Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

This is why Janus vs ASFSME is important – see how Chico Firefighters Legislative Action Group spends it’s members’ (and non-members’!) dues (our fire department seems to have a drinking problem…)

15 Jan

I went down the rabbit hole in search of the campaign contributions reports. The link didn’t work, I e-mailed the clerk, she sent me a link that didn’t work – I spend hours trying to get information that should be available at the click of a button.

Here’s what I found out – Net File is more PAC friendly than it is Voter friendly.  It’s just another sneaky way for them to hide the contributions. 

I told the clerk I’d typed in “Chico Police Officers Association” on the Net File search engine and it didn’t work. She told me to type in “Chico” and all the PAC’s with “Chico” in their name would pop up. That finally worked, and I found the police reports.

I found out – they give all their money to “Chico Citizens For Acountable Government”

Chico Citizens for Accountable Government” poured 10’s of thousands of misplaced dollars into the campaigns of Andrew Coolidge and Matt Galloway. They also supported Councilwoman Kasey Reynolds – that’s why I didn’t vote for her – I agree with her on some things, but I knew she was a badge bunny and a developer whore. 

What P-Q’s my curiosity is why the CPOA is running their money  through CCfAG – in past they’ve just donated to their candidates up front. Are they starting to feel the sting of accusations that they run city council via campaign contributions? 

Let’s face it – “Chico Citizens for Accountable Government” sounds a lot more grass roots than “Chico Police Officers Association”

I accidentally hit the button for “Chico Firefighters Legislative Action Group”. That’s a good read – 


$1894.82 for “meetings” at locations like Riley’s, The Pour House, The Banshee, Park Avenue Pub, etc.

Starr Liquors $242 for “fundraising events”

That’s not for everybody, that’s for union officers. 

What a bunch of drunks!


Mayor of Capitola: “I’m not certain, but I think if we put a measure across for pensions it would be doomed for failure immediately” – so they said it was “to ‘help fund youth programs, protect parks, beaches and open space, and support local businesses.”

12 Jan

Yesterday Bob sent me a link to a piece Dan Walters wrote previous to the November election. He opined that the surge of tax measures being pushed by local government around the state was based on the pension deficit, despite what officials were promising to do with the money.

Here’s an interesting link I found in that story.

“may be” driving local tax measures? Here’s what the mayor of Capitola admits about his tax measure:

“’I’m not certain, but I think if we put a measure across for pensions it would be doomed for failure immediately,” he said.

Instead, Capitola’s Measure J proposes to ‘help fund youth programs, protect parks, beaches and open space, and support local businesses.’”

The Sentinel reports, “Capitola’s pension payments are expected to more than double to $2.2 million over the next five years.”

The measure passed, even with a 2/3’s requirement, because the mayor of Capitola is a big fat liar.  He knows the money will be transferred and allocated to pay for the pensions, he’ll admit that to a reporter, because he’s also convinced the people of Capitola that their “visitors” will shoulder the burden for them. Like his consultants told him to do, the mayor used the city’s most precious resources as a ploy.

So when you hear the same yadda coming out of Mark Orme’s mouth, you’ll know what you’re hearing, right?

Non-union public employees can get a rebate of their conscripted fees – let’s get union money out of our elections

10 Jan

Reform California hasn’t thrown in the towel after the disappointing defeat of Prop 6 – in fact, they are now working at putting the gas tax repeal back on a future ballot. Read more here:

Carl Demaio and staff are working on a number of reform issues, including a campaign to inform public employees of their right to reclaim union fees taken out of their paychecks – made illegal by last year’s Supreme Court ruling in the case of Janus vs AFSCME .

From Reform California:

“The Supreme Court — through the Janus Decision — has given every state and local government employee the RIGHT to terminate any dues from being taken from their paychecks and used for political purposes. Unfortunately, many government employees do not know they have a right to keep their money and prevent the union from raiding their paychecks.

“We need YOUR help in informing any state or local government employee that you know that they have rights to keep their money — and they could save an average of $800 per year by signing a simple Union Dues Rebate Form.

“Please think of anyone you know — a teacher, a cop, a social worker, etc. — who needs to get this information. Tell them to sign up at Please take a moment right now to email them and share the website on your social media page.”

Here’s the link to the rebate form:

I believe this decision will have political consequences for many candidates who have taken money from union pacs – the law says the fees taken from non-union members are not supposed to be spent on political campaigns, but I’ve never heard of any union being audited – ask them for their books! 

