Subliminal messages at the forum 

Let’s look  past specific propaganda techniques today and at subtle, even subliminal ways to change opinions. Our lab will be the Candidates’ Forum Thursday night.

This forum was well-run, ending on time and exerting strict control on speakers’ talk time. 

So the initial (unstated) message at the Forum was “solid organization.”

However.

Loaded questions 

At least five of the 14 questions asked the candidates were “loaded questions.” (A loaded question is one that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption. For example, the New Zealand corporal punishment referendum, 2009, asked: "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?")

Loaded questions, deliberate or not, should be expected in a debate organized by supporters of one side. 

Monahan raised a good defense to the loaded question technique, questioning the assumption as a “clarification” of the question. Questioning the assumption is a standard defense. Doing so as a "clarification" didn't use up his one minute.

Free rein to lie

Further, the candidates faced no rebuttal, so the second speaker could state outright lies without fear of being caught. The Anti’s (candidates opposed to the 3M's and the Charter and a lot of other things)  took advantage of this technique; the 3M’s (Mensinger, Monahan, McCarthy)  tended to answer the questions as honestly as possible, even when they spoke second. The slogans of the Anti's carried a message of clarity; the "talking for one minute" of the 3M's contrasted as "not quite clear" even though their spoken messages were often more pertinent.

Stacked deck? Of course!

So, was the deck stacked against the 3 M’s? Of course it was, and blatantly.

However, in my opinion the Three M’s caused much of their own anguish by ignoring the “unstated messages” from them, from their opponents, and from the event organizers.

Shot self in foot, reloading

First, there was no early arrival and setting up tables before the others’ supporters arrived, as in previous Forums and debates. Twenty-seven visitors were milling about and three Anti’s tables were manned (officially or not) before the first Pro’s signage showed. And it looked like one man was doing all the preparation for all three candidates. The Anti’s had rafts of people and handouts and glad handing early on.

Message: The Anti’s are friendly and are here to help you understand the issues. The 3M's are here with their signs. The message being given was gradually turned around during the evening.

Toastmasters' lesson

During the “debate” the three Anti’s shuffled papers to find their answers when a question was read, while the 3M’s primarily wrote notes. So, were the questions available beforehand to all candidates? If so, then the 3M candidates missed by not preparing answers with a beginning-middle-end format.

However, failure to get the message across because their presentation wasn't organized for impact is self-mutilation rather than destruction by the opponents. We can call this the Toastmasters’ lesson.

Message: 3M's are talking about it; Anti’s are presenting clear messages. 

(Which they weren't  but their confidence and organized presentations gave that impression. Many of their messages were the same messages that are filling our mailboxes right now, often given in a snappy “1-2-3” format.)

It's not fair

It’s not fair if the Anti’s got the questions in advance and the 3M's didn’t? Politics is dirty and life isn't fair. With most of the leadership of the HOA listed as contributors and sponsors and endorsers for the three Anti’s campaigns, who would expect fairness? This forum wasn't sponsored by a scrupulously-non-partisan group like the first forum was.

Appearances send a message

Five indistinguishable and one centered and perky and colorful candidate were seen on the stage. The perky one attracted camera lenses. The longer Ms. Genis was in view, the more familiar she became.

She’s running a “gray man” campaign – avoid controversy and slide in on name recognition. Yet nothing was said or done to make her state a position.

Message: “Sandy was right there and she stood up for women, and she sure looked sharp. Oh, and the guys had business suits or something.”

Subverted by bias and self-inflicted injury

So, the 3M's message was subverted by (very predictable) bias in the questions and how they were assigned, and by a disadvantage in timely manning of the display area, and in a minor way by “blah” about their dress and answers. This was all preventable.

Gaffe by trusting soul

The biggest gaffe of the event was Mensinger’s. He bobbled a question about his own ordinance. Not enough time to even touch the issues? Yup. He asked for a favor of extra time! The moderator could be expected to not want him to win and to not care if he thought she was fair, so why ask? She turned him down, transmitting a “dis” message.

