the “party line” or calls opponents names (that he cannot demonstrate are based on anything beyond his opinion) such as “You are a pandering lobbyist trying to insinuate yourself into our Costa Mesa government. . .” (Daily Pilot 6 Sep 12).

On the issue of Medical Marijuana his passionate view is that the city should have stopped the proliferation of dispensaries when their number was about 80 – which included his wife’s shop. He is unconcerned that regulating marijuana sales is illegal under federal law, and won’t address the issue of how to regulate dispensaries that proliferate without reference to zoning, business license or even storefront – in the past some of the dispensaries were working from the back of a panel truck.

Put 'em into groups

So, the active campaigners, from my perspective, can be divided up at least three ways. First, there’s those who reply (Mensinger, Weitzberg, McCarthy, Monahan--eventually), versus those who don’t. Then there’s those who debate the issues with facts (McCarthy, Mensinger, Monahan), those who argue with forceful but largely-unsupported opinions or labels (Weitzberg, Stephens), and those who present and debate on stage but are largely unavailable (to me) the rest of the time (Genis, Monahan somewhat). 

Or, the candidates could be divided into those who think I have the intelligence and maturity to argue issues with facts (and want me to read the Charter – again), such as Menninger, McCarthy, and Monahan, and those who either ignore me or else tell me what the Charter really means. One of these touts himself as an expert – I’m a lawyer—instead of explaining why current city procedures will become ineffective under the charter.

Judge by their supporters? How gauche!

How about dividing the candidates by their supporters? Well, the “3M” supporters speak courteously at Council meetings, and listen attentively – sometimes offering thoughtful questions -- at forums. The supporters for Genis, Weitzberg, and Stephens take up Council meeting time with their protest songs and their railing against most everything. They demonstrate their (lack of) respect with screams, applause and catcalls during formal meetings, and by flashing their hand-printed signs and obscene gestures toward the dais during forums and Council meetings.

I’m going to continue to try to hear what Genis and Stephens have to say.

The candidates and issues are polarizing into two camps. I’m starting to think that will make my decisions easier in November. 

Persuasion, Propaganda, and Perfidy in Costa Mesa 

The campaigning for November’s election is developing into a study of how to get other folks to vote for your preferences. Three techniques are popular, but let's first look at two methods of changing people’s beliefs, or persuading them, that aren't being used to earn your vote.

The first is science; and science is immune to consensus. It deals with repeatable tests and provable explanations for phenomena. Politics focuses on consensus, not facts, so science isn’t of much help in examining Costa Mesa’s election choices, although many opinions and outright falsehoods are being promoted as fact.

The other major way of “proving” a viewpoint is “appeal to authority.” This method is being attempted, although without qualifying the “authority” as knowledgeable, just as devoted, loyal, and committed.

Persuasion

Some other methods of persuasion include generalization – “a key premise is that, in a complex world where people are overloaded. . ., they fall back on . . .generalizations. These generalizations . . .allow people to usually act in a correct manner with a limited amount of thought and time. However, they can be exploited and effectively turned into weapons. . .”

So, persuasion by using generalizations can be honest and useful; for example, “the best way to know what the charter says is to read it.” Hard to argue with that if you’re talking to reasonably capable adults. Or it can be an invitation to err, as in “we have to build checks and balances into the charter to prevent the City Council from taking advantage.” This is true enough as a generalization, but it neglects the current law that continues unchanged under the charter – the checks and balances that are needed – are present already. 

Similarly, “we must have a rule to insure honest audits,” is correct, but misleading, because such rules are also present in the current laws that govern how the city does business. And, the feared “power grabbing” Council Members are forbidden by law from interfering in the conduct of city business, so they cannot now, and could not under the charter, interfere with the audits scheduled and controlled by Costa Mesa’s accountants. This is sliding into technique two, propaganda.

Propaganda

Here are a few propaganda techniques I’ve seen so far in the campaigning. Keep in mind during this campaign, that one of the most successful propagandists in history, Adolph Hitler (in a statement that was originally formulated by Joseph Goebbels) insisted that,  "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” Even if they are lies . . .

