Santa Ana Mayor Pro Tem Claudia Alvarez has faced a withering attack this week, even though she has already apologized for her ill-chosen analogy, comparing developer and landlord Irv Chase, who it turns out is Jewish, to Adolf Hitler. She might have made it through this mini-storm if her colleagues had stuck by her but I don’t think any of them are willing to take a stand for her. It has as such become increasingly likely that she may step down as Mayor Pro Tem, although I suspect that she will remain on the Santa Ana City Council.
This could happen at the next Santa Ana City Council meeting on Sep. 6. Council Member David Benavides and his Republican amigo, Carlos Bustamante, have placed an 85A item on the Council Agenda, targeting Alvarez.
How soon they forget. Bustamante already had a whack at this and he was so awful that his peers took away the title and handed it back to the far more capable Alvarez. And the sad fact is that Alvarez totally supported Bustamante in 2006, when he ran for reelection. Now he has turned on her. You just cannot work with Santa Ana’s Republicans.
We learned that last year when Bustamante held a fundraiser at his home for Mexican-bashing Republican Van Tran, who was running against Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. That backfired on Bustamante when Sanchez trashed Van Tran.
I think Bustamante is using Alvarez as a scapegoat to distract us from the fact that he is being investigated for ripping off the O.C. taxpayers by accepting unmerited and possibly illegal raises, as an overpaid Orange County middle manager.
As for Benavides, this is payback for the Council going after him when he honored Lupe Moreno and her Minuteman pals last year, after they took over the Santa Ana 4th of July event, where one of them referred to Santa Ana residents as “wetbacks.”
We also caught Benavides partying with Al Amezcua on Election Night last November. That backfired when Mayor Miguel Pulido utterly trashed Amezcua on Election Night.
Bustamante and Benavides go way back. They flew together and roomed together a few years ago when President Bush invited them to a GOP Cinco de Mayo event. Benavides has more Republican friends than Democrats. He attended Biola University and is close with one of their Trustees, former SAUSD Trustee Rosie Avila – another immigrant bashing Republican.
I suspect that the next Mayor Pro Tem will be either Sal Tinajero, Michele Martinez or Vince Sarmiento. They are all very capable.
Will Alvarez step down as Mayor Pro Tem? If she does it will be a testament to her dedication to the people who voted for her. She realizes that this is all becoming a major distraction. By stepping down as Mayor Pro Tem she will ensure that the Council can get back to work – and she will renew her investigation of Chase and his dealings. That said, I hope she remains firm and continues to fight.
Alvarez has by the way tried to apologize to the Chase family. She asked Rusty Kennedy to facilitate a meeting. The Chase family won’t respond. They obviously are enjoying going after her.
Here is the 85A agenda item:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Pursuant to Santa Ana Charter Section 411, any member of the City Council may place items on the City Council Agenda to be considered by the City Council.
85A CONSIDER POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF THE SANTA ANA CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT BY COUNCILMEMBER AND TAKE REMEDIAL ACTIONS RELATED THERETO (COUNCILMEMBERS BENAVIDES AND BUSTAMANTE)
The following actions may be considered on the floor and include:
1. Ask for resignation from the City Council.
2. Remove from the Mayor Pro Tem position.
3. Remove from the Public Safety Committee.
4. Remove from the Orange County Water Board.
5. Condemnation of comment made by Councilmember
We are stuck with Benavides for a few years but we can boot Bustamante off the Council next year…
Claudia should not be further punished nor should she be rewarded. Santa Ana needs to change the discussion to – The role of Big Money in civic government decisions and the impact that it has on existing communities. This is what the “Liberals” at the liberal O.C. and the “Coalition for better Government” are supposed to be concerned about.
We all new that Bustamante was a coconut, but Benevides is the vendido of the year.
He kisses the ass of minutemen and even honors them at a city council meeting. No wonder he married a white woman, he hates his own.
Claudia defended the Latino businessmen downtown, I hope they remember that and remember what Carlos and David did too.
Carlos is just pissed because his salary is about to get chopped and he won’t be able to afford to chase the girls while his wife takes care of the kids.
Yay David and Carlos!