He could have just used an elevator speech, which is a short summary used to quickly summarize a value proposition. (Einstein is reported to have answered a request to discuss nuclear fission “in one minute” with, “There’s some metal and we squeeze it real tight, and it makes a big bang as the metal turns into energy.”  That’s apocryphal (probably not an actual quote) but it’s a good example.)

Message: doesn’t need stating.

Hidden but maybe remembered

So a lot of the information we've looked at today was not directly stated, as fact or as propaganda. It was subliminal, and thus hard to identify, and even harder to refute. Some messages were deliberate, like those developed by the selection and wording of the questions; some was inadvertent, like the “too little, too late” manning of the candidates’ tables.

Subliminal messages sometimes resonate long after the factual. These messages are more subtle than the fear-mongering that fills our mailboxes, but just as clear.

Probably a trench, not a cliff

Earlier Forums and debates and neighborhood visiting have developed a positive image for the 3M’s, which is much like a generalized subliminal message. This may somewhat negate the negative messages from this last Forum. We'll see how effective all of the “message manipulation,” including propaganda, has been in a couple of weeks.

Names, labels, accusations 

As we move toward the end of this campaign the more-subtle propaganda techniques are giving way to the blatant and accusative. Before we examine one of these, let’s get a little background.

Disloyalty

Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is double mindedness or double heartedness in duplicity, fraud, or deception; pretending to entertain one set of feelings, and acting as if influenced by another”.  The concept is similar to perfidy, or being "without faith.”

Example

One example of bad faith would be a company representative who negotiates with union workers while having no intent of compromising. In extremis, the term refers to treason, for which, right or wrong, Benedict Arnold is the icon.

Remember that name-calling and labeling don’t have to be lies or inaccurate; they just have to substitute for facts and rational discourse to be propaganda. If they are accurate, then the names or labels are opinions, or maybe just facts.

In our own city

Now for today’s campaign example; there are posters, videos, and even phone calls circulating with the message that one of the City Council candidates is a “traitor.” This is based upon her public comments to the Huntington Beach City Council in which she strongly advised them to reject joint projects with Costa Mesa.

The HB Council wisely noted that politics in Costa Mesa was none of their business and voted to pursue joint operations with both Newport Beach and Costa Mesa to share costs and reduce expenses in partnership with the other cities.

Ms. Genis advocated against her “home” city, advising that Costa Mesa would abandon its partners and not pay its bills. Had she been taken seriously, Costa Mesa expenses could have increased, leaving less for infrastructure like road maintenance. Watch the pertinent section of the Council meeting here, about three minutes:  http://youtu.be/R3vkDuMNyUU

Labeling is similar to name calling

Labeling works much like name calling in that it can be a substitute for facts and logic. “Anti-youth” and “only cares about her house, not our kids” have been applied to the same candidate for her opposition to lights in a park that might raise the neighborhood sound level. The lights were needed for youth sports.

Ms. Genis suggested that the youth who wanted to play could go to another park that was fairly close, and even specified a route with fewer cross streets and traffic lights. The parents of kids who biked to practice weren’t happy with her suggesting more exposure to traffic.  Here’s the pertinent section of the planning meeting:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyX3LxrvMw0

Of course, the clips above are excerpts, and we have to be careful that the excerpts don’t say something different from the words in the actual context, so here’s the Council meeting in whole: http://huntingtonbeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=695

Adults attend HB Council Meeting

You probably noticed the decorum and civility from the floor in this meeting, and the lack of irrelevant diatribe and protest songs. Newport Beach speakers at this meeting looked like adults, regardless of whether you agree with their points or not.

So, are the  labels “traitor” and “selfish” propaganda or opinion – or something else? 

If true, what does it mean

Accurate? Well, watch the first video and think about what you do personally when you don't like what your boss, or your company, or your sports group decides to do. Do you “bad mouth” them and try to undermine their operations? If so, you'll see the terms as inaccurate and examples of propaganda. Do you resolve to try harder to convince them next time, but remain loyal? Then you might think the labels apply—as facts or at least opinions.