Fear mongering (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. It is referring, often very subtly and with “due respect,,” to the monster under the bed. (Ask, “has this happened before? Will it become more likely if this happens (Charter is passed, for instance)? No? Well then, there ain’t no monster under the bed.”)

Demonization of the opposition, as in, “Defeat the three M’s, they’re enemies of organized labor.”

Distraction by semantics involves using euphemistically pleasing or frightening terms to obscure the truth. For example, “No Bid contracts allow council members to award contracts to their friends.” The term  "no bid contract" refers to a specified procedure for high dollar value contracts. It’s handled safety and apparently honestly now, and the procedures won’t change under the Charter. The various levels for approval will be set by the council, though. Further, Council Members, by law, can’t process contracts or any other city business, either now or under a Charter.

Or, how about the term “grassroots” which means "the common or ordinary people, as distinguished from leaders or parties." Ever wonder how common people can come together to support candidates without being involved with leaders or parties? The term is being used right now to imply support from the population, regardless of political persuasion. Propagandists, on the other hand would be a group, often a small and elite group, that repeats slogans, defames opposition, and refuses to confront facts. Does either term, grassroots or propagandist, remind you of citizen input at City Council meetings?

We’ll take another look at what’s in vogue this year for influencing Costa Mesa Voters in a later blog, but, just for fun, look for the following Propaganda Techniques in the news during the next week:

Watch for

Misleading by Distracting This method injects false issues into the opponent's message or attempts to create connections with falsities. Repetition of falsehoods from numerous outlets, nearly simultaneously, is one of the most effective means to mislead by distraction.

An ad hominem attack is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it. It’s often described as an informal fallacy and an irrelevance, attacking the man instead of the issue. (Or even the man’s appearance!)

The "plain folks" or "common man" approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's positions reflect the common sense of the people. See also grassroots, above.

And, look for examples of Perfidy, which is being deliberately deceitful or dishonest. Attorneys, when acting in their official capacity as officers of the court, are forbidden to deceive or lie. That is, they’re not supposed to certify a lie, and can lose their license for doing so. (As in the City Attorney certifying the meaning of sections of the Charter.) But attorneys are free, as we all are, to deceive and mislead when not certifying as true – they deceive and mislead very skillfully to win in court. And winning is why they can charge such high-dollar fees.

Propaganda and other foolishness this week 

If you shout loudest you win

Harold Weitzberg’s letter in the Daily Pilot 1 Sep suggests that he considers “shouting down” people who disagree with him in a Council Meeting a valid response, and one he’s proud of.

“. . . And I will shout him down wherever he appears in Costa Mesa to spew his divisive rhetoric.”

I wonder if that’s the technique he used to rear his children, manage the businesses (he claims) he managed, and the tactic he plans to use if he joins the City Council. Perhaps the concept of “rule of law” eludes him, but if the loudest screamer is the winner, well . . . that sounds more like anarchy and we don’t need a charter for that. Most of the divisive rhetoric I’ve seen so far comes from his supporting group, CM4RG, anyway.

Attack a straw man

Harold's straw man, a Mr. Dayton, hasn’t acknowledged Harold nor has Weitzberg identified a difference that can be resolved by “getting it straight between (us).” However, he used the words to create an introduction to his name calling – as usual without anything but his own opinion as documentation. He also has identified Mr. Dayton’s purposes without asking Dayton, through, I suppose some omniscience or in-depth guesswork:

“Let's get it straight between you and me, Mr. Dayton. You are a pandering lobbyist trying to insinuate yourself into our Costa Mesa government so that you can raise your visibility for other's (sic) of your ilk, who want to use strong arm methods to muscle citizens away from their rights for fair government and quality of life.”

In reality  . . .