Barbara Coe is very proud of the both of you.
She said with Mexicans like you, she doesn’t need coloreds like Ted Hayes around anymore.
Well, I was planing on going because I have lot to say about this imbroglio but my daughter has a university class till nine so I have no car.
Unless some liberal socialist from this forum will offer me a carpool seat in his Yugo, I can’t be there.
I find it rather ironic – and fitting – that the SA Code of Ethics which was ushered in with “Measure D” which was a total fraud and designed for the purpose of giving Claudia an additional 4 year term – will be the means of causing her great trouble. Karma is a bitch and so is …. – well we won’t go there.
The council is trying to save their jobs with this sacrifice.
If the resident voters do not feel an effective rebuke has then place with the appropriate lost of titles and appointed commissions and board seats.
Then the resident voters will react and take the matter into their own hands. And if the resident voters have to do the job of the council, more than one member to all seven can be recalled.
So the question is: Risk a full turnover in a city wide recall, or sacrifice the mayor pro tem?
Cook,
Exactly who would be supporting a recall other than those that already hate the council?
You could never get the signatures to put it on the ballot and if you did they would all win, even Claudia.
I hope they try and waste their money. Don’t be such a fool as to believe that a majority of voters oppose the council.
“If the resident voters do not feel an effective rebuke has then place with the appropriate lost of titles and appointed commissions and board seats.”…… Hmmmm
Why should resident voters feel any effective rebuke?
If the residents will do as you suggest cook then we have no longer USA, nor we have constitution……. which may be the case after Latinos, ACLU and ADL destroyed it.
Stanley, recall is in the constitution.
anon says: September 2, 2011 at 10:10 am
(You could never get the signatures to put it on the ballot) (Don’t be such a fool as to believe that a majority of voters oppose the council. )
Well anon here is something to think about Recall is not about majority, it is a tool of the minority.
Ward 5 received 40,261 votes in her last election, but only 3,125 voters are needed to recall her. The loser in that election got 10,930, 3 1/2 times the number needed to recall.
List of the rest
Ward 1 / 3,077
Ward 2 / 2,333
Ward 3 / 5,091
Ward 4 / 2,680
Ward 6 / 5,176
Mayor / 10,885 citywide
“Stanley, recall is in the constitution”….. Hmmmm
I know that but a reason for recall is.
If you uphold the constitution you can’t participate in recall.
Back to Hitler. He was legally elected in democratic process. So how that helped?…. Huh?
The mob hysteria is not exactly recall.
I should add,
(1) The right to speak guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes the right to voice opinions, criticize others, and comment on matters of public interest;
(2) It also protects the use of hyperbole and extreme statements when it is clear these are rhetorical ploys;
Next time Claudia compares someone to a murdering fascist dictator she should make sure she uses Mussolini.
If she does that Jeff Gallagher, Dan the Polack and all the other outraged hypocrites will be okay with it.
What a bunch of phony bullshit this whole affair is.
Furthermore,
The only reason for recall is an abuse of the public trust.
In contrast, the ethics are not.
How is the City of Santa Ana damaged because Alvarez made an ass of herself in the public eye?…. zero!
How is the City of Santa Ana damaged because Chase dynasty is monopolizing the downtown?…. by millions!
So think twice where you should direct your anger.
“Next time Claudia compares someone to a murdering fascist dictator she should make sure she uses Mussolini”…. Hmmmm
She should use Marxists like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
That way she offends Liberals, Socialists an Communists.
Fiala said:
“Back to Hitler. He was legally elected in democratic process. So how that helped?…. Huh? The mob hysteria is not exactly recall.”
I agree with Fiala – recall Hitler!
I’m sure that Hitler felt the same way about gay marriage as you junior/Tardif.
He probably saws gays as less than human just like you.
Stanley Fiala says: September 2, 2011 at 11:31 am
…….“I know that but a reason for recall is. “
I expect that the city council will make the case for the reason at 9-6 council meeting.
…….“The right to speak guaranteed by the First Amendment”
You know that all speech is not protected. In the case of the mayor pro tem, it is not what she said that counts, but it is what the listeners heard that applies.
