Last November ushered in a majority Republican switch in the City Council. The race was tight, contentious and often downright nasty. As someone running as an outsider looking to change the status quo of Irvine politics I was dragged through the mud and characterized as a “plant” by mud-slingers on the right. As has been well documented this claim was unfounded, but it did highlight an important component of Irvine politics, specifically the entrenched politicians that lead our city. The parties may have switched but most of the players are the same.  I firmly believe that we need to manage our city more efficient and more transparently. This starts by the local community acting as the watchdog to keep both parties in check. Next week’s budget meeting is vital to that process. Representative government fails when our representatives don’t truly “represent” us.  As an informed and passionate citizenry we need to make our voices heard.

As Mr. Agran correctly points out in his article the first budget is very important because it will determine the direction that the new Republican majority will take from a fiscal perspective. Steven Choi ran on a message of fiscal responsibility and has delivered a proposed budget that keeps with that message, but in the words of his detractors takes the city backwards.  Budget negotiations are a tricky thing and there is a need for some fiscal restraint in our city. I don’t agree completely with Mr. Agran when he touts his record of success, but he has clearly played a role in helping build the infrastructure that has made Irvine what it is today. At the same time Mr. Agran needs criticism for the cronyism and “insider” politics that characterizes our local government.  The cities politics have hardly been transparent. While reversing the lack of fiscal restraint of the former Democratic regime we need to be careful in not going too far in the other direction.

What Irvine voters want and what the new Republican majority doesn’t seem to understand is that the new Republican triumvirate has taken their “mandate” and frankly taken it a bit too far.  Larry Agran is right in criticizing the level of budget cuts that the new majority is proposing. In my opinion it represents a massive misunderstanding of what the local population really wanted when they voted the new group in.  What we don’t need are the elimination and drastic cuts to programs that truly benefit so many in our community, we should question the community programs that will be immeasurably be cut in ways that would be detrimental to our kids and low to middle income families.  In their zeal to reshape the local government the new Gang of Three has committed many of the mistakes the former majority committed. Irvine government isn’t any more transparent than it was under the former regime. Rather than creating a more inclusive and open government, every Irvine citizen who voted Republican in the last election needs to ask themselves if this is what they voted for?  Voting for change is ineffective if we get nothing but tone deaf change. The new Gang of Three is absolutely tone deaf in their lack of understanding of what kind of change the local community actually wanted. Seven months later and Irvine politics is once again business as usual. As we’ve experienced over the past three decades there’s been a ruling party change.  Unfortunately how the local representatives actually conduct business hasn’t changed at all. The city is still run by a privileged few.  The reckless spending Democratic regime has been replaced by the reckless cutting Republican regime. When will we find an alternative path, a third way in Irvine politics, where every citizen can then say; this is what I voted for, a government that puts us first and ideologue last? Let City Council take the first hit for a balanced budget.

The Irvine School District has proposed the addition of a portable classroom for young College Park children. The objective of the classroom will be to provide specialized education for children with behavioral challenges, a place to learn and have an opportunity to thrive in our local school environment. The concept of a specialized classroom for special education students is at the heart of an ongoing debate over the last several decades on the proper way to educate students with special needs.  Some believe that inclusion in the regular classroom aids development through better opportunities for socialization and the utilization of the general curriculum.  Others feel that individual classrooms can focus on the needs of special education students through smaller class sizes and specialized curriculum. It’s an extremely interesting debate and I feel it’s a subject that warrants a real dialogue.

Recently in the OC Register I read that the IUSD board meeting was marked by a few angry parents and one solitary board member who offered his dissent when the board voted to add an additional portable classroom for these children.

Jordon Graham, OC Register “The College Park Behavior and Social Learning Center program, houses the students in a single portable classroom. Though district staff insisted a second portable classroom would have merely provided more space for these students, a group of College Park parents saw the additional structure as a sign that the program would soon expand to become a “magnet school for problem-riddled children.”