The only strong arm tactics identified so far during this election have to do with a PI working for “somebody else, not us,” and a manual of tactics from a legal firm. I doubt that Dayton is a member of the firm or a union rep for the PD, and it’s Harold trying to get into Costa Mesa government, not Dayton.

Then, regarding the proposed charter:

“It takes the power away from the citizens of Costa Mesa. It puts our city in real jeopardy for abuse and cronyism in the future.”

That’s the CM4RG party line, certainly, but it is not justified by the document. Does the term “fear mongering” ring a bell?  Since these assertions are repeated by each of the CM4RG sponsored candidates, over and over, without reference to the charter’s actual provisions, I can believe that Harold and the group have read Joseph Goebbels' -- and Adolph Hitler’s -- advice (about propaganda): "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”

If you don't look like me, then you can't be (a Council member)

Now is appearance going to define the election? Is “looking different” detrimental to good public service?

The Bubbling Cauldron on 4 Sep criticized McCarthy’s hunched back and uneven smile as slouching and smirking. I shudder to think how the blogger would lambaste one born without arms (Phocomelia) who disagreed with him.  Further, I’m sure Colin will stipulate that he isn’t as pretty or perky as Sandy, nor as big as Steve – and he may even agree that his Spanish is rustier than Harold’s. However, he’s informed about the issues, unlike Sandy and John -- the other attorney – who are competing with him for the seats. Maybe he doesn't lose $385 per hour, though, while he studies the issues – like the other attorney.

Council meeting 4 Sep no more exciting than TV 

If I had attended Tuesday night’s Council meeting for its entertainment value I’d have been disappointed. 

However, I attended hoping to watch responsible adults conduct Costa Mesa’s business, and was pleasantly surprised! I saw cooperation, compromise and adult behavior – on the dais, anyway. And the silly and embarrassing effluence that often fills the three-minute citizens’ comments was markedly reduced. Finally, a couple of uniforms appeared in the audience, but I saw no bicep flexing, chest inflating or scowling from the back of the room. And, no one, uniformed or not, blocked the aisles and dared me to enter. Refreshing.

Adults showing statesmanship

Council Member Leese disagreed with the scope of COIN (she wanted a larger scope). Members Righeimer and Mensinger expressed a willingness to work out a compromise on a transparency policy with Leese that covered other aspects of contracting beyond negotiations with employee unions. Leese then supported COIN with her vote. Compromise and statesmanship tonight. Also, an agreement with the FD union was announced and accepted, apparently with positives for both sides -- and the agreement wasn't even necessary for another two years. Kudos to the negotiators, Council members, and especially the FD union! 

Info about Costa Mesa

A touching presentation by a citizen who advocated warning signs about coyotes in the area was notable for excellent graphics and a clear and a concise request. In contrast, the Homeless Task Force presentation seemed to last forever, with more and more information piled on; perhaps the concept of “less is more” needs to be discussed when they plan their next presentation. However, it is amazing and encouraging that they have accomplished so much in the last six months. The Homeless Task Force identified a citizen-volunteer who single-handedly got one homeless person on a plane back to the care of his family.

The naysayers behaved . . .a little better

I may not have paid strict enough attention, but I heard no one called a name, and the majority of the speakers expressed support for Righeimer in the brouhaha about the false DUI report, and outrage about the effrontery of whoever was paying the PI/false reporter. The usual speakers from CM4RG spoke their usual “nays,” to about everything, and continued to allude to perfidious motivations among the Council Members. It’s surprising that I could see this as a restrained commentary, but after some of the other meetings, well . . .

Comparing my hangnail to your appendectomy

However, we also had a chance to consider a good “apples to oranges” argument from a speaker. She told Righeimer she appreciated and was sympathetic to the pain to his family from the ill-advised DUI report. However, she said, he should remember the suffering caused when the Council “ratted out” the marijuana dispensaries in Costa Mesa to the feds and they were closed, sometimes with the federal officers “holding families at gunpoint,” and leaving the marijuana users at the mercy of street sellers.

