• merelyashadow

    I don’t think there isn’t a politician in this county that isn’t on the take. And T-Rac won’t prosecute any of them. Any guesses why?

  • Judy Allen

    Jerry Brown et al MUST investigate the whole Orange County bureaucracy! There are corruption and dishonesty and self-serving actions EVERYWHERE! My (and your) tax dollars are collected and are either never used for their stated purpose or allowed to dribble away for payoffs and non allowed expenses rather than for the good AND HONEST NEEDS of the county residents, NOT THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THEIR “FRIENDS”. This has been going on for years and years and MUST STOP NOW!

  • Kathleen Tahilramani

    If Danley has something to say – say it. Period. Stand up and tell the truth.
    Ready to give up your best buddy Mike? Let’s see. If Danley has the guts to spill everything – and that is everything and the backbone to burn his buddy well then maybe the great sneaky leaky Danley has finally grown the guts to stand up and tell the truth using his own name & showing his face. It’s so much easier to do your dirty work using others and slipping secrets anonymously…right Steve we know that has been your trusty method. I guess maybe your getting a taste of betrayal ….not so good is it? Count me unimpressed until Danley speaks himself honestly and directly.

    • David Zenger

      Well, he’s got nothing to lose, so maybe he will. I would be interested to see if Norberto’s got it right about his resignation.

      • John Claxton

        He’s got nothing to gain either. I’m betting on silence.

        • Kathleen Tahilramani

          His style is to use others to do his dirty work and then stand back and beam like an alter boy. Not the get your hands dirty roll in the muck type. Just leak here and there and relay on plausible deniability,

  • RyanCantor

    “Note that CRONEY doesn’t apply if you don’t adopt or if you repeal COIN.”

    This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of.

    Either CRONEY is necessary, or it isn’t.

    What an embarrassment to us all. This is the state of public affairs in California.

    • kburgoyne

      Either COIN is necessary or it isn’t. Sounds like they’re letting the counties decide whether they think BOTH are necessary or NEITHER are necessary. Beats the GOP legislatures in other states that tread all over local governments when the wishes of the local citizens conflict with the wishes of the bribe money flowing in the state legislature. Keep in mind the state legislature COULD have simply overridden COIN entirely with some overarching legislation, just like GOP legislatures love to do in other states.

      • RyanCantor

        I don’t follow, sorry.

  • David Zenger

    “If you want to have hyper-public labor talks, you should have hyper-public private contract talks, Muir argues.”

    This is a completely disingenuous statement. While the two processes may follow similar trajectories, they have no nexus with each other. It’s true that dirty little deals are done by the Supervisors at the behest of lobbyists and campaign contributors, but that has ZERO to do with labor negotiations.

    Obviously the ploy is to get the County to drop COIN. There is no intent on the part of the unions or Brown to foster transparency. This is just extortion.

    • kburgoyne

      Huh? It’s completely in agreement. Labor is a service being provided to the county, just like any other service. Why do the supervisors think they’re under any pressure to drop COIN? What’s wrong with proudly adopting CRONEY instead?

      • David Zenger

        No. The negotiations for union agreements are not a procurement. They don’t even fall under the same parts of the Government Code. The unions have a monopoly. There is no alternative, no one else to bargain with.

        I am the first to admit that the County procurement system is a disgrace and desperately needs to be cleaned up. But using that as a ploy to take labor negotiations back into the smoky back room where the County’s “negotiators” have previously sold us out* is just extortion.

        * 2.7 @ 55, retroactive benefit being the grossest example of being sold down the river by County managers who were actually giving themselves a huge windfall.

        • kburgoyne

          I still don’t see why CRONEY is automatically “a ploy to take labor negotiations back into the smoky back room”. Sure sounds like an incentive to make other procurement negotiations equally transparent if the county can’t trust doing negotiations behind closed doors.

          Only a county that wants to keep other procurement negotiations “in the smoky back room” has to deal with their efforts to be hypocrites about being in favor of transparency when it suits them but not when it doesn’t suit them. If a county feels they have policies in place to honestly perform negotiations behind close doors, then CRONEY doesn’t force them to do otherwise. It leaves the power to decide in the hands of the counties.

          Sure sounds like pretty light handed legislation. It lets the counties decide whether they can trust themselves or not.

    • gazoo

      Forget about unions in this for a minute…..shouldn’t the whole david carr being the lowest bid for a contract and not getting the contract necessitate CRONEY by itself…if not that shameless incident what then?

      • David Zenger

        Because what happened to Carr had nothing to do with contract negotiations. It had to do with a well-connected vendor making some phone calls to scuttle the deal.

        It’s part of the ethics problem.

        BTW, very little “negotiating” really goes on between vendor and County. Most of the time it’s “here’s our price, here’s your contract.” It was the huge IT contracts that became a mess of back and forth and worst of all an opportunity for the interference of Janet Nguyen, enabled by Mauk and Bates, to keep steering things to her special vendor – another massive ethics problem.

        • gazoo

          Dave… Look at what your saying….. Well connected vendors making phone calls…. Under croney those conversations would have to be brought to light….

          • David Zenger

            Whoa, there. So CRONEY includes all communications related to a specific contract – even if it’s not with the recommended vendor? Would that also include communications with staff?

            Now I’ll have to find the text and actually read it! Can you help with a citation?

          • gazoo
          • David Zenger

            “e) Each governing body member and staff members of governing body offices must disclose publicly all verbal, written, electronic, or other communications regarding a subject matter related to the negotiations or pending negotiations they have had with any official or unofficial representative of the private entity within 24 hours after the communication occurs.”

            This seems to be the catchall paragraph. Notice it only refers to “the private entity,” singular, i.e., the contracting party. It could have read “all interested entities.” Oh, well.

            The terms of disclosure and noticing and eventual approval are way too onerous. it’s pretty obvious that the aim here is not transparency bu a level of annoyance that will make the COIN municipalities drop it.

            I DO like the idea of an independent auditor – some sort of objective individual to review all the contracts approved by the BoS. Of course that’s supposed to be the job of the County Purchasing Agent – well good luck with that!