We are baffled at the decision Tuesday night of the Anaheim City Council to reject district level elections for council members as proposed by the citizen’s advisory committee. The 4-1 vote was led by Kris Murray, who had initially proposed the committee process last year as a solution in response to a voting rights lawsuit challenging the city’s current at-large council elections process. Tuesday’s decision proposes a process like the one used in Santa Ana where members are required to reside in a specific ward (district) but be elected city wide.
We applaud Councilman Jordan Brandman for joining Mayor Tom Tait in voting in favor of district-level elections. That said, we are again baffled at his subsequent vote in support of Kris Murray’s proposal which is the antithesis of district-level elections. We wonder if he was so used to voting with Murray that he forgot how he had voted moments before. Maybe he just wanted to be sure he could say he voted the right way no matter who he talks to in the future.
Next up will be the council vote on July 2nd on the actual Charter amendments to be presented to voters at the June 2014 primary election. There will be two amendments. The first will ask voters to decide whether to keep the number of seats on the council at four plus the Mayor, or to increase that number to six. The second measure would ask if council members should be required to reside in districts while being elected by the city as a whole.
The citizens committee recommended that the council present amendments that would allow the voters to decide whether the council should be expanded to six or eight members, and whether the council members should be elected at the district-level. The recommendation is substantially different from what was adopted Tuesday.
The problem with the system proposed by the Council will still require successful candidates to compete city-wide. This will cause candidates to focus on raising the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to campaign city-wide, or align with deep-pocketed special interests that would run and independent campaign on their behalf. This is no different from where things are now. and it sets up a process where the higher propensity voting areas of Anaheim, the Colony district and the hills, decide who sits on the council, rather than the local residents themselves.
The council decision will be presented to a judge hearing the voting rights lawsuit on July 9th where he will consider whether this solution will solve the voting rights violation alleged.
Jordan Brandman showed his true colors. His vote for fake district elections says it all.
I’ve been telling people that Jordan is a tool for years now. Wake up people of Anaheim!!!
and yet you sucked up to him after he was elected with the most votes in the last election. Jordan isn’t the problem; it’s the rest of the Republican council majority.
How is this baffling? Its obvious that the council doesn’t wan the electorate to have nay say in who represents them. That would usurp their control. BTW, this Jordan Brandman guy reminds me of the time John Kerry voted against the war before he voted in favor of it.
I attended most of the Citizens Advisory Committee meetings (unlike Jason Young, who didn’t attend a single one. or Vern Nelson. or Cynthia Ward), so I think I can speak with rather more authority on the CAC.
Take the selective reporting about what the CAC recommended. it is a fact that half of the committee voted for at-large voting. One of the recommendations of the final report was to also put at-large voting on the ballot. That recommendation was ignored — without a peep from the self-proclaimed forces of letting the people vote.
Four of the 10 CAC members were hard-core for 8 single-member districts from the very start. Another CAC member voted with them for single-member districts at the first May meeting, then tried to obtain re-consideration at the following meeting. The lefties would have none of it.
What single-member district proponents never acknowledge is that under their preference, Anaheim residents would be governed by an 8-member city council — 7 of whom they could not vote for or against. And yet somehow, that is supposed to offer more representation.
Let’s put all the “good government” nonsense from the pro-single member districts forces aside. This is their push to re-structure Anaheim governance to make it easier elect liberals to the City Council.
Matty can speak with authority on nothing other than how to antagonize sex-abuse victims by releasing their names online.
Today’s LA Times editorial is pretty much spot on about the council’s actions in Anaheim. Matt might want to refute that on their pages which get millions of eyeballs every month.
Gustavo, the issue here is council districts in Anaheim. Not sex-abuse victims. Leave your non-sequitur arguments over at Naval Gazing. I believe you once portrayed Pedroza’s NAMBLA antics as a joke. You can’t have it both ways.
I used to live in Santa Ana, which has the kooky ward system that the Anaheim City Council seems to favor. And I now live in the only city in Southern Nevada which has a similar system. And from personal experience, I can say that I’d prefer a more representative district based system.