In Chico the  biggest single contribution in every election comes from Chico PD (CPOA), and the second biggest contributor is the SEIU. Other big local contributors are Knife River Construction and Franklin Construction, who also campaigned heavily against Prop 6. These four contribute to almost every candidate to ensure their interests are taken care of – the cops just got a new contract full of perks and benies, city management just got raises, and KRC and FC get all the road contracts. 

Speaking of bribery, the city clerk has no campaign contributions reports for the CPOA (or the SEIU) on her website, for any past election. In past I’ve had to ask and ask, finding out she allowed the CPOA to go months without filing, without sticking them with the usual fine. 

This is why we need laws, and this is why we the people need to hold our elected and hired officials accountable. So I wrote a note to her office, asking where I could find them. I’ll keep you posted. In the meantime, tell your public employee friends they can get their money back. 


Do you think you’d be able to afford to live in Chico if the city and the rec district could take a bond on your house with a 55 percent vote?

9 Jan

Yesterday I sent an e-mail to Assemblyman Jim Gallagher but realized it would have been better to call his office. That’s  (530) 671-0303, give him a ringle when you get a chance and ask his staffer what they are planning to do about ACA 1. 

I also wrote the following letter to the Enterprise Record, I’ll probably send a similar letter to the Winters Tribune, located in the hometown of the assemblywoman who floated this turd. She represents all of us, really, passing legislation that screws our lives, but she won’t accept comments from people outside her  district. That sucks. I don’t know if the Tribune will print letters from outside their readership, but we can try. This woman needs to be held accountable to all the taxpayers.

You better do something, or you might be looking into moving to Nay-vah-dah.

In December, state legislators introduced ACA 1, described as “a constitutional amendment which would give local governments improved options for funding critical infrastructure projects, including broadband expansion, local roads, and affordable housing projects. “

Casually mentioned at the end of the description, “ACA 1 would reduce the local vote threshold for approval of bond and special tax measures from a two-thirds vote to a 55 percent majority.” 

Proponents complain that “Since 2001, over 2,200 local revenue measures have been placed before voters. Nearly 80 percent of all two-thirds supermajority measures garnered more than 55 percent “yes” votes, but ultimately failed passage because they fell slightly short of the current two-thirds vote threshold.”

Just imagine if those revenue measures had passed – would you still be able to live in California today? 

This bill is a clever attack on Proposition 13. The legislature has a spending problem, and if they could, they’d have your paycheck sent to them and throw you a few dimes to pay your bills at the end of the month. 

The school district already passes bonds with a 55 percent threshold. Just imagine what the city of Chico and CARD would do with such an advantage. Look at your property tax bill  –  can you afford ACA 1? 

Ask yourselves – should 55 percent of the voters be able to impose taxes for their own special programs (salaries, benefits, pension deficit) on the rest of us? 

Contact your assemblyman, Jim Gallagher, at  (530) 671-0303, and ask him what we can do to prevent passage of ACA 1.

Juanita Sumner, Chico CA

CA ACA 1 – another attempt to lower the 2/3’s tax measure threshold disguised as a housing bill

8 Jan

Read below, about a bill introduced December 8 that will lower the voter approval threshold for a special tax from 2/3’s to 55 percent.

The Author, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, District 4 Assembly member from Winters, does not allow you to contact her if you’re not from her district, but here’s her website.

If you want to let Aguiar-Curry know what you think of this clever attempt to disguise a tax measure as a housing measure, write to her hometown newspaper here:

Otherwise, write to your own assembly members and let them know what you think – in Chico that’s recently re-elected Jim Gallagher.



Dan Walters: illegal use of taxpayer money continues to be a problem “because local prosecutors and the state attorney general’s office ignore complaints about its illegality”

6 Jan

I’m not alone in my complaints about misuse of taxpayer funds to run tax increase campaigns – here’s what Dan Walters has to say about it:

Here’s something the city of Chico and CARD have both done.

“Local governments hire “consultants” to poll voters on what tax and bond measures they would find acceptable, to draft those proposals accordingly and, finally, to run so-called “information” campaigns to persuade voters to approve them.

It’s so blatant that firms seeking lucrative contracts openly boast of their successful campaigns, eliminating any doubt that they are truly political operatives.”

