Latest Headlines on OCRegister.com
[x] Close
OC Watchdog ~ Your tax dollars at work.

Archive for the 'Silly policies' Category

OC’s questionable planning fees won’t change until December

October 27th, 2009, 1:18 pm by Jennifer Muir

build-your-own-solar-panel-main_fullPlanning to renovate your home in unincorporated Orange County?

You might want to wait until the new year to start.

That’s because the county’s planning department won’t change the way it charges — and sometimes overcharges — residents for simple planning permits until sometime in December.

They’re researching and finalizing new fees, and that takes time, Public Works Director Jess Carbajal told the county’s board of supervisors today.

The county’s current  practice is called charging for Time and Materials, and it was one of the main problems called out in July in a  scathing audit of the county’s planning department, which described customer service as “mediocre at best.”

Still, two months later, the Watchdog talked to retired police officer Mark Rodina, who was charged more than $400 for a permit that would cost just under $50 in Fountain Valley under the time and materials system. (Rodina needed to update the aging electrical panel in his home so he could install solar panels. County officials have noted that many cities subsidize the cost of issuing permits.)

Nobody disputes that Rodina was overcharged. Still the system is slow to change. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in: County government • Silly policies | 2 Comments »

Did fired OC air marshal endanger flying public, or protect it?

May 8th, 2009, 3:00 am by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer

airplaneOn July 26, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security issued an alert to all U.S. airlines, airport security managers and federal air marshals:

A possible hijacking plot was in the works, involving five-man teams that might try to seize planes and fly them into government, military or economic targets.

Robert MacLean of Ladera Ranch (below right) had been working as a federal air marshal since shortly after 9/11. So it struck him as particularly bizarre when - just three days later - a text message popped up on his government-issued mobile phone:

Overnight missions involving federal air marshals will be cancelled from late July through early August.

What? No overnights? That  meant no air marshals on long-distance flights.  To save money on hotel rooms, MacLean would come to understand.

This, thought MacLean, was crazy. The 9/11 hijackers targeted long-distance Security Leaksflights because they hauled the most fuel and could do the most damage. Pulling air marshals from such flights, precisely when there was warning of a possible attack, was gross mismanagement - and a “specific threat to public safety that could lead to catastrophic loss of life,” he’d say later in court papers.

So Maclean took his concerns to his supervisor and other officials.

He didn’t get far.

TOP SECRET?

That text message, MacLean would later argue, wasn’t marked as sensitive information. It arrived on his mobile phone, not on his secure PDA.

And so, on July 29, 2003, MacLean disclosed the message to - gasp! - a member of the press. NBC. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in: Federal spending • Justice • Public safety • Silly policies | 23 Comments »

Color of money: Is it racist to ask accountants to have more training?

April 24th, 2009, 3:00 am by BRIAN JOSEPH, Sacramento Correspondent

accounting3What if I told you licensed accountants in California didn’t have to meet national standards for education? You’d be concerned, right?

That’s the story supporters of Senate Bill 691 are telling. Authored by State Sen. Leland Yee, D- San Francisco, SB 691 requires would-be accountants to take 150 hours of college credit to receive an accounting license.

State law currently permits accountants to take 150 hours OR 120 hours PLUS work experience. Yee’s bill would eliminate the second option.

As the California Society of Certified Public Accountants will tell you, having a second option is bad. Forty-six states require all their accountants to take 150 hours of classes, they say. Being different “undermines the ability of California business to compete.” It means “California consumers are not assured the same level of quality that consumers in other states enjoy and California CPAs face sometimes insurmountable hurdles in representing their clients in other states…”

What they and Yee conveniently leave out is that the same idea has been defeated four times in the Legislature because the policy is considered racist.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in: Capitol Watchdog • Silly policies • State government | 56 Comments »

Court okays taxpayer suit on public records access

February 23rd, 2009, 3:11 pm by Ronald Campbell

A state appellate court gave a Northern California couple the go-ahead to pursue a taxpayer lawsuit against several state and local agencies for policies restricting access to public records.