One of the parents stood up during the IUSD meeting and made a cautionary statement about the accommodation to special education students at College Park Elementary, his apprehension with the proposal was that: “The behavior of children from the school’s Behavior and Social Learning Center program was detrimental to general education students.”

The parents comments were punctuated by a callous remark made by a IUSD Board Member Michael Parham concurring, and as the only lone board member to dissent and vote against the amended motion and then further articulate that he had “agreed with parents that the program capacity should be capped, perhaps at 10 students and his concern is that if you build it, they will come,” Parham said. “If we create an environment where the size is there for 70 students, they come from all over California.”

WHAT?

The comments by Mr. Parham show a shocking lack of restraint and knowledge of the objectives of the new classroom. Not knowing Mr. Parham it’s difficult to characterize his comments as arrogant.  What they most likely reflect is a poor understanding of who this program is designed to help. Mr. Parham’s attitude is a classic case of NIMBY (Not in my Backyard). Every child deserves the right education to help them become a solid contributor to society. Mr. Parham seems to think that such a program will somehow attract “undesirables”. It’s a disgraceful and out of touch comment.

The special education program, which the IUSD meeting addressed, is for students in grades two through five, which recently began in September. Parents, students and teachers try to ensure that expectations are clear, roles and responsibilities are being met, and everyone feels empowered to seek to clarify and act upon concerns, before they become problems. How we feel about the challenge can have a profound impact upon how effective we all are in addressing problems and maintaining the energy and optimism that is so important to everyone’s well being. Children with learning challenges and other special needs know the importance of establishing close, strong, and successful collaborations between a host of qualified mentors and educators that will provide the essential combination that will reinforce family values and build on relationships so no child stands alone.

All children should have an opportunity to learn in an environment that is conducive to the needs of the child regardless of the disability. Our community is such that we provide a place that is nurturing, loving, familiar, safe and fostering growth and development for all of our children.  All families are welcome into the Irvine family. NO school board member should discourage any families from attending a school in Irvine. Because if Irvine builds it they WILL come, we have the very best schools in the country.

“To raise a happy, healthy and hopeful child, it takes…all of us.” 

As the Tsarnaev story unfolds its becoming quite apparent that it could have very well been prevented.  The older brother, Tamerlan, was on the radar of both the FBI and Russian intelligence for quite some time.   The Russians had him on wiretap making dangerous statements, the FBI was aware of him and had interviewed him, and if not for a clerical error the FBI should have known he spent six months in Russia.  This situation may not reach full-blown scandal proportions but it’s becoming apparent that there was some level of failure by US intelligence.

The Boston terrorist attack is a stark reminder of the reality of Islamic terrorism.  Since the beginning of the War on Terror we’ve set our sights on Al Qaeda in the belief that if we cripple their organization we will cripple the threat of terror in the United States.   Although we’ve been effective by most accounts in minimizing the major terrorist organizations, the Tsarnaev example is indicative of a larger Islamic terror threat that doesn’t fit into the convenient narratives our leaders and media have crafted.  The recent tragedy demands an investigation on how we manage our immigration policies. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was under investigation by the FBI and had been arrested in the past for violent assault.   His record and the fact that the FBI had a dossier on him clearly warranted potential deportation, rather than citizenship.

So what is the answer?  The concept of “profiling” is an extremely dangerous word in US Politics, but the fact is our law enforcement agencies profile all the time, and in the case of violent non-US Citizens they have every right to profile.  Tamerlan Tsarnaev clearly fit the profile of a potentially dangerous individual, as indicated in multiple warnings from Russian intelligence.  There was a disconnect, and the threat of Tsarnaev was not taken seriously.

As the story evolves we’ll likely learn more on why the threat of Tsarnaev was dismissed and whether it was a mistake by US intelligence or they simply didn’t believe he was truly a threat to attempt mass murder.   Perhaps the FBI simply didn’t believe that Tsarnaev, even with the warnings, would ever act on his anti-Western beliefs.  He didn’t “fit the profile,” as was made abundantly clear by the majority of terrorist “experts” the various news channels employ to analyze such situations.  That “profile” has changed now, and the US truly needs to take the threat of larger Islamic terrorism seriously.  There is a very good chance that the network is larger than the two brothers.  A simple look at the videos that Tamerlan Tsarnaev posetd on YouTube show a man following an organization with anti-Western and anti-US beliefs.