Labels and names, stated or not

Regardless of whether any labels and names are accurate or not, they are being used a lot in the Costa Mesa elections. Often the labels are used to “broad-brush” a candidate or to imply evil intent. We'll talk about these substitutes for facts and rational discourse in a future blog.

Sometimes the labels are not directly stated, like the pictures on a recent mailer of gangsters (or pretend gangsters) making backroom deals, although the print elsewhere on the flyer suggested sub rosa deals as a consequence of Measure V. (Note that the designers used a city that looked somewhat like Costa Mesa, and that the models were exaggerated but had unlit cigars and no ashtray. They weren't terribly concerned with accuracy, but they wanted to appear concerned for Costa Mesa as well as green and non-smoking in the pictures they chose. That is, they didn't care about truth, but they did want political correctness.)

Whether the labels are directly stated or just implied, they're just labels, and an informed or concerned citizen should look past the labels. Are the labels and names propaganda, or opinion, or a statement of fact?

Insist on facts and logic before you vote

There’s plenty of room for disagreement when the facts are reviewed concerning just about any campaign matter. But, Costa Mesa voters need to look at facts, not slogans or labels. And they should cast their vote based upon the facts and their own ethics, rather than on fear or any other induced emotion. The city needs well-informed voting this year.

They don't need to spend that much  

and I don't get any of it anyway (Updated)

One of my neighbors opined that there’s no reason to bring so much union money into Costa Mesa. His union charges “reasonable” dues (to him), and he sees no reason for massive bank accounts for “just political stuff. . .The union gets us good benefits and pretty good wages – not like the city employees, but good enough . . .without all the TV ads and mailers and everything.”

Let’s interrupt our looks into Costa Mesa Campaign Propaganda for a look into labor’s need for money in this situation. No, it’s not just for “training in the Bahamas” or “organizing classes in Las Vegas.” 

How it works, private vs. public

Private sector unions get wage increases and benefit improvements through collective bargaining with management. Sometimes they threaten work stoppage (aka strikes) or slowdown. In theory, public safety unions can’t use those tactics, although the “blue flu” and over-extended time for every police call were described by the CMPD’s union’s law firm (now fired) in their detailed tactics manual exposed earlier this year.

Build the benefits another way -- or two or three

However, public sector unions can increase benefits other ways. These techniques aren't easily available to private sector unions such as the Teamster’s unions that represent local truckers.

First of all, although the public sector unions use collective bargaining, they wield a lot of influence, perhaps even more, through electioneering and lobbying. These are very, very expensive – the cost of the scare brochures sent to Costa Mesa voters alone is staggering. And, Costa Mesa represents a very small part of the state’s population, union membership, and budget.

Private sector unions can do this, but usually confine their efforts to the national level because of the expense. They can, and do, drop in on local unions to influence voting for union officers, and might finance some local ads during a heated campaign.

In contrast, the Sacramento-headquartered unions for public employees spend a great deal of money trying to affect citizen elections, as opposed to union elections, and pay both directly and indirectly for lobbyists. But they spend more on lobbying in Sacramento to get laws favorable to unions enacted.

Can't afford the fight so we go around it to stay solvent

Costa Mesa couldn't afford to mount an effective campaign to oppose the “prevailing wage” law in Sacramento, for instance. Her entire operating budget wouldn't be a fraction of what Big Labor would bring into the battle. But, Costa Mesa can choose to be a Charter City and make some decisions about how Costa Mesa money—and only Costa Mesa money--is spent. This includes paying local wages on local jobs. (Prevailing wage works out to paying the wages specified by the State labor organizations regardless of what the local workers are normally paid for the job.)

Initiatives can cost money

Then there is an even more expensive way to increase benefits; the initiative process. Public employee unions sponsor initiatives, and oppose them, statewide. Articles in the Wall Street Journal, among many national publications, point out that Big Labor is spending “buckets of money” (that’s a columnist’s term) to defeat the initiative on the California ballot that stops both corporations and unions from assessing “donations” for political activities through payroll deduction.

