JERRY BROWN

Brown’s jobs plan to date is focused solely on investing in renewable energy technology with the goal of creating 20,000 megawatts of renewable electricity by 2020. (1 MWh of energy can power 1,000 homes for one hour.) He says the plan would create at least 500,000 new jobs and put California “at the forefront” of the industry.

He has no position on tax cuts and says he would approve a tax increase only if voters signed off. He has said little about reducing the state work force but criticized state government as “constipated and overloaded,” and noted that balancing the budget would require “a lot of cuts.”

MEG WHITMAN

Whitman’s plan has two main components: targeted tax cuts she says would spur job-creating economic activity – despite the loss of billions in tax revenues – and loosening state regulation of business.

She has ruled out tax increases and advocates a 40,000-job reduction in the state work force through attrition. She has advocated a go-slow approach on public works bonds to create jobs, suggesting that the state pay down its current bond debt before approving new borrowing.

See Brown’s and Whitman’s plans for the State of California here: How state’s candidates for governor propose to fix job shortage

(From the Signal)

Councilwomen Laurene Weste, Laurie Ender and Marsha McLean agreed with Councilman Frank Ferry, who proposed the measure, that campaigning for City Council has gotten expensive.

Raising the contribution limit will allow challengers to raise more money to combat big-business donations to political action committees, they said.

The attending crowd, along with some experts, didn’t see it that way.

Read more here: Campaign donation increase gets OK

Mike Murphy got $1 million for his production company from Meg Whitman and later signed on for her campaign.

Ms. Whitman, a billionaire and former chief executive of eBay, made the investment in late 2008, according to her campaign, taking a stake in a fledgling movie production firm started by none other than Mike Murphy, a very prominent and much-sought-after Republican strategist.

In the months before the deal was closed, Mr. Murphy had been flirting with working on the campaign of Ms. Whitman’s future rival in the Republican primary for governor, Steve Poizner, the state’s insurance commissioner. But he had an about-face.

The timing of the investment and its unusual nature — Ms. Whitman lists no other holdings in the world of independent movie production — raise some questions about its ultimate purpose: Was it strictly a business decision, or part of an effort to ensure that a coveted political strategist did not work for the competition? Or perhaps a way to sweeten the pot so he would eventually sign on with the right team?

Read more here: Divining the Return on a Candidate’s Investment

Forty-three percent of registered voters disapprove of the job Boxer is doing, while 42 percent approve, according to the nonpartisan poll. Among likely voters in November, 48 percent disapprove of the job Boxer is doing, the poll showed.

Not since 1994, two years after she was first elected, has Boxer’s job rating been so low.

Still, Boxer leads Fiorina 47 percent to 44 percent among likely voters, according to the poll. Fiorina had come within one percentage point of Boxer in March, after trailing by as many as 30 points early last year.

Read more here: Boxer’s job marks plummet, but she clings to slight lead over Fiorina

(From the nytimes.com)

In testimony before the Commission on Civil Rights, J. Christian Adams, who recently resigned from a voting rights position in the Justice Department’s civil rights division, decried the decision by department superiors in May 2009.

“We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens,” Mr. Adams said of the decision to reduce the scope of the New Black Panthers case, which he had helped to develop.

The testimony by Mr. Adams brought new attention to a case that has been used as political ammunition against the Obama administration by some conservative media outlets seeking to flip the script on portrayals of the Bush administration as having “politicized” the Justice Department.

Read more here: Racial Motive Alleged in a Justice Dept. Decision

Since the City Council election is long over and there is still controversy continuing we decided to run this column again to showcase the incestuous relationships the local “newspaper” has with the City of Santa Clarita.

Several weeks ago The Beacon covered, and in the second instance was first to report, the plagiarism scandal that has rocked The Signal. In one of my commentaries regarding that scandal I wrote; “That’s just another example that seems to reinforce the local chatter that The Signal is in the pocket of the City of Santa Clarita and why the papers credibility appears to have run amok in recent years.” Which begs the question, is there any truth to that chatter?

I decided many months ago to answer that question and started out by accumulating documentation that would yield information one way or the other. In other words, I set out to investigate whether or not there were relationships between the City of Santa Clarita and The Signal that would show a bias favoring the City.

Let’s face it, there have been many people in the Santa Clarita Valley that have observed or have their own stories that point to a view that The Signal is favoring coverage and opinions towards the City. Certainly I have my own stories in which attempts have been made to silence or edit my own voice. But that can be considered hearsay or biased in its own right. We need facts!

So let’s start out by looking at The Signal’s editorial board which is made up of Ian Lamont, publisher; Lila Littlejohn, editor; Josh Premako, opinion editor; and Leon Worden, community board member. Here is what I know about each; Ian Lamont lives in Long Beach is has been publisher of The Signal for a little over a year; Lila Littlejohn apparently has taught English at COC but does not seem to be as well versed on local issues as you would expect of an editor; Josh Premako has been a good writer at the paper and is a photographer; Leon Worden is a former employee of The Signal and is now the CEO of SCVTV and may have the most local knowledge of anyone on The Signal editorial board.