Remember to thank Art P next time you see him, as all this hullabaloo can be directly traced back to his rants about the 4th of July “wetback” comment. There are going to be BIG plates of crow to be eaten by all.
…….”The only reason for recall is an abuse of the public trust.”
It was the council who linked “public trust” to actions and comments by council members and other people beyond their control, after the 4th of July fiasco. Second order of crow please.
Cook,
Benavides happily honored the haters involved in the whole “wetback” statement fiasco.
The council did not punish him for his using taxpayer funds to honor bigots. He was not taken to task by his colleagues.for it, they simply walked out.
They should’ve done an 85A on him and stripped him of everything for honoring such scum.
Hey anon,
Don’t forget Carlos and the water bra comment. Nobody on the council said a word to him about it.
Maybe Bustamonte can parade his own daughters up in front of the Council and explain that because they have tits and not brains they stand a chance!
But, I guess as long as he did’nt bash a major developer, thats all right.
He’s another Public Employee hypocrite feeding at the trough.
anon says: September 2, 2011 at 1:23 pm
……….”They should’ve done an 85A on him and stripped him of everything for honoring such scum. ”
Then you are in agreement, the (hateful) words spoken either at the library or the council meeting should be dealt with by “stripped him (her) of everything”
That would be your recommendation to the council next Tuesday. A little extreme in my opinion.
Let’s see:
water bra – ethnic cleansing & hitler,
water bra – ethnic cleansing & hitler,
water bra – ethnic cleansing & hitler,
yeah – yeah – yeah …
ethnic cleansing & hitler is much worse.
Comparing gay people to animals is worse than the water bra comment too Tardif. That didn’t stop you from doing that now did it?
Henrygattis,
Are you referring to Carlos’ illegitimate daughter? The one that the DA had to file a child support judgment on behalf of?
Cook,
Yup I agree with that. Before they take action on Claudia, they should retroactively punish Benavides. When they clean up that mess, then deal with Claudia.
“You know that all speech is not protected. In the case of the mayor pro tem, it is not what she said that counts, but it is what the listeners heard that applies”…. Hmmmmm
Driving your tricycle without helmet again?….. Huh cook?
Notwithstanding that the hearing is subjective and everybody hear what they want to hear, as it is in Alvarez case, the first amendment is about expression [not] impression. Please make note of it cook!
Are you sure that you do qualify as my campaign manager for Congress?… cook?
Text of Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The SA Council has some real winners..
All this name calling is childish. Where are the real Ethnic standards for all these Elected Officials? Cut this .. I know your are .. But what am I stuff.. Geeze
Lapazloco,
That “I know you are, but what am I stuff” sounds exactly like Dan the Polack from that other sh*thole blog.
I think that is the credo by which he lives his life.
How do we know that Carlos and David are planning to ” Attack ” Claudia at the next Meeting? I highly doubt they will be allowed to personally “Attack” her in a Council meeting. Looks like she does need anyone to help her out of this mess. The silence of the Mexican Bar Assoication on this out burst is what baffles me. She did nothing but harm the Latino people she represents and prosecutes .. Remember .. You can forgive a mistake… But can you really forget? Not real professional from my stand point. And yes I would like for her to step down from all her positions, regardless of what David or Carlos have done in their past. This is about Her actions.. Not anybody elses. Don’t delute this with.. What about him and him..
Loco,
Did you read the agenda? The B Boys put the anti-Alvarez item on the agenda, so it is more than fair to go after them.
The “B Boys” from Santa Ana “Boys Town”
Why has the mayor pro tem offered apologies after standing firm on her statements?
Maybe she got some legal advice on what can be done to an officer of the city for violations of the city code.
………………..
Sec. 1501. – Violations.
The violation of any provision of this charter shall be deemed a misdemeanor and be punishable upon conviction in the same manner as provided in the Penal Code of the State of California as the same now reads or as hereafter amended.
Sec. 1502. – Definitions.
(b)
“Shall” is mandatory, and “may” is permissive;
Sec. 1-8. – Violations—General penalty; continuing violations; adjudging fines and imprisonment; alternative enforcement.