Sue 'em till they quit

Finally, the unions use the courts to tie up city governments. Examples include suing to prevent a properly-processed initiative, with the approval of the required city residents, from appearing on the ballot in San Diego (union officers had not been consulted and the initiative affected union activities). That is, they're using the courts to overrule the citizens.

In Costa Mesa the unions are suing the City about a procedural error in processing the so-called “layoff notices.” (Actually these are the notifications required by the union-negotiated contract to be sent when jobs are going to be analyzed for possible outsourcing.)

Are you ever frustrated when you read about a criminal whose lawyer gets him released, not because he’s innocent, but because the prosecutor filed a motion on the wrong form? This lawsuit is like that, and these lawsuits cost money. Lawsuits are another way to affect wages and benefits that is very expensive, and not really available to private sector unions.

Paying for the monster under the bed

So that’s why Big Labor is spending so much money trying to scare Costa Mesa voters into voting against the charter and against their own best interests: it stops automatic payroll assessments and allows the city to pay local wages. If they can't just assess “donations” from the members (and non-members who must also pay union dues – by state law) they'll have to convince each member and nonmember to write a check for the political “donation.”

Big Labor needs that money to pay for scary mailers, TV time, and local citizens to be candidates for them. It’s much more expensive than collective bargaining. So, it’s not just about plush training and organizing junkets for union officers. It’s about power, and power is expensive for Big Labor.

Hang on, it'll get worse

There’s a great deal of opposition to the public employee’s egregious benefits and Big Labor’s power right now, and it’s growing daily. So, we think that power is going to become more and more expensive for Big Labor. Expect your union dues and “political donations” to increase significantly.

Update.

As I glanced through this entry I realized that while I was dealing with unions spending money to influence voters, it sounded like the unions were the initiative demons in the process. 

Not true. The unions use the initiative to influence voters, and laws, and budgets. So do other entities that can afford it, such as Tom Steyer, a fund-manager who reportedly is spending tens of millions of his dollars on Prop 39. This proposition raises taxes on out-of-state companies selling their goods in California.

Of course, if their cost of doing business in California increases, their prices will, too. Think car manufacturers, and Wal-Mart. Those that cannot raise prices enough to cover the tax will reduce costs by cutting jobs and closing stores. So this becomes a tax on middle and lower class citizens in California.

Tom Steyer authored the Proposition and is backing it with his fortune. He manages Hedge Funds that invest in "green" companies. It's expected that revenue from Prop 39 will fund about $5 billion over the next five years in "green" projects.

Used by both the rich and the unions

The unions are certainly not the only groups that use the initiative process to benefit themselves, but we look at them because they're the ones pouring money into the City to convince Costa Mesans to vote against a Charter that will hamper their fund raising.

Separate them and they'll behave 

The Feet to the Fire forum last night was much less disruptive than previous events. Completely unrelated, of course, were the groups of pro-Righeimer folks scattered more or less diagonally across the seating area. That prevented the anti-folks from sitting in large enough masses to feed off of each other’s excitement (or rage).

The lead picture today shows what you, too, can do in a very short time to make a something you can use to distract a speaker. This sign-maker didn’t realize that the sign couldn’t be read from the stage – not even definitively identified from the front quarter of the room.

Sarcasm is a technique too

That second sentence in this entry was deliberately designed to demonstrate sarcasm used to make a point. Early in the campaigns we saw a lot of sarcasm. It’s been largely displaced now by name calling and labeling. That’s too bad, too, because sarcasm can be fun to catch – it usually requires a moment of reflection to realize the writer is trying to manipulate your opinion without confronting you with facts or logic.

And, I saw only one attempted gesture – guy in a blue-candidate shirt leaped to his feet then made a benign gesture and sat when he noticed an old white-haired guy taking pictures. I got a blurred image, anyway.

Facts and logic

So, the crowd was reasonably well behaved as they watched Righeimer use facts and logic to demoralize and dissolve Foley. (Did I mention that Foley is a lawyer with an office in Newport Beach? Like one of our Council candidates reminds us about himself.)