In a ward system, candidates (regardless of which ward they’re supposed to represent) focus on the areas with the highest voter turnout (looking for votes) and highest median income (looking for donations). So it essentially puts the entire council at the mercy of the city’s most affluent neighborhoods while giving them license to ignore the rest of the city. And it has the effect of diluting the voting power of minority communities, especially when they’re concentrated in the poorer parts of town.
An at large or ward system may be OK for a smaller city. But for a city as populous as Anaheim, it’s time to grow up and allow for a City Council that better reflects the true diversity of the city.
Excellent comment, “Used to Be OC.” (I hope that you might be willing to step forward publicly and claim it.)
The only thing I’d add is that what you see as a BUG in the system, the Anaheim Hills “Murrjority” sees as a FEATURE. The point is their being able to retain control. This will not be lost on Judge Miller.
I’d love to see Jordan some day make a good vote, or move, without his knowing in advance that it was doomed.
In this case, if you watch the meeting, he seconded the Mayor’s worthy motion for the sake of discussion (which was at least a step up from a few months ago when he ENFORCED what looked like a prior agreement to NOT second the Mayor’s motion to continue funding for his assistant.)
But then when Lucille Kring started looking shaky, like she MIGHT join Tom and Jordan JUST TO LET THE PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE on real district elections, Jordan suddenly “called the question” in a panicked manner. It looked for all the world like he was worried Tom’s motion might pass, or that Lucille might force HIM to be the bad guy killing democracy.
Earlier in the meeting, Jordan’s motion to back amending the Constitution to overturn Citizens United failed 4-1, although Tom seemed torn about it. If I had had the slightest inkling that was coming up at that meeting, I would have spoken in favor of it, and backed Jordan up. I would have personally lobbied the Mayor, a good friend of mine. If ANY of the several groups I belong to who are trying to overturn Citizens United had been aware Jordan was bringing that up Tuesday night, there would have been dozens of speakers backing him up – from Common Cause to Occupy.
It doesn’t really seem like Jordan expects, or WANTS, any of his liberal gestures to succeed. Oh, except for honoring dead folks.
Matt Cunningham is paid by the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce to spin the truth for the council majority. Nothing he writes can be taken seriously. If you want the truth, head over to the LA Times or The Voice of OC.
Jeez Greg, you’re asking someone to own up to an anon comment on this blog. Please follow your own advice with anon commenters on your blog please
Greg, I have no problem with you encouraging people to step forward and speak publicly under their own names. I am sure that when you feel it necessary you would have no problem encouraging the same no matter what blog people are commenting on.
People have many reasons for commenting on blogs using identities that are not theirs. I recall learning years ago that Matt Cunningham had experienced the scenario where the same commenter debates himself using two separate identities.
That may explain why people have sometimes characterized blogs as people talking to themselves.
Jason — with due respect, I don’t take things you write very seriously. I think you hurt your cause more than help it. I’m not alone in that assessment.
Dan, on the matter of Matt being paid to shill for Murray, probably paid for by the chamber, or S.O.A.R., he is spot on. I’m hoping you are not suggesting that any of the B.S. Matt has written on his Anaheim blog should be taken seriously. Matt is paid to spin and spin he does. there can be no debate about that.
Despite what you may think of what Jason writes, he is probably one of the major reason’s that the Chamber, S.O.A.R., Disney, or a clandestine triad has paid dark money to have Matt spin a web of misinformation. Some might even deem that material as more lies than misinformation.
I wonder what you have to say though about Matt’s writings and whether they should enjoy any greater consideration than Jason’s
I didn’t question Jason’s contention that Matt is paid to blog. I’ve met with a number of people who are on Tait’s side of this fight and bring up the name “Jason Young” and it’s never a happy reference. The perception is Young hurts the cause more than helps it. If the group takes a step forward, Jason’s work takes them two steps back. And he’s tone deaf to feedback on how he could play an effective role in this fight.
Um… Jason did wh-wh-WHAT???
something wrong with you guys’ “reply” feature. I was just wondering what Dan was talking about when he said Jason “sucked up to him after he was elected.” And yes, Jordan is a big part of the problem, 1/4 of it, possibly more since he makes people feel they have no choice between the two parties.
