« Jim Gilchrist Agrees To Debate John Campbell On Hugh Hewitt Show | Main | Norberto Santana's Great Trip Blog »

November 04, 2005

Comments

Given the outright lies from the No on D campaign, I doubt any of this is true.

Sarge posts some info with absolutely no proof other than some text a photo and you post it as gospel.

Gimme a break? What is he doing with a Yes on D sign if he or someone else didn't take it down? The background certainly doesn't look like anyone's front yard or being out in a public area?

Could you be any more of a caricature of a paranoid who knows he is losing?

And while you're at it, why didn't post the link to the massive extender sign the No campaign bought up in Buena Park? Tell me that isn't compensating because of some ubbltray with the eenispay.

Tim Whitacre

Jubal:

Until Sergeant displays some "Truth in Advertising" morals, I firmly believe that it actually hurts the credibility of OC Blog to reference Tin Star for anything.

I know you and he (Sergeant) are staunch Carona supporters and I respect that. However, even though you and I may banter back and forth, I don't doubt your Republican credentials. I also don't mind being hit hard or watching someone else get hit hard, when it's a fair hit, but Sergeant
consistantly crosses the line with lies and fabrications.

As for Allan Mansoor, I would cover his back in any firefight because I know the morals and ethics of this man. He is unashamed and unafraid to stand up for what is right, even when it might not make everyone happy.

Allan's stance on Prop. 75 "Paycheck Protection is RIGHT ON as is his foundation from which he forms his judgement of critical issues, not only to Costa Mesa where he is the Mayor, but also for the County and State as well. On top of that
Allan serves honorably as an Orange County Deputy Sheriff.

I for one, won't be bringing any more debate to Tin Star until I see a concerted effort from Sergeant to be evenhanded in his approach to issues (I'm sure I'll be missed...). He and his three fans can argue amongst themselves.

Tin Star should be refered to as TARNISHED BADGE until Sergeant mends his ways.

PRESS THE ATTACK MR. MANSOOR!!!

Semper Fi,

Tim Whitacre

anon all

What's the harm in asking permission before using dues for politics?

They do ask. Funny how all foget that one minor important fact.

Mr. Whitacre writes "As for Allan Mansoor, I would cover his back in any firefight because I know the morals and ethics of this man."

Iwonder if he would cover someone’s back he didn't respect or would he leave them unprotected?

Mr. Whitacre writes "As for Allan Mansoor, I would cover his back in any firefight because I know the morals and ethics of this man."

Iwonder if he would cover someone’s back he didn't respect or would he leave them unprotected?

What is this rumor about the sheriff releasing prisoners in our neighborhood (Coto) because someone he doesn't like lives here?

I want to know if this is true? Can he do that? Who do we call when the police are the ones attacking us?

Jason

As someone who until now had no dog in the Measure D fight, I had a revelation today at lunch while looking at a piece of mail that might actually push me into casting a vote (my previous plan was to vote "present", as they say in Congress).

With both agencies saying they need the slice of 172 funds that D targets, it's impossible for a regular joe taxpayer to know for sure which one actually needs it more (or if either needs it at all). So then it might come down to a personal decision for each voter: assuming one agency would become "underfunded" as of 1/1/06, depending on the fate of D, which agency would I rather see fully-funded? The OCFA says without the slice of 172 funds, their response time would be limited and efficiency threatened. The Sheriffs and DA say the same about their response time, 911 availability and incarceration capacity. With that in mind, and realizing that in most cases the agencies in question aren't the only responding agencies (cities, at least mine, have fire & police too after all), which service would I rather have be fully-funded and at full capacity?

[end neutral-tone logical reasoning]
[begin spouting of personal opinion]

As an individual who takes very seriously and personally his family's safety and has invested time, energy, and money into preparing his home and family to be able to defend themselves against criminal aggression and repel intruders from their home, I think I might prefer, all else being equal, Fire to be more responsive than the Sheriffs and the DA. I'm much less prepared to deal with a house fire (is it just the walls burning, is it electrical or chemical or some such, how do I put it out and/or save what's most important, etc.) than I am to deal with an intruder (here's a hint: the phone with its 9 and 1 buttons is only the third thing I'm reaching for in the middle of the night if I hear a window breaking). That might be considered the naive reasoning of a simpleton, and I recognize that I could and should expend more effort to be prepared for a fire, but there it is. I still haven't fully made up my mind, but I figured I'd throw those ramblings on the wall here and see what sticks.