Other views

Left-winger Geoff announced in his blog today that Foley looked “composted” to him and published a photo of her designed to reinforce that belief. Mostly, however, he confined his remarks to name-calling and distorting information. He didn't seem to be palpating, salivating and screaming, and I think his more timid approach was because he wasn't convinced his side was well-defended. He’s right.

Techniques to think about

Bandwagon: Propagandists use this technique to persuade the audience to follow the crowd. This device creates the impression of widespread support. That’s what the signs and disruptions and crowd cheers are designed to do, and Bandwagon is one of the first seven propaganda techniques identified, way back in the 1930’s. When confronted with Bandwagon propaganda, consider the pros and cons – and look for some facts before joining in. You could be joining a group of kooks instead of joining with the masses. I’ll rest my case without mentioning any names; the most flagrant example is well-known to Costa Mesa.

Card Stacking: A propagandist uses this technique to make the best case possible for his side and the worst for the opposing viewpoint by carefully using only those facts that support his or her side of the argument. He’ll attempt to lead the audience into accepting the facts as a conclusion. In other words, the propagandist stacks the cards against the truth. Card stacking is another primary propaganda technique, and was used by both sides during the debate.

However, the “soft” questions to Foley and the more confrontive questions to Righeimer were another use of the technique. Card stacking is the most difficult technique to detect because it does not provide all of the information necessary for the audience to make an informed decision. However, it didn't help Foley, who pretty well self-destructed, and didn’t hurt Righeimer who seems to be used to being attacked.

Register to get a better sign

The Big Labor money that’s buying TV time and sending those heavy, bright, frightening mailers to your mailbox didn't help the guy with the sign. I guess he needs to register as Anti-V in order to get better graphics. After all, with the couple hundred thousand dollars poured into the Costa Mesa election just recently, surely the labor unions could help this poor fellow get a better sign to flash at the dais.

Short flic but to the point

U-Tube presentation that’s worth a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R3vkDuMNyUU

Lots of propaganda pouring through Costa Mesa for this election, due to the Big Labor interest in defeating the Charter. We’ll identify some more in another blog.

Rules for Radicals 

In Costa Mesa

Today let’s look at some “rules” for persuasion. Although they're not propaganda, they are also unethical ways to influence beliefs and behaviors. We'll talk about three or four of “Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals” which underlay much of the training for “agitators” (whom we now call “activists”) during the 60’s. They're still being used, but they're probably not still being memorized by today’s “Radicals.”

 Alinsky gained some fame for planning a “fart in” to disrupt the Rochester Philharmonic and a “Piss in” at O'Hare Airport. His rules are still being used but the demonstrations are toned down; just disrupting City Council meetings with screaming tirades, protest songs, and obscene gestures will do now.

Using Alinsky Rules in 2012

Alinsky’s Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” is often used in our campaigns. “Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

We certainly see that in a lot of the comments following letters in the Daily Pilot, and in the signs brandished toward the dais by the audience during meetings and forums. Essentially, this is trying to get your way by hurting or embarrassing opponents instead of by convincing them and their undecided brethren. “Shouting down” an opponent also comes to mind.

Candidates make agitators' job harder

Have you noticed the personal attacks on Mensinger, Monahan, and McCarthy, and the venomous outbursts in blogs and comments after Pilot letters? That's Rule 1 in action. What makes the agitators’ job a lot harder in Costa Mesa, though, is the toughness and integrity of those three candidates.

Even worse for the Anti’s, more and more people are actually reading the charter and comparing what it says to what the Anti-everything factions say. And, worst of all, many people are reading Mensinger’s Contract with Costa Mesa which makes very obvious the difference between concrete plans for the city and angry opposition to everything.

A couple more Rules used here

Then there’s RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people” and Rule 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”  

“Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the 'real' issues. This is why: the agitators avoid things about which they have no knowledge.” Rule 2 is being followed in this election.

And watch the campaigns as clearly irrelevant arguments blindside organizations under attack, such as the Pro-Charter folks. This is an application of Rule 3.

 `

Example of 2 and 3

For example, applications of Rules 2 and 3 are clearly seen in the repeated insistence about how the Charter makes it possible for Council members to use “No-Bid contracts” to give their friends business. The pro-charter folks find it hard to address something that doesn't exist in the Charter, like no-bid contracts. The Anti’s want to keep them busy defending the irrelevant and undefined.