Somehow it’s hard for me to compare a councilman who is obeying the law being assaulted by a ruffian using (probably not) legal, and certainly unethical, conduct, and folks who are breaking federal law being thwarted by federal law officers. If the “dispensaries” or head shops, had occupants who act like the chronic naysayers group in Council meetings, I think they were lucky to not end up in federal lockups after mandatory visits to the local ER -- FBI officers expect compliance, if not manners.

Adults acting much like adults -- and Council members

The non-professional taxonomists, who categorize the Council members' beliefs and behaviors purely through speculation, and the non-professional psychologists who identify Council members' motivations, feelings, and thoughts without training or test-data, delivered minimal nonsense this meeting. 

All in all, a more adult and civil meeting than usual. The Councilmembers’ statesmanship was noteworthy, under the effective leadership of the Mayor Pro Tem. Good job Council, and thanks to the opposing-everything group for a welcome improvement.

Meeting the Candidates  

Meeting the candidates -- and other Council Members --  has been ongoing. My initial contact was at an in-home meeting about the charter, which I attended in July as a representative of a homeowners’ association.

First the scary ones

Mayor pro tem Jim Righeimer was reputed to be abrupt and abrasive, often rude, and very pushy, so I looked forward to meeting him in particular.

Steve Mensinger, according to the same blogs, was supposed to be domineering and intimidating. I happen to believe that being intimidated is a choice, and it is one I rarely make, so I was looking forward to meeting him as well. He came bounding in like the large, enthusiastic politician he is, shaking hands and introducing himself to about everyone.

Colin McCarthy was reported to be timid, by these bloggers, and therefore not ready for the City Council. All were linked with the same rope; “the three Ms.”

I found Colin to be forthright, well-informed, and enthusiastic, and he listens well. He also disagrees quite openly on small points with the other two – I cannot see them as a slate of three; although they espoused similar views, and all favored the charter, they differed in some of their opinions.

Mensinger stayed later and answered questions, as did Righeimer. I deliberately provoked each of them but apparently not well; both of them laughed cheerfully and agreed that they sometimes scared people.

(I told Mensinger I’d heard he intimidated everyone, but he looked like a wimp to me – show me the intimidation. He stood on tiptoe, leaned forward and held his breath while his face got red, then lost it and started to laugh. He said, “That’s about the best I can do right now, were you intimidated?”)

(I told Righeimer I’d read he thought he could build an empire through the City Council, so where’s his crown? He started, then genuinely grinned and said he left his crown home because it was wearing a bald spot on his head.)

Righeimer and the Charter don't seem dangerous

Righeimer seemed to have every paragraph of the Charter in memory and could refer up and down and back and forth to its provisions while discussing it with four or five of my neighbors who had printed copies in their hands. They, and I, left comfortable that the proposed charter was sincerely and honestly developed to do what Righeimer believed best for Costa Mesa. I could see no effort to evade, hide, or change subjects as he was questioned. . I don’t believe he was trying to fool or mislead anyone at this meeting.

 I cross-checked two of his assertions against a printed copy while he was answering questions and found that his explanations were accurate and thorough. He was very patient; more patient than I would have been I think, answering the often-repetitive questions. However, he doesn’t suffer fools very well, getting vexed when one man in the audience kept repeating what he had heard at a meeting of an opposing group – even when each claim was discussed and clearly refuted from the copies of the charter. Several of the other neighbors seemed to be getting tired of the repeated unthinking assertions as well.

They're still politicians

All three speakers discussed how much they love the city, the sizes of their families, and their massive contributions through service work. They probably also favor motherhood and apple pie.

Police Pay

We've been hearing a lot about police pay; too much or not enough? Is there an answer?

Surely, a sworn officer who promises to serve and protect me, who runs toward danger to keep me safe – surely she deserves adequate pay. That officer must understand and use significant chunks of law to make decisions, often almost instantly. She is empowered to take freedom away from me (and others), and to use deadly force. And she must use her knowledge and powers wisely, that is what we depend on, that is what we pay her to do. But how much should we pay?