What strikes me most about the makeup of The Signal’s editorial board is that with the exception of Leon Worden there is a shallow depth of local knowledge. Leon is well versed on the local history here in the Santa Clarita Valley and has been visibly involved for many years so he can certainly shoulder more when it comes to Signal editorials on local issues.

The problem with this is that aside from being the “community” board member, Leon is also the CEO of SCVTV which derives a significant amount of funding from the City of Santa Clarita. In fact, SCVTV has a Public Television Management Services Agreement with the City of Santa Clarita which was signed in January of 2009 and provided $25,000 in compensation through June 30, 2009. That agreement was then amended in July, 2009, with an additional $50,000 with the term being extended to June 30, 2010. That is a total of $75,000 plus additional money for other costs!

Mr. Worden also is the editor and publisher of the Old Town Newhall Gazette which also derives funding from the City of Santa Clarita. That agreement calls for the City to pay $20,000 per fiscal year for originally 4 issues, now 6, of The Gazette. And it should also be noted that The Gazette is printed by The Signal; in essence the City is helping to fund The Gazette and is a revenue source to The Signal.

In researching the relationship between the City of Santa Clarita and local media outlets like The Signal, SCVTV and The Gazette it became evident that there are some very chummy relationships. One email The Beacon obtained is from a City Staffer to Leon Worden which started out by saying “Hey Buddy” while others that were reviewed appeared quite friendly indeed.

So the questioned must be posed; how can the editorial board at The Signal be unbiased and truly represent the best interests of the community if it and/or members of the board have a financial relationship with the City of Santa Clarita? Answer: It can’t be! The old adage “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” comes into play.

This has been proved out over the years with how important local issues have been covered or in some cases not covered. Most recently the west side annexation vote editorials were about as biased as they come in siding with the City with virtually no attempt at bringing fairness to other opinions. It did so by limiting and editing opposing opinions and did not hold itself to the same guidelines it required of others in the community.

Yet The Signal editorial board claims; “We will take other necessary actions to ensure we offer our readers an honest, fair exchange of ideas on our opinion pages every day.” I don’t believe the paper can actually do that when it’s only knowledge member of local issues derives a portion of his income from the City and the paper benefits financially as well from the City.

The solution of course is a code of ethics and guidelines for the Signal editorial board. But in order for that to work the paper would actually have to be held accountable just like they are doing of the local columnists.

The code of ethics would require full disclosure of any financial, business and/or family relationship involving the subject matter being written about. Mr. Worden’s and the editorial board’s ardent support of annexation and other issues that the City leadership wanted in their favor would have been viewed differently had the public be aware of financial arrangements between those parties.

A set of guidelines would create a level playing field for all opinions and would hold the editorial board to the same requirements being placed on the public contributors to the opinion pages. If a contributor is held to an 800 word count than the editorial board should be as well and not be allowed 1500 or 1700 words. That is not fair nor is it keeping with the “fair exchange of ideas” that paper is attempting to promote, instead it is quite hypocritical.

So, is The Signal in the pocket of the City? I believe they are based on the facts and on the way the paper has conducted itself in recent months. Having looked at City of Santa Clarita checks written out for tens of thousands of dollars to Leon Worden’s SCVTV and emails detailing the various business relationships certainly leads me to that conclusion.  

What that ultimately means is that whatever the paper says or who ever they endorse is suspect; it is questionable as to whether it is be motivated by financial or some  business arrangement. I have no doubt that these conflicts of interest will probably factor in to endorsements of candidates for the upcoming City Council elections in April.

There is and will be a cloud of suspicion over the paper as long as there are these types of dealings and ethical questions being raised. Having rules and following them are two separate ideas. The Signal must walk the walk and talk the talk especially it wants the readers to trust the paper at all again.

But hey, what do I know, I’m just a guy with a computer!

Dave Bossert- Commentary

Dave Bossert is a community volunteer who serves on a number of boards and councils. His commentaries represent his own opinions and not necessarily the views of any organization he may be affiliated with or those of the West Ranch Beacon.

(From the sacbee.com)

The candidates are Republican Meg Whitman and her Democratic opponent Jerry Brown, and their battle for the governor’s office is shaping up as a study in contrasting campaign styles.

The billionaire Republican has put $91 million of her own money in the race. Brown, who is worth several million dollars, has put $6,500 of his money into the campaign; as of mid-May he had spent $321,801 in campaign funds and was employing six paid staffers.

Brown has tried to make Whitman’s spending a top issue, while the Whitman camp counters that it’s going up against not just Brown but his union allies, who are already running TV ads criticizing the Republican. Whitman also spent money fighting a competitive primary, while Brown faced no major opposition in the June 8 primary.