Unless otherwise specifically stated in this Code, it shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor for any person to violate or fail to comply with any provision of this Code and where no specific penalty is provided therefor in this Code, the violation of any provision of this Code shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months or by both such fine and imprisonment.
……………..
………..What about the other council members? (Their alleged transgressions)
Statute of limitations
Sec. 1-19. – Time limit for seeking review of administrative determinations; cost of record.
shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding is commenced within ninety (90) days and the board or final decision-maker is served within one hundred twenty (120) days after the date of the decision
…….. For politicians and their actions and duties, the statue of limitation is extremely short. 90 to 120 days ….
It should say something that this blog is the only one defending her. That is not a compliment
Say what you will about Alvarez but she got rid of the Reamers and the Usual Suspects. For that she deserves a medal.
Irv is on record stating he has taken off his tenants from along term leases to month to month. He wants his tenants to change their merchandise that cater to immigrant Hispanic customers. If they do not he will evict them.
THE EFFECT OF THIS BUSINESS PLAN IS TO EXCLUDE A CUMMUNITY FROM AN AREA THEY FREQUENT FOR DECADES.
“The Downtown Hispanic Shopping District historically has been second in sales tax only to The Main Place Mall. This in spite of virtually no city assistance to even vaguely resemble the assistance given to the Main Place Mall.”
The Downtown needs infrastructure to compete, not replacement of the market that has been successful …….second in tax revenue to the Main Place Mall.
The economic market power is here, just needs some city assistance to compete with other venues. This being true then where is Irv Chase’s economic argument in replacement of the current market.
IT CAN NOT BE AN ARGUMENT OF REPLACEMENT DUE TO ECONOMICS . IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING ELSE???????
Irv chase can do whatever business plan he chooses but his actions are unmistakably exclusionary of a resident group which is responsible for his downtown wealth, in the guise of economics. He was given public funds to service this community exclussively. He is now arguing against this community.
Irv Chase’s plan of ethnic cleansing is no less appalling than what Alvarez has apologized for. The Hispanic community will take this fight on to pressure Chase off his ethnic cleansing plan.
To be fair and consistent why is the criticism only on Alvarez and those appalled by their perception of what Alvarez spoke do not criticize Irv’s plan of ethnic cleansing?
Why do Benavidez and Bustamante only concentrate on one individual in this drama. They and the rest of the council,the media, and residents should be concerned with Chase’s Downtown East end ethnic cleansing plan.
IF NOT THEN THOSE ATTACKING ALVAREZ ONLY WILL BE PERCIEVED AS HIPOCRITES.
cook
You are way of tangent.
By her statement she did not commit any violation of city charter.[emphases added]
Anon 9:23 “That is not a compliment”…… Hmmmm
To uphold the law is always compliment.
This blog is unique because I am commenting here and I know what I am talking about within the realm of my modesty.
Other blogs just promulgating crapola.
The Communications Among Interested Parties Privilege. (a.k.a. “QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE”)
A typical common law privilege, it provides that a defendant who makes a statement to others on a matter of common interest is immunized from liability as long as the statement is made in good faith. See Cal. Civ. Code § 47(c) (codifying the privilege).
See Emde v. San Joaquin County Cent. Labor Council, 23 Cal. 2d 146 (1943) (privilege encompasses labor union newsletter); see also Lundquist v. Reusser, 7 Cal. 4th 1193 (1994) (privilege encompasses statements made at a seminar about a special breed of horses).
Therefore, council can’t take any action against Alvarez unless they can prove “malice”, most likely “actual malice” because both Alvarez and Chase are public figures and Alvarez uttered from the bench not on the street.
Stanley Fiala says, “By her statement she did not commit any violation of city charter.[emphases added]”
I guess we will have to wait until her trial on Tuesday night and see how the seven vote in open council on the accusations and charges.
Stanley Fiala says, “Therefore, council can’t take any action against (mayor pro tem) unless they can prove “malice.
The council is the judge and the jury in the trial, they will determine if “malice” is proved.
“The council is the judge and the jury in the trial, they will determine if “malice” is proved”…… Hmmmm
Exactly!