When Congress decides the direction of immigration policy in this country they must not lose sight of the Tsarnaev situation.  In creating opportunities for full citizenship and for others to realize the American Dream we must take into consideration that not everyone is fit to be an American or wants to be a positive member of American society.   It’s a tricky thing, with no better example being the Tsarnaev family.   The uncle who became famous for calling his nephews “losers” is a prime example of someone who valued the US opportunity and has built success for himself.

The brothers and their mother are an example of the complete opposite, a small family group that came to the United States, used our welfare system and opportunities, but eventually grew discontent and developed anti-American tendencies. In overhauling immigration we must be assiduous.  It’s up to our politicians to craft a policy that both accept those who will contribute positively to the United States and has a safeguard against those who are here to do us harm.

Irvine’s Gang of Three (Steven Choi, Jeff Lalloway and Christina Shea) ran on a message of reform.  Throughout the entire election cycle, from the debates to the direct mail campaigns, their messaging was centered on the need to clean things up fiscally in the City of Irvine.   This example of a grossly over-budget community center is a perfect opportunity for these three to step up and demand that fiscal responsibility and sound decision return to Irvine politics.   If these three politicians are committed to reform, why areCity Manager Sean Joyce and Great Park CEO Mike Ellzey still employed?  Where does the buck stop in Irvine, anyway?

The big message Irvine voters sent in November was that we want accountability restored.   Five months into the new regime, it’s time for the new Council majority to stop grandstanding, step up and SHOW that accountability.   This community center is a massive project that should be receiving maximum oversight throughout the entire process, yet for some reason this oversight is sorely lacking.    And not by a small amount, but to an extent that will literally cost the city from a quarter of a million possibly half a million dollars.

Budgets are tight, everywhere.   The days of bountiful government surpluses are over.   Every American is feeling the pain in their personal budgets.   With taxes and fees rising in many areas including the Great Park, it’s essential that government do everything in their power to deliver projects on time and at budget.

The most damning part of the Community Center fiasco is the fact that city staff acknowledged that council members were given misinformation regarding the cost of the project.   For this very reason, the City Council is absolutely right in tabling the request for the additional money.   In predictable fashion it was the classic 3-2 split in the matter of investigating the mis-management.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the entire process is the fact that City Manager Sean Joyce admitted that city officials have little to NO EXPERIENCE with complicated remodeling jobs, and that, while the initial budget for the construction contract was for $3.2 million, the council approved $4 million in renovations on Nov. 22, 2011, while today it is up to a requested 5.8 million dollars.   For that reason alone an investigation is warranted, not to mention for the lack of communication and outright misinformation given the elected officials that are overseeing the project.

It’s time the City Council realize that they were working with taxpayer money, and there is NOT a bottomless trough of it.   Here’s hoping that Gang of Three stays true to their election promises and ensures this project is finished responsibly, and that subsequent projects receive the proper oversight with NO Cost Overruns.

Writing in the Liberal OC, columnist Dan Chemielewski may have had an interesting find in his discovery ofDavid Cordero, the Chief of Staff for Jeff Lalloway.  It’s not unusual for politicians in a large city like Irvine to have a Chief of Staff.  What is unusual is the fact that the Mayor, Steven Choi, does NOT have a Chief of Staff, while Jeff Lalloway does.  This scenario does nothing to dispel the notion that Jeff Lalloway is really the one in charge and driving strategy behind the scenes.  Of course, as the columnist points out, Cordero could just be Lalloway’s admin with a fancier title on his business card.   Each council member does have a budget to hire an administrative assistant, who wouldn’t typically be referred to as a Chief of Staff. Chief of Staff or not, the presence of Cordero certainly adds to the impression that Lalloway is really the person in charge, and according to several sources  refers to himself behind the scenes as “the real Mayor of Irvine.”  The Choi-Lalloway dynamic is very interesting, allowing Lalloway to drive strategy behind the scenes while sending out Choi as a sort of figurehead (by most accounts.)  Thus Lalloway has the ability to control Irvine but deflect criticism away from himself.  His power-broker role is troubling, in the sense that a single elected City Council member now controls Irvine and as a result a large part of Orange County, from a position of limited elected power.  That is, when the voters went to the polls in November they voted for Steven Choi as mayor, not Jeff Lalloway.