In reality, as we've discussed, “No-Bid contract” is a purchasing term that separates formal from informal bidding procedures, usually based upon dollar value. The Charter doesn't mention it because purchasing is done, under current laws and procedures--that do not change under the Charter--by City staff. Council members not only do not influence purchasing procedures (which would send them to jail), they can't even award a contract. They just approve or disapprove the contracts negotiated by the City staff.

Making Rules 2 and 3 work

So, the Anti-Charter folks won't debate relevant issues, because the provisions of the Charter are not within “the expertise of your people.” And the Pro’s get redirected to irrelevant warnings of a non-existent danger—in fact an undefined danger— that’s outside “the expertise of their people.” Alinsky's rules in action!

Blew it on Rule 10

However, the Union folks missed the boat as far as Alinsky’s Rule 10 goes: "Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog."

The blustering and intimidating advocated by the PD Union’s law firm seems to have been counterproductive – the three M’s and Righeimer got sympathy and support after the boorish behavior of the ones Righeimer calls the “Union Goons.”

Summarizing

We've gone beyond propaganda to influencing through Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. We're looking at where some of his techniques are used in Costa Mesa’s election. 

We already know, of course, where the money to support the battle against the Charter is coming from --Sacramento-based unions. And we've discussed the why -- the loss of the employee-paycheck ATM (payroll-deductions for political assessments) under the Charter. Today we're viewing the how – the battle techniques that the money is buying.

Is it "grassroots" or $ 

What does “grassroots” actually mean? The dictionary lists four reasonably common definitions:

noun ( used with a singular or plural verb ) 

1. The common or ordinary people, especially as contrasted with the leadership or elite of a political party, social organization, etc.; the rank and file.

2. The agricultural and rural areas of a country.

3. The people inhabiting these (rural) areas, especially as a political, social, or economic group.

4. The origin or basis of something; the basic or primary concept, rule, part, or the like.

Don't meet the definition

A local union-supporting organization called Costa Mesans for Responsible Government (CM4RG) insists upon being identified as a “grassroots” organization. However, it is endorsing the three union-sponsored candidates, and, like the candidates, uses funds provided by Sacramento-based union officers. That is, they’re not contrasted with the elite and leadership, they're supporting, and supported by, the union elite and leadership.

Sacramento-based unions print 'em and mail 'em 

How can you tell?  Well, look at the slick, shiny, four-color mailers filling your mailbox. Notice that “Vote No” scare mailers (with the almost-like Costa Mesa city pictured) come from the Sacramento office of a labor organization, and are routed through a local PAC. The bright, shiny, four-color flyer about cleaning up Costa Mesa (by opposing the Charter and supporting the three labor-union candidates) is supposed to be from CM4RG.

However, both were bulk-mailed from Huntington Beach on the same bulk mail permit -- #438. No point in paying for separate mailing permits when the money is coming from the same place, is there?

Designing, printing, and mailing these heavy, colorful flyers is very expensive – but it doesn't cost CM4RG or the union-sponsored candidates a penny. It’s paid for with money from union members throughout the State – extracted by payroll deduction at the demand of their unions, for distribution as the union officials see fit.

Why is a Sacramento group buying Costa Mesa elections

Why are funds gathered statewide and consolidated   in Sacramento, being spent to frighten Costa Mesa voters to oppose the Charter?

Because the charter removes the right of the unions to extract the political funds they want from the union members’ paychecks. Under the Charter, they actually have to convince each member to donate their money to support the union’s political agenda. That drops them to just slightly more powerful as fundraisers than the candidates themselves. They'll be on the same playing field with any other business that needs to solicit funds.

Are they paying much

People who believe in the 3M’s, Mensinger, Monahan, and McCarthy, have donated just over 33% of the money committed to this election so far. Those who support the Anti-3M’s and/or oppose the Charter have provided a little over 16% of the total. And Big Labor, headquartered in Sacramento, has donated over 50% of the funds for this election! They're using funds they've pulled from paychecks throughout the State to try to hold on to their ability to extract money from paychecks, anywhere and anytime they want!