And they have to show the evidence and if not, Alvarez would be stupid not to sue the city for couple mills.
You have to understand cook that counsel must jump some loops and hoops like due process, investigation, evidence and not to rush to judgment so they themselves would not be in the violation of city charter. (jail)
Obviously council can do what ever the want after I will give them a copy of my legal written brief and oral presentation re my legal information on Tuesday.
They can go ahead and initiate the Bustamante/Benavides piñata.
I should add that Zionists Chase and Co. are pursuing against the council in the spirit of classical Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.(“SLAPP”)
Therefore, if the council will side with Zionists the Alvarez has prima facie case against both.
Offense is best defense.
Stanley Fiala says. “You have to understand cook that counsel must jump some loops and hoops like due process, investigation, evidence and not to rush to judgment so they themselves would not be in the violation of city charter. (jail)”
…………
Yes, and that must be done in open council on Tuesday night, as provided by the code, and there is appeal rights to the courts.
What evidence are you thinking of? The video tape of her comments and testimony of the reporters on her quotes? Is there any other evidence?
I bet there may not be a closed session Tuesday, so the council meeting may start at 5pm. What do you think?
Cook,
WHY ATTACK CLAUDIA ONLY, BASED ON A PERCIEVED ANTI-JEWISH STATEMENT, AND BE SILENT ABOUT CHASE’S ACTUAL ANTI HISPANIC IMMIGRANT BUSINESS PLAN.
Claudia’s statements did not mention Irv’s Judaism. Ethnic cleansing is an accurate description of Irv’s exclusionary Hispanic immigrant customer business plan based on the dictionary definition.
Reference to “Hitler” I believe was to describe Irv acting as a tyrant towards a community. If the tyrant reference was Attila the Han or any other historical tyrant the anti semitism argument would of been non existent.
Hitler was responsible for human crimes on many races, religions, the physically handicapped, the mentally handicapped and those not white, blue eyed and blond.
Hitler was not only anti Jew, so why his name be only associated to Judaism? Hitler was a tyrant destroying many lives including those of soldiers of the Allied Armed Forces.
cook,
One of the key element to quash Alvarez immunity under the Cal. Civ. Code § 47(c) is that the council must prove malice.
The malice is physically non existent because it is a state of Alvarez’s mind with which she acted.
It is virtually impossible from the video tape of her comments and testimony of the reporters on her quotes determine if she acted with malice. (she apologized)
You need premeditation, any connection to any anti-Semitic groups any background acting as agent for someone else etc. etc. etc.
In general malice is difficult to prove (especially the actual malice) and they cannot do that in open meeting on Tuesday.
Same as in court an attorney (city one) must prepare a case and Alvarez must prepare her response and then council can rule in open meeting.
You are talking 30-60 days min.
I believe that they are stupid and will step on the mine and if Alvarez is not stupid she can take advantage of it.
Nothing else is important at this point only the malice.
After that there are 2 more elements I believe. (Must look it up)
They can-only do number #5 on the Tuesday because it is not punishment to Alvarez but rather council’s dislike of her action.
Doc Art, the Chase’s are not subject to the Santa Ana municipal code violations by officers of the city.
I read though the Santa Ana code and have not found any section that gives an officer of the city a free pass if they can show someone else may have done wrong. Even the parts that refer upward to the county, state and federal laws don’t seem to have a free pass clause.
If the property owners are in violation of laws or breach of contracts, there are courts to handle those issues.
If the issue of “exclusionary Hispanic immigrant customer business plan” is illegal and discriminatory, then the prior plan of “Mandatory Hispanic immigrant only business plan” that ran for 25 years would be illegal based on the same reasoning. And the courts are the proper venue to settle those questions.
When you use a council member to try and settle a legal question in council comments instead of the proper court, you get what we have now, charges of unethical behavior.
cook
Because it was not applicable to me, I have overlook section 47(a); 47(b); which is more direct than section 47(c);
47. A privileged publication or broadcast is one made:
(a) In the proper discharge of an official duty.