Disclaimer: that the Measure shifts the allocation of tax money is what's even making this mental meandering possible - if it was a tax increase I'd have been against it from the start. As to the arguments that it will prompt a tax increase, well, that's a matter for that future campaign, and I'd vote no on that potential future tax increase no matter which way D falls.

Jason

What's the harm in asking permission before using dues for politics?

They do ask. Funny how all foget that one minor important fact.

Sure, but by saying "no", aren't you giving up your voice and vote in union leadership and collective bargaining agreement business, while still being subject to the terms of the CBA?

Blog Watcher

>>What is this rumor about the sheriff releasing prisoners in our neighborhood (Coto) because someone he doesn't like lives here.<<

It's true. You can hear Wayne Quint make that threat to Joe Kerr at last Tuesday's Supes meeting.

Just go to the 3 hr 3 min mark. And Quint is the next speaker to come up. The spiel leading up to the remark is priceless union thuggery.

If this is the attitude of the men and women in OC law enforcement. I can only say dear God please protect us from our protectors.

Blog Watcher

>>What is this rumor about the sheriff releasing prisoners in our neighborhood (Coto) because someone he doesn't like lives here.<<

It's true. You can hear Wayne Quint make that threat to Joe Kerr at last Tuesday's Supes meeting.

Just go to the 3 hr 3 min mark. And Quint is the next speaker to come up. The spiel leading up to the remark is priceless union thuggery.

If this is the attitude of the men and women in OC law enforcement. I can only say dear God please protect us from our protectors.

MrWhipple

Jason's got it right.

I have some experience in the public school system, having taught in the Orange Unified School District until several years ago.

When I began work at OUSD I was given the option of joining the teachers union (the Orange Unified Education Association) or opting out and becoming an "agency fee payer." I was only working part time for extra income, and I'm not keen on unions, so I chose the latter.

As an agency fee payer, I was required to pay the standard union dues rate, minus the amount that the OUEA/CTA/NEA would collect for political purposes. The thinking is that since I benefit from collective bargaining agreements, I owe the union that money even if I don't want to be a member. But as an agency fee payer — union dues minus political funds — I received NO BENEFITS from the union other than the contract provisions. If I had a grievance, I couldn't go to the union. If I was terminated, I couldn't ask the union to go to bat for me. And I couldn't vote in union elections and on future contracts. In other words, I had to pay the union for all their work, but I had no rights to any union activities.

So opting out isn't as easy as opponents of Prop 75 claim. Passing Prop 75 would allow teachers to participate in the union and receive union support, while not being forced to pay for union political causes. The system, as it stands now, disenfranchises those who opt out, and is inherently unfair.

Oh my God. This Mr. Quint person must apologize.

How do the other deputies on this blog feel about his comment?

Openly Anonymous

Two Points:

First -The union president of the deputy sheriff's should be indicted for threatening our community. How dare he threaten to direct the release of prisoners into a specific community i. e. Coto de Caza, with the intent of causing fear and or harm to the people of that community?

Second -I know from speaking with deputies that their union forces them to drive to their office in Santa Ana, in between working 12 hour shifts, and sign a blank piece of copy machine paper stating that they opt out of PAC -there is no official form. There is no actual accounting for that member’s money and how it is distributed. There is no reason to force a member to drive 25 miles between shifts other than to try and make opting out as uncomfortable as possible and to take advantage of the intimidation of the union boss (that would be Quint) from confronting a member at the front counter -that is bull! Funny isn't it, how when the union wants to take the member's money without first asking they do it so that they won't have to deal with convincing each member, yet they put the members they are suppose to serve under their big union gun when a member decides to choose differently than the union boss wants –disgusting.

Coto Resident

How do the deputies allow someone like this Quint to be their leader? I thought they were strong and brave men, how could they allow a thug to lead them?