The decision to eliminate independent members of The Great Park Board was an example of Lalloway’sconsolidation of power.  Although the decision was justifiable on many accounts, the fact that it further concentrated power in the hands of The Gang of Three is yet another reminder of Lalloway’s thirst for power.   The move, engineered very quickly at an impromptu meeting, fit the description by many of how the new majority conducts power internally.  It’s difficult to imagine Christina Shea or Steven Choi having engineered such a move.  This classic power play has the mark of Jeff Lalloway.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, it’s likely that too much control in the power of one person will eventually destroy their side, perhaps as early as 2014.  The rumblings from inside City Government are already too powerful to ignore.  Lalloway not only wants control but he also wants us all to KNOW he’s in control.   Moving forward, it’ll be fascinating to follow this story.   As Lalloway moves to assert more power and influence behind the scenes an increasing percentage of constituents are beginning to question the actions of the Republican majority. The next ten to twelve months are critical for Irvine, both in regards to the health of the city financially and the development of The Great Park.  It’s important that the public stay diligent in making sure the elected officials of Irvine are progressing in getting things back on track.  This includes the elected mayor and the “real” mayor.   Come November 2014, if real progress is not made, Irvine voters will go to the polls knowing who the real Mayor of Irvine has been.

Orange County is a perfect example of many of these issues.  Very recently the Orange County Grand Jury, citing the county’s 40-year history of political corruption, recommended  the creation of an independent ethics commission to advise elected officials of ethical pitfalls and increase confidence in government.  The Grand Jury released a lengthy report that detailed the importance of a commission and cited the decade long history of political scandal that has included the Board of Supervisors, the local Sheriff, members of Congress and local political donors. Dozens have been sent to prison.

There’s no room or need to detail the endless stories of corruption in this space, but a commission is clearly needed.  As a believer that government can be limited I’m generally opposed to more government groups and more red tape, but in this situation I absolutely agree with the commission and the need for oversight.   With the lack of an ethics commission it’s up to the members of government to police themselves, something that clearly is lacking.  Orange County politics over the past forty years has been marked by such upheaval, but also a lot of familiar faces who have made careers out of leveraging their political connections.  While bolstering their own status many elected officials have become rich and powerful and propelled many others to position of power—often at the cost of efficient government.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Shawn Nelson disagrees with the Grand Jury’s proposal, saying that the ethics of any oversight body or blue ribbon commission would be “no better than the ethics of the elected officials who appoint them.”  (Voice of  OC)

According to Nelson it’s up to the news media and the voters to hold government officials accountable:

“A truly informed public that votes is the ethics commission,” said Nelson.

I couldn’t disagree more with Nelson, as does the Grand Jury.  In theory Nelson is absolutely correct, and an informed public does have the ability to vote out elected officials and hold them accountable in a system of checks and balances.  Unfortunately Orange County politics have evolved in such an insider manner with so much horse trading, dark money , connections and special interest groups that it’s virtually impossible for the voters to truly vote out the problematic officials.   With so much dark money in politics at the local level and the development of what literally is a political class of career politicians occupying so many roles the concept of “vote the bums out” simply can’t occur.  The idea of an outsider candidate who runs a campaign to restore our local political system is a very novel idea, but also quaint when you look at the reality of our system.

So the Grand Jury is right and we do need to come up with an ethics commission that is not appointed by members or part of any group they will oversee. It will be a challenge to find individuals that can truly oversee Orange County politics in an independent fashion, but it is badly needed.