So, Big Labor is using buckets of money to try to scare Costa Mesa citizens into voting against the Charter – and electing labor-endorsed candidates in the bargain. Big Labor is investing much more than the citizens of the City, and that money is going into scare propaganda.

All that money to buy fear in Costa Mesa

Remember Adolph Hitler’s advice about propaganda (See the 8 Sep blog)? He 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 . . .

It looks like Sacramento union officers are repeating scary slogans over and over as advised.  The unions and their candidates hope that it’s enough to frighten some Costa Mesa voters to vote against their own best interests.

$ is not grassroots

A “Grassroots” definition for CM4RG needs a fifth selection. That's, “supported by and giving support to, the interests of Big Labor headquartered in another city.” That doesn't sound like the rest of the “grassroots” definitions in the dictionary, any more than the union warnings sound like advice intended to help Costa Mesa, or any more than the city pictured on their mailers is Costa Mesa.

We already have a word for it

Maybe grassroots doesn't need to be re-defined. We already have a word that means, “Whatever is good for me and my supporters.” It’s “selfish.” Substitute that word in their group's self-description like this “… is a selfish, non-partisan organization . . . to promote . . . “ Then no new definition is needed.

 

Big Risk?

I overheard a conversation that prompted this blog. Granted, three people talking in a grocery store don’t constitute a valid survey, nor even suggest a general belief. But the conversation is indicative of some misunderstanding related to two of our frequent subjects: propaganda and the Charter.

We are seeing a lot of Charter criticism focused on “what it doesn't say,” and “gives the Council enormous new powers that they can use to waste Costa Mesa's money while benefiting themselves or their friends.” How likely is this?

Actually, no

Right now, City operations are regulated by a little Federal law, a great deal of State law, and a medium-sized serving of Costa Mesa law, also called ordinances. Our attorneys and police enforce these laws, and the City staff use documented procedures to insure that the City complies with the laws.

Some State laws apply to our City's operations only because we are organized as a General Law city. These laws, as they pertain to strictly Costa Mesa money and property, are opened to modification by the City Council by the Charter.

Under the Charter

If changes are specifically mentioned in the Charter, then they can be changed in the future only by ballot. If they are listed as options that the Council can modify, then ordinances can be written, following the same procedures and safeguards we use now, to change them. If changes are not specifically listed, then current laws apply and are followed. Same “checks and balances,” same safeguards, same laws, same procedures.

Changes that will require approval by the voters include not allowing payroll deductions for donations to a union's or corporation's political fund. In the future, under the Charter, that can be changed only by the voters, like any changes to City Council and employee wages – or benefits.

Changes that can be made by ordinance include the dollar level at which the formal bidding process is initiated. Any such ordinance has two hearings and a thirty-day period that allows for referendum. No change.

Like we do it now

The City Council will enact all ordinances exactly as they do now, including the two hearings and the thirty-day delay before the ordinances take effect. The City CEO, through his managers, will develop procedures to implement the laws, exactly as he does now.

The Charter does NOT abolish the body of Costa Mesa Ordinances; any that are not specifically mentioned as changed continue in effect as laws that will continue to be enforced.

Jail time for contracts to friends

Under the Charter, just as under General Law, the City Council members are prohibited, with criminal penalties in some cases, from interfering with or influencing this process. They cannot order an employee or manager to do or not do anything. They cannot “give a contract to a friend without needing a bid" – they can't even award a contract. They can only approve or not approve a contract negotiated by the City staff.

For example. Let's say that signs and banners commemorating Veterans may be hung along Fairview Avenue, per an ordinance. Permission to hang a specific banner rests with City staff, under the direction of the CEO. Council members cannot specify a particular veteran's banner be displayed.

However, the City Council could resolve to declare a particular veteran a “Hero from Costa Mesa,” and send a copy of the resolution to the veteran's Costa Mesa family. This is not changed by the Charter; the ordinances and resolutions procedures and safeguards all remain the same.