I have a hint what Dan is talking about but he’s going to have to decide how he want’s to explain it.
Greg-
Thanks for the compliment. And if anyone is that interested in figuring out my “real world identity”, it’s not that hard to follow the link and connect the dots.
But anyway, let’s get back to the policy question at hand. I’m sure some in Anaheim Hills see this as a “feature” not to be undone. That’s why this is now in court. And that’s why it may not be long before Reno, Sparks, and Henderson run into (more) trouble in my current home state.
Dan-
Ouch. I take it that there’s still drama in the OC blogosphere? Pobrecitos.
Mr Chmielewski
This is my first time posting a comment here. I am an Anaheim resident.
Brandam had several opportunities to tip the balance of power in the council. He appointed a person in the CAC that opposed any change to the current at large electoral system, even less supporting district-level elections. He could’ve negotiated his vote for the subsidy in exchange for the support of at least one of the three anti-districts council members. He has consistently aligned himself with these three council members.
I am curious as to why you did not challenge Matt Cunningham’s interpretation of
representative government. For many of us, Anaheim residents, he is a cold war warrior dividing the city even more. Not to mention that he does not have the huevos to address whether he is employed by the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce or not.
You are quick to admonish Jason and Gustavo, but did not say anything about the negative role that Cunningham has played in Anaheim.
Ricardo,
Thanks for actively joining the conversation. I have echoed your question in response to Dan’s comment. Please continue to participate in the discussion.
Chris Prevatt, Publisher
actually I did challenge Matt’s interpretation by referencing yesterday’s excellent editorial in the LA Times. That said it better than I could
I stand corrected. You did do that. 🙂
Mr. Brandman is the only Democrat on your city council; if he is to accomplish anything, it’s going to be by building alliances with different council members on different issues. If Jordan is so awful, why was he the top candidate of all city council candidates last election. When he doesn’t follow Democratic principles on his votes, he will and have taken him to task. I still believe he is among the more approachable members of this city council and one who will listen. And listening is a two way street.
Brandman may be approachable and listen, which I think he is not. At the end of the day his alliances and votes have been with the council members defending the status quo. How was he get elected as the top candidate? I am sure your colleague Chris may explain this better, but the answer is money, a lot of money from the Disney corporation. He is not doing any favor to your liberal and Democratic principles.
You did not have any qualms criticizing Jason’s approach. But you did not say anything as explicit regarding Cunningham operating a blog , which is the mouthpiece of the Chamber and SOAR. Do not you think that it is unethical that this operator does not disclose these ties?
Will all due respect Mr Chmielewki, you sound like you live in a “ivory tower”. I understand that we “bloggers” like our comfort zone, but it
doesdoesn’t hurt to check the diversity of opinions expressed in other blogs, including Cunningham’s.Voters vote. They have a responsibility to educate themselves on the candidates before they go to the polls.
Mr. Cunningham’s blog only has power if you allow him to have it. The LA Times editorial effectively shredded most if not all of Matt’s arguments.
I don’t live in an Ivory Tower; I think this blog has done a good and fair job of covering issues related to Anaheim
I meant to type ” it does not hurt..” please correct . Thanks.
Jordan walked neighborhoods extensively and did very well in some of Anaheim’s most Latino districts.
IEs pouring money into candidates doesn’t always translate to victories Vern. Just ask Julio Perez. Voters knew Jordan for his time on the school board.
Of all the members of the Anaheim City Council, there is only one Democrat. The gang of three control everything and Jordan needs to play ball to get some of the things he wanted accomplished.
Reach out to Brandman and ask for a meeting Ricardo; and Vern, I’m deleting your link to the OJ Blog. You know how I feel about that.
Vern — per our blogs policy not to edit comments, we either accept them whole or delete them, I deleted your comment where you included a link to OJ. You’ve been warned repeatedly on linking posts to the OJ blog in comments here. Because you continue to do this, I deleted your entire comment. If you’d like to resubmit without the link back to your blog, I’m happy to publish. This blog already provides a link back to OJ for traffic so you don’t need to use our comments section to send more traffic to yours.