Re-building faith in local government is the first step in getting things back on track and starts with ensuring that when voters go to the polls they have confidence that the politicians they are voting for will handle themselves in an principled altruistic manner.  Over time we will once and for all remove the negativity and self-centered behavior that so often derails many of the good that government can accomplish.  I fully support the Grand Jury and hope that the current government representatives fully back this needed ethics commission.

The outpouring of support and the heroic behavior of those coming to the aid of the victims is yet another example of the classic American spirit.  We have an amazing resolve as a nation and how we act and our reaction this week is indicative of that spirit.  It is our best quality.

Unfortunately in times like this some of our worstqualities also come out.  One example is the overwhelming need of many to treat such incidents as a political football. It’s a funny game we play during moments like this.  As a nation we are so quick to not “rush to judgment” while at the same time many on the left are extremely quick to find a “right-wing connection”.  Much like what occurred after the tragic Tucson and Aurora shootings, many on the left cannot resist the urge to find some kind of connection to right wing thought or groups like the Tea Party.  It’s an odd connection we make, literally trying to find tyranny in those who believe in liberty.

President Obama led the way with his initial refusal to call the obvious bombing an act of terrorism.  Almost at the same time CNN employed a talking head Peter Bergen made the absurd claim that depending on the type of bomb construction the perpetrator could be “al Qaeda or a right-wing terrorist group.”  Two days later the CNN website published an article that went into great deal on the pressure-cooker bombs used in the blast and said they are a ‘signature’ of right wing extremists.

From the article:

“A senior U.S. counterterrorism investigator told CNN that pressure-cooker bombs have also been a signature of extreme right-wing individuals in the United States who he said tend to revel in building homemade bombs.”

The article goes on to discuss the construction of pressure-cooker bombs, used so many times in attacks in the Middle East that there was actually a article in the al Qaeda magazine that gave a tell how on how to construct them.  The connection to the mysterious “right-wing terrorists” was based on the Eric Rudolph Olympic Park bombing where a pipe bomb was used.  There are absolutely no examples of American right-wing use of such weapons, whereas there are a myriad of examples of these weapons  being used in Pakistan and Iraq and targeted for use in 2010 foiled Times Square attack (Faizal Shahzad) and the foiled 2011 Ford Hood attack (Naser Abdo).  Both of those foiled attacks resulted in foreign terrorists being arrested plotting attacks on US soil, similar to Boston, using the same technology as Boston.  Yet, the cable outlet that represents the MSM can’t help but find a mystical connection to the “right wing” of America.  This coverage, on MSNBC, has reached such absurd levels that there viewership is literally tanking during the coverage period of the terrorist event.

So quick to not call the event a “terrorist attack” the MSM literally falls all over themselves in the attempt to find an American right wing bogeyman. Unfortunately the game of political football does not end there.  The second most popular game is the thirst for lefty politicians to somehow connect the horrible event to the recent sequesters controversy.  For the left every event is part of a bigger political story, and Steny Hoyer, the house minority whip, tied the bombings to the sequester with the tragic event less than 24-hours old.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), speaking to reporters Tuesday morning, said the bombings are “clearly another place where it demonstrates why having the ability to address security concerns is important.”

Yes, of course they are Steny, we agree. Unfortunately your timing couldn’t be worse, but is not surprising in the least.  For many in the Democratic Party, everything is politics, and every opportunity is an immediate need to connect events to a bigger failure on the part of government to act.

In the refusal to “rush to judgment” we get an immediate need for those on the left to rush to their own judgment. Of course their own judgment is an insatiable need to somehow tie such events to their own bias’s regarding their political opponents.

Many have said we have lost some of our freedoms after 9/11, however, I believe we have found a way to reach out to one another because of those freedoms. President Bush was an authoritarian  figure after 9/11, most had felt the same after seeing him in New York, his power and command of the state of affairs was masterful, he was completely in control and we all seem to know it.

We will have leaders once more that will rise and assure our freedoms and lead us once again, I am sure of it.