Monster under the bed

CM4RG lists the “danger” of increased power to the City Council that would enable “No-Bid Contracts,” whatever they take that to mean, because of a phrase in the Charter that allows the Council to make changes by ordinance or resolution.

Taken out of context, it does indeed say that the Council can make changes by ordinance or resolution – but this phrase actually refers to changing the time and place of the Council meeting! The whole article is about setting City Council meetings, but a phrase taken out of context is used to try to prove perfidy or at least the potential for it in contracting and purchasing!

Nothing could be farther from the truth – that is a gigantic “misstatement” designed to arouse fear and influence opinion and behavior by manipulating emotions. It's trying to frighten voters to vote (against the Charter). That's propaganda, and in fact it could be an icon for the propaganda techniques of “fear mongering, misquoting” and “taking out of context.”

Not much risk in this Charter  

When the argument appeals to fears and prejudices (politicians want more money and power, for example), it's worth a detailed look. The details in this case show that the criticism is strictly propaganda “designed to arouse emotional responses that support the propagandist's interest.”

More on the criticisms of the Charter and what the Charter actually says in a future blog.

Whose fight is this?  

The current figures from the Candidates’ Form 460’s show an interesting pattern, and tell you just who’s supporting what in Costa Mesa. (Form 460’s are reports of fund raising and expenditures—they’re required and are public information.)

From citizens

The Three M’s have raised $131,381 from citizens who support them and their beliefs. The Anti-3M’s have raised $62,741 from their supporters. But, before you feel sorry for the three “unwanted” candidates, consider this: Big Labor money!

From outsiders

The total reported by Big Labor PACs is $205,722.  So, of $399,844 raised for this election by everybody, about 33% came from folks supporting Mensinger, McCarthy, and Monahan and favoring the Charter. About 16% came from folks supporting Genis, Weitzberg, and Stephens, and, presumably, against the Charter. That leaves about 51% of the money committed so far coming from Big Labor Political Action Committees!

So, apparently the AFL-CIO and the other labor groups headquartered in Sacramento think Costa Mesa matters are so important that they are putting in more money than all of the interested supporters of all six viable candidates combined!.

Why do they send money here

Why are the Costa Mesa contests so important to Sacramento’s Big Labor headquarters?

It’s unlikely that a Sacramento union official would be very concerned about the health and safety of Costa Mesa’s citizens, or worry about her finances. But it’s very likely they would want to insure their union’s “personal ATM” stays in business -- that’s the political-support donations that they can assess and have automatically withheld from members’ wages. But, if the local union officials had to convince each member to donate in order to get money for their political agendas, well, the income would go down, way down.

I'm paying for what?!

You see, not all of the union members completely support the State union’s political agendas, regardless of how much they might support their local union. And Costa Mesa’s Charter would remove the automatic payroll deduction of “political donations” that the Sacramento Big Labor leaders want – and maybe even need. (Training in the Bahamas is expensive, and so is dominating any city that dares try to face them down.)

 Even more dangers raise their heads: what if other cities were encouraged by Costa Mesa’s Charter success and tried their own brand of independence from Big Labor’s power? Wow, what a disaster.

It's a necessary expense to buy Costa Mesa's election

So it’s worth buckets of money to support the Anti-3m candidates with free delivery, free brochures, free. . . It doesn't matter who the candidates might be, how they think, or what they plan to do, as long as they support Big Labor -- by opposing the Charter.

Spend the dollars in Costa Mesa, maybe

We know what the unions want, and how much they're spending in our election. But doesn't some of that union money at least get back into Costa Mesa businesses? Well, not so much. But more about that in a later blog.

Just to whet your appetite, though, ask the former-mayor, “gray-man” candidate where she’s getting all of that beautiful, and expensive, material printed. Hint: it isn’t in Costa Mesa.

They're not us but they're spending on our election

Whose fight is this? You’d think the answer would be the fight is Costa Mesa’s, and may the majority of the citizens prevail. But, Sacramento’s Big Labor organizations have a different idea who should win this fight – them!