Weak. People put up links to back up what they’re saying, in case people want to check. My blog will never have such a lame policy.
Again, without the link to my Amanda Edinger story (which fortunately will come up if you google Amanda Edinger) :
1. Cynthia and Jason have 700 forms showing Matt is paid by the Chamber of Commerce. Or so they tell me, and I believe them. Good point – when are we all going to see the form(s), C&J? So that everyone from Ricardo to Chris to Dan will stop saying he “probably” gets paid by “SOAR, or Disney, or the Chamber?” You know we’re never gonna get the truth from Matt.
2. If Jason “sucking up to” Jordan after he was elected was him trying to have a reasonable conversation with his new Councilman, then don’t call it “sucking up.”
3. Ricardo mentioned the lady Jordan appointed to the Citizens Advisory Committee – good point, Amanda Edinger. She was not just a fervent opponent of districts period, she is a rabid immigrant basher and lover of Joe Arpaio. Have we all forgotten that? Jordan’s never said why he picked her out of dozens – is he gonna blame it all on Lucille Kring?
4, I can’t believe the sometimes intelligent Dan keeps bringing up Jordan’s huge ($400,000) electoral victory as proof of what a good councilman he is. Why don’t you go back and compliment Ed Royce, Richard Nixon, and Adolph Hitler similarly? (Not a violation of Godwin’s Rule, it follows entirely logically.)
its the same policy used by the Society for Professional Journalists Vern….good enough for them; good enough for me.
1. If you have the proof post it. I have zero problems with Matt writing his side because I don’t think his side is right; but then again, I think Jason is the wrong person to be carrying the torch.
2. I seriously doubt Jason is capable of having a reasonable conversation with Jordan after the venom unleased by Jason against Brandman during the election cycle. The voters of Anaheim spoke loudly on election day with whose vision they wanted.
3. Nope. haven’t forgotten her either and Jordan will have to explain how this appointment came to be.
4. The Anaheim council race had a lot of candidates; John Leos had the backing of the Unions. I never said Jordan’s win is proof of what a good councilman he is Vern, you did that all by yourself. But for Jordan to be truly effective, we need to get other Democrats elected.
And while there is all this teeth gnashing about what Murray’s Majority did, surely someone in Anaheim like Cynthia Ward ought to develop a petition to place a completing initiative on the ballot to make the council districts fair and representative. You have a year. Chop chop..
booooooooo! hissssssssss! Poor form vern.
Cynthia’s long comment is gone too?
she asked me to remove it
Society of Professional Journalists doesn’t allow commenters to back up their contentions with links? Somehow that doesn’t sound credible.
No, the Society of Professional Journalists policy says either a comment goes up as is or is deleted altogether. I am not going to allow blog-whoring when there is an RSS feed for your blog. Push it, I’ll keep deleting. Push it further, RSS feed can be replaced.
Oh by the way, you or Chris can come by the OJ any time and link to one of your stories in the comments, if it backs up a point you’re trying to make. Just as we frequently link to your stories ourselves. I still fail to see what would be “whorish” about you doing that. But have it your way…
Excuse me, Dan — but in what respect is Jordan not part of the problem here? Have you been following Anaheim politics?
I think that he was a good school board member. His record on the council has been hard to distinguish from those of Murray and Eastman — and on the major issues he’s never, to my recollection, been a decisive vote in the other direction. How is that not a problem?
Dan, presumably you can tell the difference between saying “I think that you made a good point and I hope that you’ll take credit for it” and “I think that you’re a rotten bastard and I want to find out who you are.”
Making the same point differently to you, Chris, there’s a big difference between positive exhortation for a writer’s identity and a pugnacious demand for it.
I think you need to be consistent on demanding names.
Greg, I hope you understand that my comment was meant to be supportive of yours, contrary to Dan’s.
Jordan’s PARTY ID did well in some of Anaheim’s most Latino districts. That’s different from he himself earning those votes, which is itself different from his having earned them from an informed (rather than a bamboozled) electorate.
“IEs pouring money into candidates doesn’t always translate to victories…. Just ask Julio Perez.”