What’s clear is the two candidates are setting new standards both in campaign extravagance and frugality, political observers said.

Read more here: Whitman, Brown offer contrasting campaign styles

“This measure will once and for all protect gas taxes from future raids and insure they are used to improve our roads, highways and transit systems – just like the voters intended,” campaign co-chairman Jim Earp, executive director of the California Alliance, said in a statement.

Read more here: Local-funds measure heading to November ballot

At the Tuesday, June 22, 2010, Santa Clarita Clity Council meeting Frank Ferry’s proposal to to reform the city’s campaign finance laws passed with a 4 to 1 Council vote. Councilman Bob Kellar was the only council member to truly represent the city voters by casting the only no vote against this misguided change. What’s funny is that this change will now come back to haunt them in next council electuion because they didn’t tyhink it all the way through! Councilman Ferry is trying to set the stage for the next Santa Clarita City Council election by attempting to reform the current city campaign-finance laws. You can bet that this has nothing to do with creating an even playing field or making future campaigns fair for all. No, Ferry is up to his old dirty tricks again and the City Council needs to reject this proposed change to the campaign-finance laws or be viewed as complicit in election trickery. (Pictured: a wonderful political cartoon of Boss Tweed; “As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it?” by the great political caricaturist Thomas Nast; circa. 1871)

There currently is a lot of controversy swirling around the Santa Clarita Valley that Councilman Frank Ferry rigged the recent City Council election by having a candidate named David Galvan run to create confusion on the ballot with David Gauny. Yes, you heard it – “rigged” the election so that voters that thought they were casting their ballot for Gauny may have inadvertently mark off David Galvin. The name similarity is no mistake.

The one thing that those involved didn’t count on was that David Galvan would be arrested for impersonating a Peace Officer. Think about that for a moment, a guy with a name so similar to that of David Gauny is able to submit an application to run for City Council yet he can’t get the money together to get bailed out of jail! I have no doubt that he’ll rollover and spill his guts about what or who prompted him to run for City Council early this year.    

Of course Ferry will deny the allegation he had anything to do with this just as he claims he knows nothing about the money that G&L Realty contributed to the PAC which financed all the mailers supporting him and the other incumbents.

Ferry’s denials that he knew anything about David Galvan or PAC money or anything else for that matter are as comical as his sugar induced outbursts at City Council meetings. A reliable source informed us that Ferry apparently had at least two phone calls with David Galvan in which he allegedly offered Galvan some kind of a youth oriented job with the City of Santa Clarita. And just check out how the names were listed on the City Council ballot:

DANIEL B. HENRIQUEZ

Accountant

DAVID GAUNY

Business Owner

DAVID GALVAN

Community Volunteer

HENRY SCHULTZ

Retired Scientist

See the entire ballot here:  Sample Ballot

If anyone thinks that the ballot order is a total coincidence than they’re complete morons! The City voters were duped, fooled, hoodwinked and swindled by Ferry and his crew of wanna-be political mobsters.    

Also, as has been detailed here at The Beacon during the 2010 City Council campaign, Ferry’s former campaign manager Armando Azarloza was the individual listed as running the “Citizens for Integrity in Government 2010” PAC which sent out a barrage of mailers coinciding with the arrival of the mail-in ballots going out to voters. The trail of underhanded schemes and connections is as obvious as the sky is blue to anyone that has been following SCV politics for the last dozen years or so!

The Beacon fully detailed the G&L Realty money in an article titled “Buying the City of Santa Clarita again? PAC money playing big role in Council Election”.   Written towards the end of that piece was; “At the center of it all is the City’s very own “Boss Tweed” Councilman Frank Ferry who appears to have his finger or those of his close associates in much of these questionable dealings and tactics.” That statement continues to ring true with this latest maneuvering by Ferry to change the City’s campaign-finance laws. He has really turned Santa Clarita’s City Hall into a modern day version of a corrupt Tammany Hall.  

A friend of mine and someone very well respected in the Santa Clarita Valley commented recently that; “Councilman Frank Ferry is a lying, cheating, fraud who will do anything, absolutely anything, to hold onto his Council seat; he’s a true political scumbag.” I would have to agree with that opinion based on all the information that has come to light about Ferry’s slimy backroom dealings and dastardly political scams perpetrated on the residents of the Santa Clarita Valley over the years.

If the majority of the Santa Clarita City Council goes along with Ferry’s attempt to change the City’s campaign-finance laws than they will be complicit in the continued manipulation of City elections. This change is not about election transparency, it’s about intimidation; it’s about bullying contributors; it’s about trying to control the elections and quickly taking out any challengers that may come along.

Just keep an eye on how Councilwoman Laurie Ender votes on this issue as she is going to be fighting for her political life in 2012!   

Dave Bossert- Commentary

Dave Bossert is a community volunteer who serves on a number of boards and councils. His commentaries represent his own opinions and not necessarily the views of any organization he may be affiliated with or those of the West Ranch Beacon.