Boston will guide us on one more passageway.  We as a nation will find a way to reach out to what matters to us in our lives.  We will remember our freedoms which are envied and coveted by those who do not have them, our family, and our liberty will once again remind us of those who have fought so hard for us to keep them.  We will manage to hold one another a little closer, reassure and console our families and friends, we will remember who we were before the attack and confront those who choose to hide and strike out at our freedoms.  We will heal as we have always done and as we rise and rebuild and unite against them, our cities will come together, yours and mine and we will move forward, again.

And now, just when the Great Park has the opportunity to execute on a project that will give the Park and the county national visibility, the Solar Decathlon, the City Council has decided to make a series of moves that puts the entire project at risk.  When the City Council decided to eliminate the independent members of the Great Park Board and then fire the PR firm which was managing the project they in effect took ownership in executing a successful Solar Decathlon.

To top off their original decision, the Republican-led council then decided to fire the City Attorney this past month, again much too close to the October decathlon.  These decisions are yet another example of the “tit for tat”mentality that has been prevalent all too long in Irvine politics from both sides of the aisle.

Rather than staying the course and allowing the PRM firm to stay on board until after the decathlon, thus ensure the success of the event, the “Team Irvine” of Jeff Lalloway, Steven Choi and Christina Shea decided to make a statement that could potentially cost millions in event profits.  Even taking into account the “changing of the guard,” it still seems that such decisions are made with political retribution in mind, rather than making choices that benefit the greater community.

In case you’re unaware of the Solar Decathlon, it’s a very prestigious event. Our community won an extremely competitive bid to host this year.   Formerly held every two years since 2002 on The Great Mall in Washington DC, the Solar Decathlon challenges collegiate team to design, build, and operate solar-powered houses that are cost-effective, energy efficient, and attractive (Solar Decathlon website).  The winner of the competition will “blend affordability, consumer appeal, and design excellence with optimal energy production and maximum efficiency.”

In short, it’s a pretty exciting and prestigious event, and exactly what the Great Park was designed to host and feature.  The Great Park competed with several other bidders on the Decathlon and was awarded due to its vision, beautiful sunshine, and space.   Unfortunately, when planning and executing an event like this, timing and preparation is everything and the power play by the GOP-led Irvine City Council has raised some serious question marks about the ability of the council and park management to pull off the decathlon, this appears to be a grave mistake.

After so much mismanaging of the park project for nearly a decade the City Council moved to dismiss the independent park board members and the PR firm contracted by The Great Park, Forde and Mollrich.  As I’ve noted numerous times during my recent mayoral campaign I have real concerns with the no-bid contract awarded the PR firm and have some questions about the effectiveness of the independent board members, so this decision is not necessarily a bad one.   The council arguably made the right decision in moving the remove Forde and Mollrich.   The problem here, in relation to the Solar Decathlon, is timing.   Removing the PR Firm now, in the months leading up to this important event shows a real lack of business insight from the GOP-led council.  As anyone who’s actually run a business or been successful in the private sector can attest, bold moves without a firm business  strategy present a problem.   It’s one thing to remove the current PR firm with a real succession plan in place.   To remove the firm with seemingly no plan in place, without a project management team, is perilous.

Delivering a large-scale event like the Solar Decathlon takes real planning and tactical forecasting, and that takes time.   Beyond the actual logistics of the event is the importance of marketing the event.   For green building and sustainability the event itself is important, but it will lose value if attendance is affected by the event not being marketed from a PR perspective.   The choice to suddenly remove Forde and Mollrich, with no supporting PR firm on the horizon, was done with little or no input from the actual Solar Decathlon or those managing the project.  As a result the incoming council majority has dramatically increased the pressure to deliver a successful event.   At the same time they’ve really put the onus on Great Park CEO Michael Ellzey, who insists he can deliver the project successfully.