I like you, Dan, but sometimes you can be quite frustrating. Can you think of any other difference between the IE money that went to support Perez and the IE money that went to support Brandman? Here, I’ll give you a hint: Perez, but not Brandman also had A MILLION DOLLARS OF IE MONEY OPPOSING HIM!
And you’re using that as an argument that IE money isn’t decisive?
Greg —
are you suggesting that Jordan didn’t earn any of the votes from Anaheim’s most Latino districts? That’s not only wrong but to imply they are a bamboozled electorate, are you saying the voters of Anaheim are stupid?
Jordan’s race also had its share of negative mail and negative charges to derail him. Fundamentally, people go to the polls and vote. He got the most votes. If you want more Democratic policies enacted in Anaheim, we need to elect more Democrats to the council. IN the case of Brandman, his hard work and walking neighborhoods and attending a multitude of community events put him out there for the voters. That was enough to overcome the negative barrage against him.
“I’ve met with a number of people who are on Tait’s side of this fight and bring up the name “Jason Young” and it’s never a happy reference.”
Perhaps you are meeting with the wrong people “on Tait’s side.” This is all the more likely given that you seem to define Jordan himself as being “on Tait’s side” — deep in his heart of hearts, at least.
“Thanks for the compliment. And if anyone is that interested in figuring out my ‘real world identity,’ it’s not that hard to follow the link and connect the dots.”
So it IS YOU, Benjamin Barker!
Saw that you came back for a visit; hope that you had (or are having) a good trip here. Mostly the blogosphere is more congenial than once it was.
Dan’s latest – as usual the reply buttons won’t work for us outsiders, so this’ll show up down below…
“Greg, are you suggesting that Jordan didn’t earn any of the votes from Anaheim’s most Latino districts?”
Didn’t earn ANY??? Do you believe Father’s Day gives you cart blanche to play the Strawman game? I thought you were smarter than that.
“That’s not only wrong but to imply they are a bamboozled electorate, are you saying the voters of Anaheim are stupid?”
So not only is Greg wrong to say something he never said, but he’s implying they’re a bamboozled electorate. I can’t talk for Greg, but actually I DID write an article about how Anaheim was a bamboozled electorate. Now are you saying elecorates are never bamboozled? (Not a strawman, you ARE suggesting that.) in fact, I even called Anaheim voters stupid, in anger, in my Cristina Talley piece which I won’t link to here.
“Jordan’s race also had its share of negative mail and negative charges to derail him.”
Oh God – nowhere NEAR in comparison to the daily deluges of POSITIVE ads about him (funded by Disney and the chamber) and the mountains of vicious hit pieces against his main opponent John Leos (SECRETLY funded with laundered money by Disney.)
The couple hit pieces on Jordan didn’t show up till the end of October, when the slow-on-the-draw OCEA realized that Disney had treacherously broken their end of the bargain not to attack Jordan or John. I wrote all about that too, if anyone wants to look it up. (google gloves come off in anaheim)
The rest is similar nonsense. Where’s Cynthia’s comment? She said she was gonna re-write it.
Vern, I am battling some serious problems with pain in my fingers, and you know the other very involved project I have going, so I may not get to rewriting the post, which I did not save. I will try to get the bones.
I was told (not given any samples so cannot prove it but if anyone has them i would love them) that in Latino districts that were leaning toward Leos, voters were given highly targeted pieces connecting Leos with the Tea Party arm of the Republican party. Game over in those areas. Also it was Jordan himself who told me Anaheim always leans to the left in Presidential election years, so he had a leg up and he knew it. which leads to the meat of what I had said earlier, which I will repeat without the side of bitchy snark not needed to make my point and therefore removed at my request.
Anaheim is an enormous city, to cover it by foot with shoe leather is impossible. Mail is a necessity in Anaheim, and expensive. Not only did Jordan benefit from buckets of mail, which clearly makes an impact despite our claims to never read it, the negative pieces against him were crafted in such a way (amateur hour) that they merely reinforced his name ID at the polls. Yep, the mail linking Jordan to the gardenwalk fiasco was not a mandate of the people to go forth and subsidize the land, voters never got far enough down on the mail to see it was a hit piece. The negative helped him.