I’ve sat at meetings listening to these consultants, all they talk about is how to get the public to pass revenue measures. I’ve seen their websites, bragging that they can pass tax measures.  Sit in on a meeting sometime – and then look around the room and add up the staff salaries. That’s spending of taxpayer money to promote a tax measure, it’s right in front of our faces, like that big elephant that just took a giant dump on your carpet. 

Furthermore, Walters says, “The practice has ballooned because local prosecutors and the state attorney general’s office ignore complaints about its illegality. Indeed, local district attorneys often benefit from the higher taxes.”

Didn’t I just say that in my last post – theButte County DA and all his hangers on benefit from every tax measure that comes around the pike – it just perpetuates the salaries and pensions. He’s not going to answer a complaint from a citizen – we are forced to take our gripes to state agencies. 

I told you about the complaint that Yuba County citizens took to the FPPC with the help of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. They charge that a recent tax measure passed in Yuba County, Measure K, was passed illegally with only 54 percent, when it was written as a special tax requiring 2/3’s voter approval.  Another Yuba County citizen, Territorial Dispatch contributor Lou Binninger, has taken up the issue of the use of taxpayer funds to promote the measure. 

Unfortunately the FPPC (all on public salaries and benefits) has sent back Binninger’s complaint, saying he needs “evidence.” 

We all need to use our eyes and ears people, because nobody is going to come riding in to save us.


Redding Police Chief: “Redding has 30 people in the community who account for 422 arrests. “

5 Jan

I’ve spent a lot of time here talking about serial criminals – names you see in the newspaper and the court rolls repeatedly, committing more violent crimes as time goes by. We have transients here who are reported again and again, same names, for offenses like stalking women in stores, shoplifting, physical attacks with items like machetes, pooping behind the counters in various businesses, exposing themselves to children, you name it. Oftentimes, even when police are able to find these “perps”, they are “counseled and moved along.” Business owners can request a form from the police, essentially “banning” the person from their place of business, but I’m not sure how that works. Somewhat like Michael Scott declaring Bankruptcy! 

The police blame the courts, the Butte County DA blames a shortage of jail space, AB109 and other legislation that encourages early release of convicted criminals. A lot of the transients on our streets these days have been released from Shasta County prison/jails. A recent Shasta County Grand Jury  report said that various county agencies were misspending AB 109 money – instead of adding living space to their jails, or funding programs to keep released criminals off the streets, they were using it to pay their salaries, benefits, and pension deficits. 

Since that report came out, I’ve heard of “additional beds” being added to Shasta County jail, but it seems Redding is still having an out-of-control transient problem, just like Chico. Here’s a story from Redding Ch 7 news about a repeat offender who almost burned down a local business one night:


Redding police and the business owner are both “familiar” with this woman, she’s been a “problem” to this businessman for some time. It started with rummaging in trash cans and spreading garbage around the premises, and now she’s set his store on fire. 

Isn’t this stalking? Why this businessman? 

Read on. The real story here is that the same 30 people have been arrested a combined total of 422 times. This drains police resources, somebody’s breaking into your house but the cops are busy “counseling and moving along”. 

Redding’s solution is a “Mobile Crisis Unit.” According to the police chief, ” the mobile unit will give officers a new tool, meaning when they come across someone that is not committing a crime but is in crisis, the officer will be able to call the Mobile Crisis Unit to respond and help that person.”

Increasingly, in towns like Redding and Chico, crimes like illegal camping, rummaging through private residence’s trash bins, trespassing, public urination and defecation, even waving dangerous weapons and injuring others, are treated like “crisis” instead of crimes. These people need to be arrested, charged, prosecuted, and sentenced either to jail or to a program that keeps them from repeating their crimes. 

Instead, our court system is a madhouse of incompetence.  Our constitution guarantees right to a speedy trial, but that is routinely waved as being impossible. Think – the quicker an accused person goes to trial the less money to be made by everybody all the way around. 

So, they are arrested and released, usually within 24 hours. They are given a trial date, but look at the Superior Court index for yourself – “failure to appear” is a common charge, again and again, over periods of years, for the same people.

The root of this problem is the transfer program, by which the counties receive money for taking both criminals and mental patients for a fee – last I heard, $550 per person per day. The county can hold these people without their consent for as long as 45 days. Then they are released, offered a ride to one or another homeless shelter – which they can refuse. Essentially, they are brought here and doped for 45 days, then turned loose to terrorize the town. 

The county Behavioral Health Department gets about $63 million a year (more every year) for those transfers. They should spend that money instead on improvements at the jail.