The changes made by Jeff Lalloway, Steven Choi and Christina Shea may prove to be the right one in the long run.   Perhaps the independent audit of park proceedings will reveal real mismanagement and waste.  Virtually everyone agrees that the large no-bid contracts awarded Forde and Mollrich were not in the best interest of the project and the local taxpayers.   Still, the PR firm did serve a purpose and was in fact set to meet this week with representatives from the Department of Energy and the Solar Decathlon.   Dismissing Forde and Mollrich without a compelling plan was an error in judgment not because of the importance of Forde and Mollrich but because of the lack of a business plan.

The correct move would have been to continue the Forde and Mollrich relationship while opening up bidding for rival PR firms.   This would have allowed the Solar Decathlon to move forward without these hiccups while still allowing the council to determine the best way to proceed forward from a Public Relations and project management perspective.   If during the next several months the Council decided to change PR Firms, this process would have allowed them to make that change while not impacting the Solar Decathlon.  If they chose to replace Forde and Mollrich, the new PR firm could have watched over the project and may have been able to form new ideas and take over when the time was appropriate.  They could have done so with an interim plan in place, one that would not damage the execution of the Solar Decathlon.

For the future of this important project let’s hope that Michael Ellzey and the Council are able to deliver this project as planned.  If successful, this project could find a permanent place in Orange County and moving forward can help The Great Park achieve the vision it set out to achieve.   Unfortunately, given the ongoing mismanagement by the Irvine City Council, let’s say I have my concerns.

The true nature of the issue is captured perfectly by the title of the report, “CalOptima Burns While Majority of Supervisors Fiddle.” The authors of the report was spot on in capturing the essence of what lack of oversight and opportunistic politicians has created. With millions of dollars being funneled through the program we need real oversight and real professional management.

The quality of an organization is directly tied to the quality of its management, especially in the health care industry. With constantly changing standards and requirements, gaps in leadership can cause fundamental problems. The exit of top leadership at CalOptima in recent years is shocking and is clearly indicative of a lack of confidence in the direction of the organization. Former CalOptima Vice Chairman Jim McAleer pointed at County Supervisor Janet Nguyen as a major source of the friction.

From the Voice of the OC:
Among other things, McAleer cited micromanaging by Nguyen as interfering with the work of CalOptima staff. In the months after Nguyen took over CalOptima, at least 16 top or key executives, including the CEO, chief operating officer and chief medical officer quick to work for private industry or other government agencies.

It’s striking that a lone supervisor would have so much impact on the board. Nguyen is the sole county supervisor on the CalOptima staff. If it’s indeed true that a sole individual can have such impact its essential that they follow the lead of the grand jury report and add more supervisors to the board. Considering the current state and general health of a number of our statewide entitlement programs it’s vitally important that the supervisors act quickly and decisively to rebuild confidence and direction at CalOptima. With an aging population and the growing number of poor locally and nationally effective stewardship of CalOptima is essential moving forward.

Perhaps most damning from the report is the question around the impact on lobbyists in the decision to restructure the CalOptima board in the first place. According to published reports Janet Nguyen, with the backing of lobbyists from the Hospital Association of Southern California, abruptly proposed a major change to the existing board. (Voice of the OC). This December of 2011 decision made several current members ineligible for re-appointment and led to the resignation of Jim McAleer.

This very scenario, so common in national, state and local government is a perfect example of what has led to many of the issues we face politically and financially as a state and as a nation. Since I did not take part in the discussions and don’t have internal knowledge of the workings of the board I cannot make definitive judgment on Nguyen’s decision to remake the board. Unfortunately the involvement of lobbyists raises many questions regarding what impact they truly had on the decision. To remake a board so drastically during a time that everyone is making such difficult financial decisions and effective and experienced oversight is absolutely essential smacks of weak decision-making.

It’s vitally important for the county supervisors to respond to the grand jury report with convincing answers on how we got to this point. It’s also extremely important that they adopt some of the suggestions put forward and re-engineer their oversight of the program. Furthermore bold movement is needed to regain the confidence of the CalOptima staff and the greater community that benefits from this vitally important program. One question that is foremost on my mind is why the lack of an independent audit committee? With the sheer amount of money that is funneled through CalOptima financial oversight is essential in order to protect the millions of dollars from being channeled elsewhere.