The officer – and his family – never starts a shift with any certainty that he’ll be alive to return home at the end of the shift. Auto collisions, bullets, knives, and clubs can change his after-shift destination to the hospital or the morgue. Accumulated stress and physical battering will take its toll on his health and his relationships. How much is that worth right now? Can we value it today in tomorrow’s dollars? How much is he worth, today – and over the years in retirement?

The officer deals with folks who want to compromise her ethics and morals, “give me a break, just this once.” The officer deals with folks who call her names, who spit and shit and bite – and try to infect her with needles because she’s a cop. She meets folks who want to kill her just because she wears a badge.

Just a civilian with a checkbook

I’m a civilian, I can’t understand this. I can’t comprehend the pressures and temptations, and fears. I can only pay for the service. Am I paying enough? Or too little? Or too much?

But what we civilians see is

The officer is represented in negotiations for pay and privilege by a union. We civilians see the union reps and draw our conclusions. Perhaps the officer is represented by a group of union professionals who persuade us bill-payers of the value of his services. Maybe that cop is worth more than we are paying.

Or maybe her union uses tactics which paint her as a goon, greedy and lazy and corrupt. We may see  her as severely flawed, as if she had lied and cheated and intimidated and threatened.....She didn’t, although her union did, but will we see the difference?

Cops were tops -- then

We used to admire and respect her, and honor her for her courage and devotion to our safety, but what do we see now? We just pay the bills. And we wonder, are we paying her too much to intimidate citizens and council members? Or should we look to another organization for our safety? How much is that cop really worth?

The sworn officer goes to a home disturbed by intoxicated, violent and angry people, and he calms them, gets them to separate and cool off, and someone on an upper landing urinates on him. And the officer sighs and changes clothes. And goes back out on the street to serve and protect – me.

The officers who were spit on and urinated on will get their uniforms cleaned, and will be back at work to protect me, nights and weekends included, and will try to keep peace in the city.  But now my neighbors are saying, “Aren’t we paying too much for these goons? Who do they serve and protect, besides their union? Do you know how much money we’re paying them to eat donuts?”

Gone, now, or at least going, is our automatic respect for the cop.

And the sworn officer adjusts his uniform and starts another shift. He has sworn to serve and to protect. He’ll do his best. And most of the Cost Mesa officers are like him. I wish I could prove that to my neighbors, and sometimes even to myself. 

And we wonder, “How much is that cop really worth, all things considered?”

The 600 - pound Gorilla

Now about that 600 pound gorilla that no one wants to mention. This critter symbolizes two issues that are fueling the diatribe. And, those are the issues that are triggering propaganda, misinformation and out-and-out lies in the campaign advertising.

Charter isn't perfect

Please don’t misunderstand me, here. I think, from reading the proposed charter quite a few times, that it could use a lot of touching up. For example, formally stating audit requirements might be better than relying on current financial practices – or not. However, any important change is pretty simple to make – convince enough of my neighbors that it’s needed, and then let the voters decide. Or I can persuade the sitting council members to bring the change to the electorate for their vote. After all, if we’re going to pay for it, we should vote for it.

Why the screaming
But petty issues and wording weaknesses aren’t fueling the screaming and chest thumping. What screaming and thumping, you ask? Well one group of folks insists that only they know what the charter “really means,” and lists what is “left out” of the charter with nefarious intent. And, it suggests the potential for council members to ignore Section 205 and interfere with audit procedures, or billing, or contracting. Of course, they could ignore current law, too, I guess.

Meanwhile, another group asks people to read the charter for themselves, despite the boring boilerplate – “follow existing law” just isn’t very exciting. Both groups avoid addressing the gorilla, so, here is my introduction to that screaming monkey.