That said, Matt’s insistence that he clearly knows more about the CAC and Anaheim in general than those of us who live here is just sad. While the rest of us are not paid to attend meetings and spin the information to benefit our employers, I assure you we have managed to stay caught up by watching on the internet. And no, I have no beef with Matt being paid, wordsmithing is an honorable profession, of which my husband is a proud participant, and if one could not write for pay and maintain a sense of dignity my home would not be happy, nor very prosperous. What i very much object to is Matt’s steadfast refusal to disclose his connections to the Chamber when blogging about Chamber issues. Not kosher, not compliant with standards for any organization of freelance journalists, certainly not kosher with the FTC. Add in the verbal gymnastics that take bounce off Matt’s keyboard as he leaps from ethical standards based on whoever is paying him that week, and I have stopped even going over there. He and his sock puppets may assassinate my character to their heart’s content, I am done granting that sludge pot any level of credibility by commenting or reading.
It is cowardly to keep claiming Matt is not doing the mudslinging over there. When you give an account to an anonymous writer (not commenter but a blogger with keys to the car) you are in effect saying that we need not know the person’s name or credibility level, because the admin does and the admin is essentially vouching for the anonymous blogger. To that end, Matt Cunningham, every ugly untrue word printed by your blog about Mayor Tait, (or me) is in effect given your stamp of approval. And it is that incredibly ugly behavior that gets presented as the face of the GOP to Anaheim voters. The “let them eat cake” diva attitude of our Council majority, the GOP leaders who sign off on Murray’s horrific backstabbing by serving on her host committee, and the Chamber-fueled blog attacks from a republican operative, who is not content to merely oppose policy decisions of the Mayor, but feels the need to personally attack the moral character of a man who has never caused you harm.
And you want to know why Anaheim voters are switching from Republican to DTS so quickly? They are not registering as Dems, they have not abandoned their conservative values, but they are fleeing from the party they feel no longer holds to the same conservative values that the GOP is supposed to uphold. You, Matt Cunningham, along with the Council majority and a slew of Central Committee types who appear pissed off that Tait has inadvertently perhaps pushed their porcine snouts out of the municipal trough by questioning whether we should be loading up that trough to begin with, you are all part of what makes the GOP so incredibly distasteful to Anaheim today. After a century and a half of Anaheim electing leaders we believed share our conservative values we may very well skew left for the first time in history, and if we do it is the GOP’s own damn fault. If Anaheim goes liberal it is not the victory of the ACLU luring them over, it is because they are fleeing guys like you that they no longer wish to be associated with.
Yes, believe it or not that is the nicer version of my comments, the earlier one was truly bitchy, You can imagine.
By the way, Happy Father’s Day gentlemen.
Vern — if we’re going to go all high horse on disclosure from blogging, Pedroza was paid to manage Pulido’s blog in Santa Ana without disclosures. How much was he paid? Its disclosed on his “PR Firm” website that Pulido for Mayor was a client but there’s no disclosure of fees paid to Pedroza in Pulido’s campaign forms.
Damn, you’re predictable and boring. PEDROZA again? Fine, take your pal Cunningham as seriously as you would Pedroza. Think of Cunningham as highly as you would Pedroza. That would do.
The issue of disclosure is the same Vern. If you take money to blog, you should disclose it….
I don’t take Pedroza seriously; he had a post about Krom challenging Don Wagner for assembly when she doesn’t even live in Wagner’s assembly district…but if you are going to express outrage over disclosures of blogging for dollars, be consistent
We are not talking about Pedroza here. Duh. You are STUCK in 2009 or so.
We are talking about how seriously, how credibly, anyone should take Matt Cunningham’s blogging on Anaheim.
YOU are single-handedly converting this thread into a tutorial on lame argument tactics.
Vern — you are the one you called Voters in Anaheim stupid. Matt’s blog only has the power if you give it to him. The LA Times dismantled his arguments and a judge is likely going to spank the Anaheim council. But again, the people of Anaheim voted about 8 months ago to elect Jordan Brandman to council. I think Jordan is going to be an effective council member even if you don’t like every vote he makes.
Okay Dan. Have a nice day.