The decision potentially could put some teeth in the California Public Records Act. That’s the law that says that public records belong to, well, the public. You and me. Not the bureaucrats that keep the records.

Janice and Ronald Naymark of Saratoga sought several records from the state, the California Highway Patrol, Santa Clara County and several cities, including Saratoga, San Jose and Palo Alto. Government officials responded, the Naymarks claim, by demanding they identify themselves and explain why they wanted the records. The officials also tried to charge research fees for producing the records and insisted that the Naymarks pay for copies when they simply wanted to read the records.

So the Naymarks sued. But instead of suing under the public records law, they targeted the agencies’ behavior with a taxpayer lawsuit under California Code of Civil Procedure, section 526a. That’s the law that lets any taxpayer sue a government agency for wasting public funds.  And here’s the kicker: Under that code, a court can order a government agency to change the way it operates.

The agencies objected. They said the Naymarks could sue under CPRA and, if successful, get the records. But, the agencies added, they couldn’t file a taxpayer suit. They couldn’t seek a court order to change the way the agencies handle public records requests. 

After bouncing around the courts for two years, the Naymarks’ case finally landed in the state Court of Appeal in San Jose. Last week the court unanimously ruled in the Naymarks’ favor.

That doesn’t end the case. The Naymarks still have to persuade a court that the agencies were wasting taxpayer money by imposing restrictions on access to public records.

But Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, said the ruling “is potentially a very important case because it may allow people to get relief, judicial remedies, for patterns of governmental noncompliance with the Brown Act and with the public records act.”

Posted in: Bureaucratic bungles • Cities • County government • Silly policies • Uncategorized • | 3 Comments »

Dana Point officials spent $4,800 to attend Pebble Beach “concours.”

November 10th, 2008, 6:30 am by Tony Saavedra, Register investigative reporter

For 28 years, the Newport Beach Concours d’Elegance has staged one of the finest classic and rare car shows around.

But when they moved - at least temporarily – to Dana Point in September, city officials in that town figured they needed a crash course in how to host the event.  So in August, Dana Point City Manager Douglas Chotkevys and Mayor Joel Bishop (pictured below) — spent $4,842 for a weekend trip to the grand daddy of car shows: the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance. Not that Chotkevys or Bishop had any major say in the planning of the Newport Beach Concours.

To be fair, Chotkevys and Bishop tried to save money by staying 40-miles away from Pebble Beach at a Hilton in Santa Cruz, where the rooms were still $334 a night. They drove to the concours in a rented convertible Toyota Solara (well, even I wouldn’t take a Corolla to a car show.)

And they splurged on the $500 VIP tickets to the Pebble Beach event, including meals, special tours around town and virtually all access to the lavish show.

Bishop said he came away with a better idea of what a concours is. Chotkevys said he got a better handle on the traffic and parking problems generated by the event — lessons that came in handy when the Newport Beach Concours D’Elegance pulled into the St. Regis the next month. Chotkevys figures the show generated up to $30,000 in city taxes — more than covering the money spent on the Pebble Beach trip.

Oddly enough, the Newport Beach event never has been in Newport Beach. And Dana Point is hoping to adopt the concours and give it a proper home — now that they know what a “concours” is.

Posted in: Cities • Silly policies • Taxes | 21 Comments »

Who Got The Freebie Seats for Game 2?

October 6th, 2008, 12:02 pm by Tony Saavedra, Register investigative reporter

The Angels played a heart-breaking Game 2 on Friday against the Boston Red Sox. And if you had well-placed friends in City Hall you could have been there for free. Each council member and some top administrators receive four luxury suite tickets for each postseason home game. With seats selling for up to $2,000 apiece at ticket brokers, the freebies are worth a nice chunk of change.

On Friday, Councilwoman Lucille Kring again gave her four seats to her husband, bringing his total to eight for the two games. Councilman Bob Hernandez again collected all four of his tickets, bringing his total to eight as well. Mayor Curt Pringle gave two seats to Maureen Hayes, a high-speed transportation executive who donated $849 to his 2006 campaign.

Not all the tickets went to council members or campaign donors. The Boys and Girls Club of Anaheim scored another eight seats from City Manager Dave Morgan, bringing their total to 14 for the two games. The tickets have been donated to children, many of whom have never been to a big league game. The Watchdog will continue to monitor the freebie seats should the Angels win today and push the series to a Game 5. See the entire list here.

Posted in: Cities • Silly policies | 14 Comments »

Just who is it that’s not supposed to be in Villa Park?

August 21st, 2008, 4:46 pm by Jennifer Muir

pauly.jpg
An email by Villa Park City Councilwoman Deborah Pauly was circulating around town this week, urging residents of OC’s smallest city to sign up for a newly instituted ‘Do Not Solicit’ registry.

Pauly was trying to let people know about a new city law that regulates solicitors. She hopes the law will “reduce (or even eliminate) the amount of unwanted fliers, brochures, business cards and the like that are left on our porches.”

“If enough residents are on the list, our city will become unproductive for solicitors,” the email says.

Thing is, Pauly was being investigated earlier this year for, among other things, posting political signs on properties of people who didn’t support her. (The district attorney later dropped its investigation due to lack of evidence.)

The email then goes on to explain why the list, and a new ordinance tightening regulations on door-to-door sales people, is important.

Reason 2 is what first caught the Watchdog’s attention: “To get a handle on who is in the city and who is supposed to be in the city. Door-to-door literature distribution has become so common that most residents don’t even question who is walking our streets. Some of these folks may be casing the neighborhood for easy targets.”

Um, so who, exactly, is supposed to be in the city?

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in: Public safety • Silly policies | 2 Comments »

Lie a little on a resume? It’s OK in OC.

August 14th, 2008, 3:10 am by Jennifer Muir

rotary-phone.jpgThis nugget was buried on page seven of an Orange County Grand Jury report that simultaneously criticizes the county’s ancient Human Resources hiring manual and pats the department on the back for working to update it. The old manual, last revised in 1978, still references typewriters and rotary phones.

“The Grand Jury discovered that deliberate misrepresentation during the hiring/promotion process within the County may not be automatic grounds for dismissal; that specifically defined educational requirements in some cases are considered by some HR professionals in the County as “artificial barriers to advancement;” that some agencies do not bother to check educational claims made by applicants — if you say you are a Harvard MBA, as far as they are concerned, you are a Harvard MBA. If you state during the hiring process that you have never been arrested for DUI but you actually have been and it subsequently comes to light, your job is not necessarily in jeopardy. As improbable as it may seem, omissions and false statements are considered on a case-by-case basis. If you have been a good County employee, or your supervisor really supports you, or your indiscretion is not material to your job description, you will probably keep your job.”

The report appeared Tuesday before the Board of Supes, who unanimously approved the county’s response to the Grand Jury’s findings. Turns out, most of this is true. If you fudge a little on your application about something that it isn’t really germane to your job, you probably won’t get canned.

This from the county’s official response:

“Any material misrepresentation by job candidates in the hiring/promotion process may not result in termination; however, each instance is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” And, “Although the language allows the County to dismiss immediately an employee for any material misrepresentation, relevant court and arbitration decisions must be considered before taking action against an employee.”

HR head Carl Crown elaborated after the meeting: Most county jobs don’t require a degree, although some will allow a degree to count in place of job experience, he said. In those cases, if the county later learns that the employee was, say, just a couple units shy of a diploma, the person might not be fired because a degree wasn’t required for the job in the first place.

The county also might not fire someone for omitting information, such as all of the previous places of employment, he said.

“If we found out that somebody purposely lied, those are the ones that show there are integrity issues there,” Crown said.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in: Silly policies | 7 Comments »