(b) In any (1) legislative proceeding, (2) judicial proceeding, (3) in any other official proceeding authorized by law, or (4) in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law and reviewable pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1084) of Title 1 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except as follows:
Stanley Fiala says: “They can-only do number #5 on the Tuesday because it is not punishment to Alvarez but rather council’s dislike of her action.”
……………
Each item may require a separate vote or they can vote once on all items.
On a majority vote (4) the council can:
Ask for her to resign, but she doesn’t have to resign.
On a majority vote (4) the council can:
Do each and every item 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Because it is within their right to do so. And just like all the other board and commission members the council majority have fired before. All they need to say is: “Its not for cause or punishment, we just felt it was time for a change.
If it is voted “all or nothing” the GOP would fund a recall of the entire council (my opinion)
(1) because it is cheaper than a regular election (all recalled for less than 50k)
(2) the signatures required is so few. (15% of voters in the ward, 3,125 for ward #5)
(3) it would wipe out campaign war chests for elections and other races of council members.
(4) Santa Ana would likely lose its control of the assembly seat.
(5) the domino effect of the lost of Santa Ana as a democratic party stronghold could effect the congressional seat and the state senate seat too.
Stanley Fiala says: “One of the key element to quash Alvarez immunity under the Cal. Civ. Code § 47(c) is that the council must prove malice. “
…………….
No need to prove “Malice”, because items 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all allowed choices a council majority can pursue in the normal course of their positions. (full circle, what goes around, comes around)
Cook,
“Doc Art, the Chase’s are not subject to the Santa Ana municipal code violations by officers of the city.”
Where is the violation. Claudia was criticizing the perceived leader of the PBID. The criticism was about Irv’s actions within the PBID and his plan of forcing his tenants to exclude a community group from Irv’s tenants businesses.
It is the council’s responsibility to manage the PBID and hold Downtown board member’s actions accountable.If council members see irresponsible actions from the Board they need to correct them. The only way to do this is by taking critical actions against perceived offenders.Council also has the right to make critical comments of businesses that may be discriminatory.
The matter of anti-semitism in this case is a question of interpretation.
My point is that there is no violation by Claudia, just a public opinion issue. Just like Irv and his ethnic cleansing plan. Irv’s behavior is disgusting but all attention is on Claudia’s perceived anti-semitism comment.Why?
“When you use a council member to try and settle a legal question in council comments instead of the proper court, you get what we have now, charges of unethical behavior.”
What you refer to here is a development agreement between the city and Irv’s development group. The council then has the right to look into this issue during council meetings to get facts for possible litigation by the city.
“My point is that there is no violation by Claudia ..”
There is no doubt that Alvarez has violated the Santa Ana Code of Ethics and Conduct.
Actually there is plenty of doubt about that – and ultimately the B Boys will need four votes – which they don’t have.
If Alvarez steps down as MPT, it will be her decision – and I can assure you 100% that neither of the B Boys will get to be MPT.
All the B Boys have done is assured that NO ONE on the Council will every help them with anything ever again. Nice going pendejos!
“No need to prove “Malice”, because items 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all allowed choices a council majority can pursue in the normal course of their positions”…… Hmmmm
WRONG!
Although you may be correct, they can’t do that during the item 85A as is written because it is connected to a violation of ethics where such violation is impassible during privileged speech as provided by Cal. Civil Code sec. 47.
Absent of malice, Alvarez’s and for that matter anyone speaking during the comment section before the council is immune from any liability and ethical violation.
It appears that the entire action against Alvarez may be criminally laced as an extortion by the council while the council itself is extorted by Zionists to violate section 47.
Lot of people can go to jail and Alvarez my be new owner of 4th St. buildings.
text:
85A CONSIDER POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF THE SANTA ANA CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT BY COUNCILMEMBER AND TAKE REMEDIAL
ACTIONS RELATED THERETO (COUNCILMEMBERS BENAVIDES AND
BUSTAMANTE)
The following actions may be considered on the floor and include:
1. Ask for resignation from the City Council.
2. Remove from the Mayor Pro Tem position.
3. Remove from the Public Safety Committee.
4. Remove from the Orange County Water Board.
5. Condemnation of comment made by Councilmember.