Gorilla in the parlor -- a big, two-colored one

Imagine that the gorilla sitting on the floor in the front room is bi-colored. One color, say black, represents an end to “back room” pension adjustments. Section 602 states that any changes to the contracted retirement benefits, other than standard cost of living adjustments, must be accepted by the majority of the voters. This section makes dispensing the “gravy” a matter of convincing the voters that it’s justified – which seems fair since we voters will be paying for that gravy. However, convincing voters is harder than convincing a negotiator behind closed doors – and then browbeating the council into acceptance. That’s the way we do it now.

The tan side

The other color on the gorilla represents even more, and harder, work demanded from union officers; Section 603 requires that political donations from union members be collected as political funds, and not through automatic payroll deduction. That's the tan side, harder work, but not a unique requirement. If a need for more TV ads is addressed, each union member will have to be convinced to write a check. This makes collecting political money much more difficult. Union leaders have to convince each member that their “donation” is needed – for every political “donation.”

This is, to me, a benefit to union members. The union cannot assess “donations” as easily – so, if you’re tired of reading about union leaders conferring in Las Vegas and the Bahamas, you can decline to write a check for political funding. Or, if your family budget is a bit tight you can write a smaller check for your political “donation.”

Two colors, more work for officials

So, both colors of the gorilla represent more work for union officials, and that whole monkey represents a balancing of power with management, and less-directly, with the citizens of Costa Mesa who’ll pay the bills. The gorilla screams “what isn’t said” or “how it was written” or “what if somebody breaks the law and cheats.” The drumbeat – or chest beating -- goes on:  “Not this charter.” “No-bid contracts will be rigged.” And, of course, there’s always the name calling.

A zoo out there

Or maybe all of the “warnings” and “loopholes” are just straw dogs and red herrings intended to divert Costa Mesa’s citizens’ attention from the 600 pound gorilla in the parlor. After all, it’s a zoo out there!

Why  is it necessary to mislead us 2 (updated)?

(Please note that this blog addresses a post on the CM4RG website that has been moved and replaced with a "plain vanilla" version of the arguments.)

This is the second of a series in response to CM4RG’s website posting of an article by Terry Koken, WHY THE CHARTER IS A BAD DEAL FOR COSTA MESA (VERSION 3 CHARTER – JULY 31, 2012). Again I’m addressing the question of why I see propaganda, disinformation, and fear mongering instead of rational argument.

And now, for another claim in the argument against the City Charter:

B.   The earliest that changes to the charter can take place is June 2014 and requires 8,600 signatures to get on the ballot. (Article 9)

Article 9, as amended, states:

This Charter, and any of its provisions, may be amended by a majority vote of the qualified voters voting on the question. Amendment or repeal may be proposed by initiative or by the City Council. (An initiative would require signatures of a percentage of voters.)

And 901 Review of the Charter states:

The City Council shall hold a public hearing during the second meeting of every tenth year after this Charter is adopted to determine if a Charter Review Commission is needed to review the City Charter, and report to the City Council suggested amendments, if any, for consideration and possible action. This section in no way limits the provisions of Section 900.

Only changed by the electorate -- fair enough

So, the Charter must be amended by the voters, and amendments may be proposed by the electorate or by the City Council at any time. Since a charter serves as a constitution for the city, it seems wise to amend it only through Costa Mesa’s voters. If anyone who believes a change should be made to the Charter can convince the legally-required sample of Costa Mesa voters that such a change is needed, the change will appear on the ballot for the next election.

The earliest that changes can be made is 2014: well, if the Charter is approved in November 2012, takes effect in 2013, and changes are then proposed, they will be subjected to a vote. If all of the required notices and delays line up wrong, the changes might not be scheduled for the ballot until November 2013; in that case the changes would take effect in 2014.

Disinformation can be defined as,

Deliberately misleading information announced publicly  . . . for the purpose of influencing opinions or perceptions. Unlike misinformation, which is also a form of wrong information, disinformation is produced by people who intend to deceive their audience.”

And, it might be noted that:

“Fear is one of the most primordial human emotions and therefore lends itself to effective use by propagandists. . . .Fear being fundamentally irrational, it is one of the techniques most widely used by propagandists.”