From the Skippy blog

Skippy’s saving for a rainy day?
10/27/2005 12:40:21 PM



All of a sudden Mike Skippy Carona wants us to believe he’s being responsible. Now that the Orange County Register has been exposed that he’s cut positions a MINIMUM of 11 percent across the board within the Sheriff’s Department while holding more than $75 MILLION DOLLARS in reserve he wants us to believe he is being responsible! This 11 percent vacancy factor is not limited to just county funded positions either. Imagine how you would feel if you were one of the 12 cities, the airport, the 3 harbors, the transit authority and the courts that PAID for and expected a particular level of service and now you find out that Skippy’s song and dance about not having enough money to fund them has been a lie all along.

You recall that point number four of Skippy’s highly touted 10 point plan specifically addressed his plan for staffing and spending:

4. REDUCE OPERATIONAL COSTS
I will reduce the operational costs of the Orange County Sheriff's Department by a minimum of 5% and still increase the number of deputies serving our communities.

We’re not sure how he’ll manage to spin this because as has been the case with ALL of Skippy’s promises, he did not keep this one. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department has been operating at dangerously low staffing levels for years and everyone has been turning a blind eye to it. Besides the obvious negative effect on public safety, it creates a serious officer safety issue for the men and women working the jails and the streets who do not have sufficient back-up and support. They are forced to work excessive overtime to make up for the shortfall in staffing which lowers productivity on the job.

The average time that an Orange County deputy sheriff has to spend in the jail before having the opportunity to work in a patrol car is now more than 7 YEARS. Opportunities to work in specialty areas like gang enforcement, narcotics, sex crimes, and other investigative units have been reduced by up to half due to a management enforced vacancy factor. Promotional and transfer opportunities have been greatly reduced because before anyone can be promoted or moved on to another assignment there has to be a deputy to backfill the one they left. There literally has to be someone graduating from the academy to backfill a promotion or transfer or it can’t happen. Skippy has compounded this problem because the department is so far behind in hiring and training new deputy sheriff’s that there is no immediate solution for the vacancy problem. One alternative, hiring officers from other departments, known as a lateral hire is no longer a viable option because who wants to come to a badly mismanaged department where you will be forced to serve almost a decade in custody and are the laughing stock of the law enforcement community because of the widely publicized scandals and corruption of the department’s upper echelon?

Today’s revelations may also be detrimental to law enforcement’s position on Measure D in next month’s special election. It is well known that Skippy promised to give the firemen a portion of that revenue when running for office. Because of that promise, preserved on video for all the world to see, Skippy has been absent in what is considered by many to be the most pressing issue facing law enforcement in this county in years. Now we learn in the opening paragraph of a Tuesday, October 25, 2005 OC Register article that: “New jails without deputies to staff them, early releases for prisoners and an 11 percent vacancy rate at the Sheriff's Department have drawn attention to a little- known account holding more than $75 million in excess money collected from a half-cent sales tax earmarked for public safety.” This prompted fire authority union president Joe Kerr to take this shot at the Sheriff’s Department, “They have so much money they can't spend it."

Carona is certainly not responsible; he’s a disgrace as sheriff of this county. He did not reduce spending and put more deputies on the street as he promised to do. Spending under his administration is out of control and there are far less officers to do the job. Now he further jeopardizes county law enforcement’s future revenues because he has no idea how to manage the department budget. Perhaps if we had a sheriff who was not overwhelmingly preoccupied with defending himself from broken promises and one pathetic scandal after another and actually focused on running the Sheriff’s Department we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place!

Got a mailer from the No on D campaign.

The usual:

210 Deputies eliminated

Decreased neighborhood patrols

Increased response times.

Given the threats from Wayne Quint, it seems the only thing I have to worry about is him.

This campaign is a joke.

Vote YES on D. Put an end to this union thuggery.

blog watcher 2

I hope people listen to the board meeting. But don't just skip over to 3hr 3min mark as "blog watcher" (hose-dragger) suggests. Listen to the 8 bumbling idiots who spoke before Quint and see why he is so pissed. See how the firemen call the supervisors names, accused the deputies of running a dishonest campain, and tell the board (who actually makes the decision) nobody will lose their jobs. They talk about money they don't have,even though they just spent 50 million on their HQ. Listen carefully and the board will explain why Measure D needs to go down in defeat.