Why the appeal to fear, why the disinformation? Why propaganda instead of discussion? We’ll talk about that 600 pound gorilla soon to help identify some reasons for trying to mislead us.

Why is it necessary to mislead us? (updated)

(Please note that this blog addresses a post on the CM4RG website that has been moved and replaced with a "plain vanilla" version of the arguments.)

If the proposed City Charter poses danger to Costa Mesa, shouldn’t we be able to see that danger  if we read it? In this CM4RG website’s post, WHY THE CHARTER IS A BAD DEAL FOR COSTA MESA (VERSION 3 CHARTER – JULY 31, 2012), why do I see propaganda, disinformation, and fear mongering instead of rational argument? (http://www.cm4rg.org/why-version-3-of-the-charter-is-a-bad-deal-for-costa-mesa/)

Also, the article overlooked the 600 pound gorilla in the room: We’ll get to the gorilla in a later post, after we’ve discussed some of the arguments in the CM4RG article.

Let’s start by reviewing the interpreters of this charter. I’ve relied upon the words in the Charter, and upon the opinions of the City Attorney and Assistant C.A. I respect the City’s attorneys and their certifications of their opinions, and take with a grain of salt any diatribe and “puff and boost” statements by attorneys or others who are not certifying their interpretations as attorneys and officers of the court.

Attorneys vs. who?

The CM4RG post I’m using is attributed to Terry Koken, a Costa Mesa resident who speaks frequently at Council meetings. He is not listed as an attorney. According to the August 27 issue of the La Canada Valley Sun:

http://www.lacanadaonline.com/news/tn-dpt-0812-koken-20120811,0,4314678.story?page=1

He started college at Cornell, then transferred to Syracuse University. He did not earn a degree but found work based on his technical prowess, he said.  He worked as a software engineer, and said he was part of the graphics team on "Futureworld," a movie starring Peter Fonda and Yul Brynner in 1976.

He raised five daughters and has 10 grandchildren. His wife works in Costa Mesa, and he works in his garage. He said he earned his black belt in Judo when he was 50. It only took him 40 years of on-and-off work to get there.

So, the interpretation here is argued by two city attorneys speaking officially, vs. Mr. Koken. Let’s see over the next few blogs what the proposed Charter says, and what Mr. Koken says about that Charter. The City Attorneys’ interpretations are a matter of record in the minutes of the Council meetings.

A.   No competitive bids on contracts and purchasing (sic) opens the door to favoritism, fraud, and corruption. (Section 401b)

Section 401b actually says:

The city is exempt from the provisions of all California statutes regulating public contracting and purchasing insofar as such contracting and purchasing are solely within local control and are municipal affairs, except as provided by this Charter, City ordinance, by agreement approved by the City Council, or as otherwise required by applicable law.

And it goes on in Section g:

The City shall promote fair and open competition for all City public works construction projects so that all contractors and workers, whether union or non-union, are treated equally in the bidding and awarding of Municipal Public Works contracts and Other Public Contracts.

What does it change?

So, current practice in Costa Mesa, designed to promote fair and open competition, will not change under the Charter. That is, Department heads can buy goods and services up to a specified level, for their department – perhaps by calling Office Depot. And, purchases for higher and higher dollar values require greater and greater scrutiny, including by the City Council. Finally, at the formal bid level, purchases require use of a state defined formal bidding process to help assure equality and economy. The difference between “no bid” contracts and bid contracts is that “bid” contracts follow a state-mandated procedure, and “no-bid” contracts follow local regulations written in accordance with state law, exactly as is done now. Union contracts will not be favored over non-union contracts under the Charter.

Give the business to their friends?

The City Council is required to conduct all business through the CEO, and individual members are specifically forbidden to interfere with, or order acts – including contracting or purchasing – by any city entity. So the Charter gives no Council members authority to contract with their friends.

Note that, according to Wikipedia,

“The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining” is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution  . . . to distort its intended meaning.”

 More in the next blog.