Yes Quint was angry, but he has every right to be after listening to the fire attack. The deputies aren't asking for anything. The fire union brought this to a vote in their greed. Keep it in context. Listen to the whole segment.

The board points out fire calls have decreased over the last 5 years and property taxes have gone up. Crime is on the rise and you want to give funding earmarked for the Sheriff to the firefighters? The board has the facts. OC taxpayers need to listen to the meeting. Get past the 1 Quint comment and become informed about this issue, or you can focus on Quint and miss the whole point of this meeting in which the firefighters wanted to yell at the board for making the correct allocation of funds.

Finally I have a question for the first firefighter speaker. Why do you wear your uniform to the meeting, but want to be recognized as a "Mission Viejo concerned citizen" and not a firefighter? What's That?

And to the firefighter who wants to buddy up to the deputies saying, "We're all professionals, we stand together." It used to be true but not anymore. We will alway remember the greed and the low blows. Even after we win! NO on D! Stop the greed!

Blog Watcher

I did listen to the public comments. And maybe you don't approve of the comments of the firefighters. But the comments from Wayne and McCloud are way over the top. Wayne threatens Joe Kerr with putting released inmates into his neighborhood while screaming at the top of his lungs. McCloud admits the Prop 172 pie was cut up in a back room deal outside of public purview. Thereby reinforcing why people despise politicians.

And as far as not standing together? If someone asked for your help that would benefit them financially and then snubbed you, I would question the validity of that friendship in the first place. It was clearly a quasi friendship of convenience. And if this were really important. It would be part of the No on D campaign. Which it isn’t.

AVcitizen

I too listen to the recording and I am shocked at hearing what was said by both the president and general manger of the AOCDS.

Mr. Quint was way out of line. His comments were not directed to the board they were directed at Mr. Kerr and his threat to release prisoners into the community is outrageous.

Mr. MacLeod admitted he is minion of the Board of Supervisors and that he supposedly attended a meeting where firefighters agreed not to ever ask for Prop 172 funds.

If this were true that would mean the firefighters in Sacramento conspired with the AOCDS to fool the public. Mr. MacLeod may be ok with committing fraud but he shouldn't accuse others with out proof. Second, if he is a minion why would anyone believe anything he says? As a minion and one who wears the title proudly, he is obviously in total agreement with the board of supervisors. Of course he disclaims his earlier comment admitting no deputies would be laid off.

sitting in the corner

Blog Watcher, you are CORRECT, 172 was negotiated in a back room-I WAS THERE-and so was statewide Fire Representation.

Fire worked out a deal that excluded them from any shift, therefore would not need any 172 revenues.

While this was going on, the campiagn was in full swing.

When the smoke cleared Fire (statewide) kept their revenue source, while Law Enforecement had a new revenue source.

blog watcher 2

There you go again about Quint. Is that all your campain is about? You've done nothing to support your argument for the need of 172 funds other than Quint yelled and threatened. No wonder the board agrees with the "no" position and taxpayers are going to shoot your measure down.

At least you have laid off the "slush fund" argument in which OCFA has one too.

Blog Watcher

It isn't my campaign. The need for 172 funds is a seperate issue than Quint threatening someone, irrespective of his being right or wrong.

Most normal people understand that.

And I should believe Bob McCloud's statements that fire was part of a backroom deal? If this were true, it would be a primary focus of the No on D campaign. Which it clearly is not.

Nice try though to deflect the issue. But it didn't work on me.

Blog Watcher

And BW2. By listening to the demeanor of those addressing the Board it is obvious who believes they are ahead, and who believes they are behind.

Here's a hint. Holstein.

Hey BW2. I saw this on the AOCDS website. I thought maybe you and Quint should read it. CAREFULLY!!


Law Enforcement Code of Ethics

As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional Rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice.

I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see of hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs, aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and the relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession.....law enforcement.

Blog Watcher

BW2. I posted the last post.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories