Whoa - there are some good people listed! I know about half of them.

Were parties designated? Does the council balance Dems/Reps and DTS? Or is it weighted to the party balance of the County? Or no particular count?

14 of 23 are West County. Will they move to balance it out? Is the council region specific or will all vote on all regions?

Interesting to see if they are able to make this group hold together.

I'm glad to see that we as voters now have a non-partisian group that will make a decision of support not on party but by issues. That's not to say these people arn't active members of particular parties, but are willing to look at candidates that are good for the voters not just the party. I applaud Katie and Leslie for there effort in bringing government back to the people.
Good Luck.

Is the CAPC supporting Keith's current activities to take away pensions from public employees?

I like The Beatles and therefore like your post. Great post.

We are currently looking for more representation in the East County - ideally Democrat or DTS. Our goal is to have the board as balanced as our general membership - which is running about 50/50 with a few DTS's.

Everyone on the Advisory Council is committed to the mission statement.

If you would like to get a copy of the Mission Statement/Business plan or more information on joining CAPC, please e-mail me at KatieTeague@verizon.net. We are working on our website right now and hope to be "live" within the next month or so.

Re: Pensions

Keith is working on fixing what is terribly wrong with the current system.

you mean teachers, police, and firefighters having retirement security is terribly wrong?

CAPC is against the current pension system, which is mainly a republican position.

Pensions Matter - I think you will find the current pension system is of great concern to all. The Ventura County Taypayers Association just had a great seminar on it and I heard City Managers voicing their concern and I don't believe they were Republican. I'm not sure what city you live in, but I'm sure it is an issue to all cities and to the county.

CAPC hasn't taken a formal position and I don't believe any legislation has been introduced (yet) but when it is, we will sponsor a forum on the subject matter.

The make-up of the board and the mission statement clearly mitigate partisan politics.

Pensions are a serious fiscal issue to the State and to local communities. We also cannot pretend that we can continue with the present system without long-term fiscal problems in balancing budgets. Like any program, you have to have the money to pay for it. The cost of providing pensions to public employees has increased dramatically over the past decade, in part due to the increasing generosity of public employee pension plans in California. As an example, pension benefits for most public safety pension plans have been increased in recent years to what is known as a 3 at 50 pension. That allows police and firefighters to retire as early as age 50 with 3% of salary for each year of service. That means that a police officer with 30 years of service would retire at 90% salary. That's right, 90% of salary. Plus many of these plans include lifetime health care benefits as well.

So you have to ask yourself, is it reasonable for taxpayers to be supporting a pension plan for public employees that far exceeds anything available to most people in the private sector. Is it fair for public employees to retire as early as age 50 when private sector pension plans typically require workers to remain in the work force much longer, with most people not eligible for social security benefits until age 62. Keep in mind that ten years ago the typical public safety pension was 2 percent at 50, so why do police and firefighters need pensions that are 50% higher than those given to previous generations of police officers and firefighters?

If you are in favor of such a system, then we have to be realistic about the costs of sustaining the pension and health care plans currently being promised to public employees. Unfortunately politicians and government entities have been notorious for promising enhanced benefits without actually setting aside the funds to pay for it. That only burdens later generations that have to pay for promises made decades earlier.

We should be able to have these discussions because it is a serious fiscal issue. Rising pension costs are straining resources and crowding out other important programs. I would argue that the pension crisis is a far worse fiscal problem than anything this state has ever faced, and we cannot put our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

The other part of this equation is that many public entities have promised health care to retirees but have never funded those obligations. This has been treated as a pay-as-you-go system. But with many baby boomers set to retire this is another ticking time-bomb since a larger and larger share of budgets will need to be allocated toward retiree health care costs. How much money will then be left in our school districts when so much money has to be set aside for pensions and healthcare costs for long retired employees?

It is a very real issue.

bubba

most workers in the private sector don't run into a burning building or face down criminals daily or teach our youth with little resources from the state.

is CAPC for or against Richman's pension plans?

I am curious. Do all public employees pay into social security. I seem to recall that when I worked for the school district I had two options; either to elect to pay into an tax deferred annuity which could be self-directed or social security.

Can anyone tell me what is presently common practice for government employees, pension or social security and is it across the board? Do pensions circumvent social security?

Are there some out there who suggest that a contract between two parties is not enforceable, simply because one of the parties didn't negotiate a good enough deal? That notion certainly wouldn't fly in the private sector but plenty of people feel its perfectly OK to bail out on public sector contracts. I would think that if you can put this this issue to rest, so it's not hanging over the heads of 100s of thousands of public employees, you'd find police, firefighters, teachers and other group more willing to sit down and work out a solution to run away benefits. Otherwise the State will get NO cooperation.

Gary,

Do you know the answer to my question since your wife is a teacher?

It would seem that there should be a grandfather clause on all approved contracts and pension promises from the past should not be changed. Our public employees historically can not earn in the public sector what they could earn in the private sector. When public employees have been recruited and chose their professions it was with the understanding that they would have a certain pension and benefit package, otherwise they may have chosen a different profession that was more lucrative.

What do you think of the proposal that the pension plan should change in the future to a 401K type retirement offer? Do you think that people are self disciplined enough to fully participate in a 401K or should it be state mandated participation? Do you think that people could have better investment opportunites in a 401K and be a better steward with their investment accounts than the state? Is this option even feasible?

In another debate I have a dismal outlook for baby boomers retirement years and the burden for future generations as a result.

Americans have a dismal record of saving for retirement. I fear for my children's future and the demise of social security.

When I joined the workforce thirty years ago and worked for GM I was told to kiss social security good-bye and don't count on it for my future retirement. I was fortunate to have an employer teach me about investing for my future, good thing considering the demise of GM. I have never faultered from saving 10% into retirement accounts since I was 18, and haven't touched any of that money, it has been a tough committment to keep with many sacrifices, old cars and few vacations.

I really fear for my peers that are 45-55 debt ridden and no savings. Most people are in denial and think they will be able to stay healthy and work well beyond normal retirement years.

My parents are such people and it is tough to see their demise and quality of life decline. They were frivolous and would not listen to prudent financial advice. Now I am stuck with their financial burden and making further sacrifices.

I am sure that all of us do not want to one day have our children say we were frivolous, reckless and self indulgent and that we have burdened them with our selfishness.

I believe prudent financial advice should be incorporated into the math program in education starting in elementary school. Pracitcal applications and experiential education are very effective.

Hello Donna!

I know that CA public school teachers dont receive SocSec benefits since they and their employers contribute to a State-administered retirement plan. I imagine a private school teacher would receive both a job-based pension AND SocSec benefits.

I don't believe the majority of Americans are disciplined enough to save for their retirement but neither do I believe any 401K or any other equity-based savings program can work over the long term. All it takes is one serious downturn in the equities market and tens of millions of retirees will lose everything. That's NOT a safety net...that's gambling.

SocSec's not intended to be retirement plan. Its part of a national safety net that's in place to ensure that the elderly and infirm wont be put out on the street to die of exposure. Once candidate Bush announced he was going to rehaul SOcSec BigBank realized they had a hhope of tapping into the world's largest resevoir of liquid assests....America's "safety net". Overnite that term was dropped in favor of "pension plan" and the great bamboozle was launched. Even as the OMB & CBO keeps telling us the end of a solvent SocSec is moved farther down the time line, BigBank keeps warning us all we're going to lose everything next year.

I'll stick with the safety net AND add my own nest agg.

In response to pensions matter, yes, some workers have jobs that require them to run into a burning buildings, face down criminals, and teach children. Does that therefore entitle them to whatever level of benefits they deem themselves entitled? How much is enough? There are examples of public employees retiring with greater than 100% of their income. Is that fair to taxpayers? Is that even affordable?

Why are we not allowed to question the compensation of certain occupations, especially when their salaries and benefits are paid by tax dollars? Does it really make sense to grant pension and other retirement benefits to public employees that are unaffordable or unsustainable? With your reasoning why not pay every teacher a million dollars a year and give them a 200% pension at age 40.

And just as important, when we divert so much of our resources to things like employee benefits it takes money away from other vital programs. Are you willing to cut funding to veterans programs, mental health services, libraries, senior services, and many other things in order to award ever more lucrative pensions to public employees? And when you crowd out your budget like that you also limit your ability to fully staff vital services as well. How many more police could you hire if you had a more affordable (and reasonable)pension plan? Ever thought of that?

Arguing that those that fight fires, chase criminals, or teach children are entitled to whatever they want is a cop-out (pun intended).

The problem with the private sector is that when they take over public opperations they prove to be not only ineffective but also corrupt. That is why public employees do not trust corporate america to not steal their 401ks if they are forced into that instead of a pension. Recent reports also show that both CALPERS and CALSTRS are funded at 90% which is very very good for public pensions. The real problem is in some conservative counties like Orange where politicians bought public safety votes with increased pensions.

CAPC believes in civil debate and what is best for the common good. Therefore, any position we take will be well thought out and informed. What is of utmost importance to us is the involvement of our colleagues and our neighbors in the process. Too often these days, politics is controlled by a few candidates and their campaigns, and there is little room for fresh ideas, critical thinking and problem solving. We hope to change that.

P.S. Brian - I was nuts for the Beatles in Jr. High (and now you can guess my age). I have told the Advisory Council that in addition to good policy, we need music, so your photo is perfect!

In answer to Donna's question, some public employees are social security eligible and some are not. But those that are not eligible also do not pay into the program, which can save them close to $6,000 per year in payroll taxes.

When we talk about pension reform it is also important to note that nobody is talking about taking away benefits from existing public employees. The question is whether these benefits should be grandfathered to the current generation of employees with new hires being on a different plan.

I also agree with Gary that any promised benefits made to an employee at the time of hire should be kept. But it is equally important to note that pension increases are often given retroactively, meaning current employees who have already worked for decades being given more lucrative pensions without having to pay for it. It has been very common in this state for politicians and government entities to increase benefits retroactively without setting aside funding to do so. This ultimately burdens future generations who have to pay for these entitlements, and it can jeapardize the benefits of future workers since those those benefits may not be sustainable in the long term. Plus if you break the bank with excessive benefits it is the younger workers who may eventually lose their jobs when the inevitable budget cuts need to be made.

According to the paper today the CEO of Chevron made 30 million last year and we get to pay for it at the pump. Maybe we should grandfather all new CEO's in and say they cannot make more than twice of the highest paid worker. Also most public workers pay 8% into STRS and PERS which is higher than people pay into Social Security. Also locking out the new people is nothing but a divide and conquer strategy used by corporate america and taxpayer groups to rob common working people blind.

What do you think about the proposal of raising the retirement age without reduction of benefits?

Well that really is a reducation of benefits if you think about it. If you could retire at 63 with full benefits and now you have to wait to 68, you have lost 5 years of that benefit that you will never get back. Rather than asking where cuts can be made, why not ask where the funds can be found? I know the governor's committee on benefits just met last week and they found that STRS and PERS are doing fine, they said the problem really is with retiree medical benefits, maybe if medical inflation was not running at 20% a year (for less care, less quality, less choice)we would not have that problem, maybe we need universal coverage that cuts Wall St out of the equation and gets them out of our pockets. A recent study shows that 30% of every dollar spent on health care goes to insurance company profits. Maybe Doctor Richman should be working on controlling health care costs, physician heal thyself so to speak.

The compensation of CEOs has nothing to do with this discussion. Personally I think that many CEOs are over compensated, but that has no relevance to my opinion on public employee pensions. Just because the CEO of Chevon makes 30 million doesn't provide justification to jack up pension benefits. That's like saying that because some people commit murder we shouldn't bother to prosecute lesser crimes.

In answer to Leslie, retirement age is an important factor in determining the cost of pension benefits. The longer an employee works the more that will be contributed into the system on their behalf, and, conversely, they will be drawing benefits for a shorter period of time. Each plan differs, but adjusting the retirement age can have a big impact on the actuarial calculations. California has very generous public employee pensions relative to other states, including a relatively young retirement age. Most public employee pension plans allow retirement at age 55, with public safety as early as age 50. Moving the retirement age up to 60 would likely result in a substantial cost savings.

Plus we shouldn't forget that many public employee pension plans were made more generous beginning in the late 1990s under the assumption that stock market returns could provide extra benefits at little or no additional cost. The reality is that those pension enhancements ended up being substantially more expensive than advertised, which included not only increased benefits but an earlier retirement age. It wasn't that long ago that the typical goverment pension in California was 2 percent at 60.

Actually CEO compensation has a direct bearing on the conversation. STRS and PERS each have investment portfolio's. When they make money on stocks and achieve high rates of returns it lowers the unfunded liabilities. If that 30 million had gone into a stock buyback, or dividend or other investment, it would have benefitted the shareholders, including the pensions. Also, no one said to "Jack up pension benefits", that sounds like hysteria. The conversation is how to fund the current system and the promises that were made. Try to remain calm BubbaK, take a deep breath and count to 10.

Universal Health Care (or rather a basic lifetime medical coverage package) would go a long way to cutting state pension costs. Another way to cut costs would be to offer pensioners a reverse mortgage-type of arrangement where a retiree and the Fund would swap title for lifetime housing, in exchange for a reduced cash benefit to the retiree. A third way to reduce costs to the State is to negotiate a reduction in cash benefits in exchange for adding public employees back into the SocSec system (the assumption being most would take the option because they'd end up receiving more benefits).

I am calm. And the conversation is not just about funding existing obligations but also about whether current public employee pension benefits make fiscal sense. I'd like to leave this world a better place for my children and grandchildren instead of making reckless decisions and handing them the bill.

Adding public employees back to the Social Security system will have limited benefit. First of all, many public employees already belong to the system and already receive their pension benefits in addition to Social Security. For those that don't belong to Social Security they also don't currently pay into the system. I would bet that those employees have no desire to be taxed for SSI payroll deductions since Social Security doesn't pay very well but the relative payroll deduction is pretty high compared to their much more generous pension plans.

bubba

I too don't want to pass our children the bill. this is why securing pensions now are so important, otherwise millions of kids will have to pay for their parents because people like you wanted to give firefighters, cops, and teachers the pensions of office clerks.

Leslie

Does CAPC think Richman's pension plans represent the "common good"?

Once again: Social Security is NOT a pension plan. It is tax that funds a public safety net. Our fathers and grandfathers understood that because they had gone through things that hopefully none of us or our children ever will ever have to deal with: the collapse of the world economy and its effects not just employment, but chances for human survival. At the time, my father told me that its real purpose was to prevent a rebellion by displaced workers that could have resulted in a revolution like NAZI Germany or Bolshevik Russia experienced. For that reason even with reservations by some, it was generally seen as necessary at the time.

Today, besides government, I believe that non-profits (churches, institutions, etc.) do not have to pay the employer share of the withholding contribution into that program although I believe that their employees do have to withhold. Any tax experts out there that know who know for sure?

Perhaps, the notion of a public safety net to which large chunks of the public do not have to contribute is something we all need to have reasonable discussion about especially in view of the demographic challenges that longer life spans and an aging nation are presenting.

And then, there is the financial disaster that is called the healthcare system . . .

We need to talk together - and not shout - if we are going to get started on solving these problems.

Wasn't Neal Andrews the Ventura Councilman that supported P6, the failed sales tax increase?

I have never argued that police officer, firefighters, or teachers should be given the pensions of office clerks. But I also don't understand why any public employees should be entitled to pensions equal to 90% or more of pay. Pension matters continually skirts this issue or throws out tangents about running into burning buildings and such. But the basic issue remains. Why should any public servant receive full pay at retirement? Is it fair to taxpayers, most of whom work well into their sixties, to have to pay for a system where public employees are retiring on full pay as early as age 50?

And don't give me this B.S. that we can't question the benefits of teachers, police officers, or firefighters. A decade ago police officers and firefighters with 30 years on the job retired with 60 percent pay. What was so bad about that? But now we are trying to rationalize a a 50% hike in pension benefits. Meanwhile our local communities now have to push for special taxes to fund public safety. Little wonder when we have dramatically increased their salaries and benefits. What I don't see is how increasing pension benefits makes my community safer. It seems that our community was pretty safe when they were retiring at just 60% pay.

I would also argue that the heavy burden of funding these pension plans actually hurts education and public safety. The high cost of these benefits prevents local and state government from being able to fully staff positions because of the high cost of benefits. We have also made the pensions so lucrative that many of our veteran officers are retiring early because it makes no sense for them to continue working beyond their early fifties.

bubba

just what are you really saying when you wrote this?

"So you have to ask yourself, is it reasonable for taxpayers to be supporting a pension plan for public employees that far exceeds anything available to most people in the private sector. Is it fair for public employees to retire as early as age 50 when private sector pension plans typically require workers to remain in the work force much longer, with most people not eligible for social security benefits until age 62."

you would either be saying smaller private sector plans need to be the same as the public sector or the public sector needs to be the same with smaller private sector plans?

I'd like to know Barbra Williamson's thoughts on public employee pensions, and specifically whether she believes that pension plans like 3 percent at 50 are good public policy.

Dear Pensions matter-
CAPC does not have an official position at this point. It certainly appears a great topic for a public forum, though. Informed decisions and rational problem solving vs line-in-the-sand knee-jerk responses? That's what it's all about.

Leslie:

So, are you saying CAPC will not be supporting Keith Richman's pension policies or have not yet supported his pension policies?

Being the only state assemblyman on your list, I find it strange that his number one policy right now is not being taken up by the centrists at all.

Since Bubba asked Barbra...

I want to ask Leslie, Katie, and Donna Prenta if they personally support Keith Richman's pension proposals.

Seems like your getting closer to more than 50% of the advisory committee with just a few more names.

Are there any public employee members on the centrists advisory board?

Pensions Matter, I personally support a change to our pension system for public employees because it will bankrupt the state. Until there is actual legislation to weigh in on, I can't comment on any actual written proposals. I like what Keith has to say though - he isn't afraid to talk about problems and the current pension systm is a problem.

I don't know the work history of everyone on the board so am not sure if there are any public employees. We are looking for community leaders so if we have a community leader that is also a public employee, we would be very interested. Feel free to send the names of likely candidates my way or if you think you would be a good candidate, contact me at KatieTeague@verizon.com and I'll send you the business plan, etc.

People in STRS and PERS do not want to go into Social Security because they currenly have much more stable and better funded pension systems. Social Security has all its money in government bonds paying 4%. STRS made 15.67% last year and has assets of over 160 billion to fund their pensions. PERS made 10.60% last year.

I feel that I do not have enough information to make an intelligent informed opinion on this subject. I would want to see the actual numbers and not someone else's spin on the numbers. Numbers like words have a way of being spun every which way depending on the different perspectives of each group.

The important thing to do is gather all the actual data, not what the press reports but actual legislative analysis then hear all sides to how this affects parties.

Katie, maybe we could have the non-partisan legislative analyst Elizabeth Hill give a presentation to CAPC. I went to a community leaders meeting that Dr. Richman hosted with Ms. Hill as the presenter and I found her to be quite objective and neutral.

I have met with legislative analyst in the past when I was researching funding issues when I was on the Mental Health Board and found them to be extremely helpful in assisting me in finding financial data and reports.

The treasurer for my campaign works for the GAO and I would like to ask him how to find more data as well.

The number don't lie. I'm all for a presentation to lay out the information on this issue. We need to get past the emotional arguments and political rhetoric and just look at the facts.

"Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

Fact is the corruption of the private sector means that people in secure pension plans do not want their 401ks looted by the private sector. Ask someone who worked for Enron or Worldcom how thier 401ks look.

Sorry Bubba, I totally missed your question. No, I don't support 3% at 50.

Not BubbaKidd:
Not all corporations are "corrupt".. My 401K in the private sector has grown at a very steady rate, but I keep an eye on it and ask questions if something looks wrong.

Katie,
I like what you and Leslie have done so far with CAPC and I'm a centrist Republican, but I really think unless your group has taken a position on Public Pensions you not pound on this issue. Your giving people the idea that CAPC has taken a position. My understanding is you guys haven't. I think you should get off that bang wagon and discuss other issues such as re-apportionment and potential candidates that you would support. I like Keith Richmann but hopefully this group wasn't formed just to promote his ideas on Public Pensions. I happen to have a brother who is a Firefighter and there are many of us who can agree on centrist issues I just don't think this is one of them. In addition you will get little or no support (Membership) from Democrats
if you make this your sound to arms. I admire what you and Leslie are doing but I think you need to get on with other issues. Good Luck.

I have never been under the impression that CAPC intend's to be Keith Richman's vessel to commandeer.

Keith and I have had our difference of opinions in the past and I have called/confronted him on issues that I did not agree with.

In my opinion the purpose of CAPC is that we work with a diverse group to find that middle ground and make some progress solving societies problems.

I can't imagine that all of the advisory council will agree on every issue. Maybe we will need a smoking tent.

Fair and Balanced,

I'm not sure why you think CAPC has taken a position on the pension issue - it hasn't because as I have stated before there is no legislation on which to take a position. This thread is focusing on pension reform - it would be nice to get it back onto CAPC but thus is the nature of blogs and threads.

I hope you have a copy of our business plan because that really lays out the foundation for our organization. We will be focusing on local candidates and statewide government reform to include redistricting and open primaries.

donna

Do you support Dr. Richman's plan to increase the retirement age to 65 for non-security public employees and introduce a 401(k) to new public employees?

Do you think that is a "mainstream" idea that represents the "public good" or a right wing one?

katie,

Polling suggests immigration, economy/jobs, education, and rising health cares costs are all at the top of Californians' list as major concerns.

Pension policy touches 3 of the top 4 issues on the Californian's mind. Do you think it's more important to develop sound centrist positions on top issues like pensions, the economy, immigration, and so on or stick to a few republican "lite" issues?

Keith Richman: Retiring at 65 could fix state pension mess

By Dr. Keith Richman - Special To The Bee
Published 2:00 am PDT Sunday, March 11, 2007

The cost of keeping the promise of generous retirement benefits for state and local government employees is starting to break California taxpayers and government agencies. Elected officials hoping to avoid accountability for these massive public debts have mustered only a timid response to this growing fiscal crisis.

In recent years, many state and local governments increased retiree benefits with little public notice or concern. As a result, some public employees retire at 55 with very generous benefits packages that sometimes include lifetime family medical coverage worth more than $500,000. In fact, California leads the nation with a state employee pension benefit 24 percent better than the next highest state, according to the state Department of Personnel Administration. These additional years of comfortable leisure come at time when the private-sector baby boom generation is working and living longer.

The California Legislative Analyst estimates the retiree health care debt for state and local government agencies may exceed $140 billion. In addition, state and local government pension debts may exceed $50 billion. Estimates are that Sacramento County has a $300 million retiree health care debt and the city of Sacramento may owe up to $400 million. These huge past-due bills must be paid by future taxpayers from future budgets with money that will be needed for education, health care, transportation and public safety priorities.

But instead of negotiating a more fiscally responsible retiree benefit package for new employees, most government leaders are ignoring the growing crisis or hoping another stock market boom will help their problems go away. Few politicians want to confront the powerful public employee unions.

Clearly, the first step to getting out of any financial hole is to stop digging. Although retirement benefit levels for current employees and retirees are protected by law, there is no reason why new employees should be offered the same unsustainable retirement benefits. Indeed, the savings from lower benefits for new employees can help pay for the unfunded retiree benefits debts owed to current employees.

One simple solution that would reduce both pension and retiree health care costs is increasing the retirement age to 65 for new, nonsafety public employees. Experts have told me that conforming government retirement ages to Medicare eligibility would reduce pension costs by at least 50 percent (10 more years of payments into the pension fund per employee, 10 fewer years of payments out and 10 more years of interest) and retiree health care costs by about one third (providing only Medicare supplement coverage).

It is important to note the physical demands of police and firefighter jobs make 55 a responsible retirement age for public safety employees. Indeed, 55 was the common public safety retirement age in California before 2000 and remains so for most of the nation.

To protect other state and local budget priorities, we must establish a responsible statewide cap on public employee retirement benefits that is fair to employees and fair to taxpayers. Any additional compensation needed to attract and retain employees should come from salaries that are easy to understand and are fully paid when services are provided.

During the past decade, state and local officials have been unable to find a retirement package that fairly balances the interests of employees, employers and taxpayers. Raising the retirement ages for new public employees would establish a reasonable limit for public generosity and protects future budget priorities. There is simply no defensible reason that clerks, diesel mechanics, cooks and bureaucrats should retire 10 years earlier than their private-sector counterparts.

It is my hope that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's commission on public employee retirement benefits will propose legislation to increase the retirement age for new employees. Yet reducing these debts and controlling these costs are too important to be left to reluctant legislators beholden to special interests. A citizens initiative is needed to spur action on a fiscally responsible solution and to serve as a financial backstop should political leaders fail to deliver one of their own.

Richman's solution loads the entire burden of cutting state costs on one group of public sector workers, weakening the cohesiveness of their unions and doing nothing to force the state to start cutting costs. It sounds reasonable except for the fact that the entire union worker community wil oppose this sort of solution with all they've got. that makes Richman's solution a politically devisive one that has the same net effect of the the sort of extremist politics he claims to be against. Now, I know Richman's NOT an extremist so what's up? Has he made a mistake? Is he holding this issue out as a rallying flag for some other agenda?

Solutions need to be across the board include some give and take from ALL parties or they won't work.

All CAPC members hold different opinions, including Keith Richman. CAPC is focusing on local candidates, redistricting and open primaries.

I believe Keith has started different group that is focusing on the pension issue but don't know much about it. I'll send him an e-mail and see if there is a website going because clearly people are interested in the pension issue. It is beyond the current scope of CAPC as detailed in the widely avaiable business plan.

I heard back from Keith and he has started an organization focused on public employee pension and retiree health reform. The website is currently being built and the address will be CaliforniaPensionReform.com. The organization is named the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility. So for all of you interested in pension reform, I would suggest you bookmark his new site and check it from time to time.

Katie,
Move on with your comments. Why does Richman get to post his piece. You also give people the notion CAPC have discussed this issue. Well I'm a Deputy Sheriff and I couldn't support your group if the group has this opinion on Public Pensions.

Fair and Balanced,
First, Keith Richman's piece "gets" to be posted (by whom I don't know) because Brian Dennert is all about un-fettered open civil debate.
CAPC believes in open discussion of all issues relevant to the public good. We can't cure the world alone, but believe that all people in Ventura County, as well as the state deserve the best representatives in government, and the best information when it comes to decision making as we look for rational solutions to our problems.
What we are not about is allowing any single issue agenda control our government.
There's no such thing as too informed or too educated.

When you say deserve the best representatives in government does that mean regardless of party?

Fair and Balanced,

I think I have said it a dozen different ways. I'll say it one more time just in case it wasn't clear. CAPC does not have a position on pension reform nor will it unless it is something that the Advisory Council decides to tackle.

I am sure that as a Deputy Sheriff you have a great sensitivity for fact finding, what makes a case, etc. CAPC does not have an opinion on pension reform. Those are the facts of the matter.

Now let me ask you a question - do you think our community would benefit from redistricting? I personally think it is the number one issue that is negatively impacting Ventura County and the rest of California. No legislator is going to support an independent commission to determine district lines - would you support such an initiative? I hope so because it isn't going to happen unless the public decides to make it happen. Is this something you would personally support and get involved in making it happen?

Someone please clarify: Did Keith Richman post this article from the Sacramento Bee or did someone else do it on his behalf?

Harold, Someone else posted it anonymously.

Harold, I forgot to answer the rest of your question. It was not done on his behalf but more as a F.Y.I. to the blog by someone who holds the thought of pension reform near and dear to his heart.

The CAPC2007 is a great idea! But I think it may not go far enough. Perhaps it is time to go forward in this great experiment in democracy, which is our Constitutional Republic, without political parties, especially in those offices which are "representative".

I have some ideas on how to proceed with this next stage in our political evolution. I hope to be sharing these with you in this forum and other venues in the near future.

In the meantime, if you are going to read only ONE political book this year, you MUST read this! The complete title (which says it all) is:

"WAR ON THE MIDDLE CLASS: How the Government,
Big Business, and Special Interest Groups, are Waging War on the American Dream and HOW TO FIGHT BACK"

WARNING!! This book may cause extreme anger and rage. Do NOT read in one sitting. Do not read when in the vicinity of major corporations, their corporate officers, or the majority of your elected officials, as these situations may cause you to go ."postal".

NOTE: Specific reference is made to the deeds of both Barbara Boxer and Elton Gallegly..one positive and one negative...but you will have to read it to find out who is who! (wink)

PS. Is it still possible to get on this Committee? When is the next meeting? I will be there if possible

The CAPC2007 is a great idea! But I think it may not go far enough. Perhaps it is time to go forward in this great experiment in democracy, which is our Constitutional Republic, without political parties, especially in those offices which are "representative".

I have some ideas on how to proceed with this next stage in our political evolution. I hope to be sharing these with you in this forum and other venues in the near future.

In the meantime, if you are going to read only ONE political book this year, you MUST read this! The author is Lou Dobbs, CNN anchor and managing editor at "Lou Dobb's Tonight". The complete title (which says it all) is:

"WAR ON THE MIDDLE CLASS: How the Government,
Big Business, and Special Interest Groups, are Waging War on the American Dream and HOW TO FIGHT BACK"

WARNING!! This book may cause extreme anger and rage. Do NOT read in one sitting. Do NOT read when in the vicinity of major corporations, their corporate officers, or the majority of your elected officials, as these situations may cause you to go "postal".

NOTE: Specific reference is made to the deeds of both Barbara Boxer and Elton Gallegly..one positive and one negative...but you will have to read it to find out who is who! (wink)

PS. Is it still possible to get on this Committee? When is the next meeting? I will be there if possible.

I love how trying to save the state from bankruptcy, and having some state employees retire at 65, like everyone else, is a "republican 'lite' issue." Right, so in your words, Pensions Matter, is the "Democrat" alternative to let these things ballon out of control and just try to suck up the money through taxes?

I think Owen should sign an agreement that he will not accept Social Security because it is an underfunded system and by one day accepting Social Security Owen will be sucking up our tax money!

If I sign such a pledge, can I then not pay the 15% of my paycheck that I've been giving? Or in standard style, do you want to take my money and give me nothing in return?

I already assume that Social Security won't be there for my generation, in large part because of the social and fiscal irresponsibility of the Boomers. However, is it really such a radical idea to propose that people save for thier own retirement, instead of relying on the government to take them through 20-30 years of non-working life.

katie

Do you think passing meaningful redistricting like CAPC is trying to do would make it easier to pass Dr. Richman's pension plan?

Isn't the most powerful group in Sacramento public employee unions?

CAPC, whether they want to or not, is making it easier for Keith Richman to pass pension reform.

I am a member of the advisory committete member of CAPC, I want to clearly state the following:

I am one individual who does not believe in any plan put forth by anyone that tampers with the status quo of state employee pension plans without the free and full consent those who are affected by it. It is called collective bargaining and labor and management have been successfully using it in this nation for a long time.

The postings about public pensions by some members of CAPC or those purporting to be members of CAPC are strictly personal opinions of those individuals only. Unfortunately, they have only served to create a misconception of CAPC’s agenda. The subject has NEVER been discussed by the CAPC advisory committee NOR is it an appropriate one per our mission statement or business plan. Our targeted objectives focus on the workings of the election system vis-a-vis a fair and competitive plan for the election process such as open primaries, redistricting, etc.

I did not join CAPC for any other reason and would not remain a part of it if it strayed from that course.

For the record: there are many voters of every stripe who believe that both open primaries and the drawing of more logical and competitive districts would benefit government work by making all office holders more accountable to their full constituencies. Most people I know see that as a worthwhile goal. It would help to rid government of some elected officials who are nothing more than entrenched mediocrity. They do nothing to really serve or benefit the people of the districts that they represent - sometimes for decades - because "safe" district boundaries virtually guarantee their reelection. It is the leading cause of the neglect, arrogance, abuse and mindless extremism that sends rational, concerned citizens up the wall.

To “Pensions Matter”: Do I believe that fair, mutually beneficial redistricting will alter the present public pension system per any plan put forth by any politician? No, it would not. To believe so, one might as well claim that it might open the door to socialized medicine.

Proof? If the people of this state did not value highly the public employees that serve them they had ample opportunity to say to in the special election held in November 2005. Well-funded ballot propositions that were spearheaded by a governor who was riding high in the polls did not convince the voters of this state to turn against the teachers and other public workers upon whom they depend. The governor heard the message from the people loud and clear. I think other realistic politicians have as well.

The people have had their say – and now I have had mine!

If you want more information on the work we are trying to do and would like to help us do it, I recommend that you contact Katie Teague or Leslie Cornejo.

A clear and compelling analysis. Thank you, Frank!

I guess Frank Dantona is the new voice of CAPC as Donna, Leslie, and Katie have all but disappeared and don't want to stand up for the Richman plan anymore because people on the left are probably sending them emails.

I think pensions need serious rework and that has nothing to do with "collective bargaining" Frank. Collective bargaining is what got our state in this disaster to begin with. Keith Richman is the only person to stand up for taxpayers to ensure they are actually getting a fair shake.

Let's all beat the dead horse!

Frank,

What do you think should have a priority - redistricting or open primaries? I've heard that there are some that want to attach a modification of term limits to any redistricting legislation in an effort to make sure it doesn't happen.

I think redistricting should be of utmost importance for two reasons: 1) it is the biggest battle because the incumbents will stand to lose and 2) it is the only way to bring some sense of reality back to the offices.

THe numbers are shocking - there has been no substantial changeover in Assembly or State Senate seats for years - no wonder California has become a stagnant state.

Open primaries must have been effective because it was eliminated within just a couple of years.

frank

thanks for taking a more positive approach to public pensions. I do think you're being naive that redistricting will not lead to changes to the public pension system.

Changes to the make-up of the districts will lead more positive opportunities for Republicans, which will lead to more reforms to pensions, abortion, taxes, gun control, health care, auto insurance and so on.

I guess I'm not sure why a Dantona is working with a group trying to undermine the democratic majority in the legislature?

Katie just said California is a stagnant state. Do you think the Democrats in the legislature are overseeing stagnation?

Katie,
I actually thought about joining this group since I don't want Strickland, Osborne or any of his idiots. But it's apparent you guys in CAPC can't get off Public Pensions. I agree with Frank Dantona and I'm not even in a Public Pension. But like the Central Comm. you guys have no idea how to really work for reform. I'm a lifetime Republican but I side with Frank Dantona on the Pension issue. This appears to be no more than a Keith Richman group and although on some issues I agree with Richman he's all wet on this issue. Dantona's right if the Govenator can't get the vote a nobody like Richman sure can't. I don't care about your business plan or mission statement you need to address real issues that centrists can agree on. I'm very disappointed that after Frank Dantona writes an intelligent summary on the issue one of your peolpe now say or so Dantona is now the head of
CAPC. If your group is going to ever get moving and bring in Moderate Republicans and Democrats get off this issue. Your Wrong and Yes you are beating a dead horse.

Frank

Has CAPC met to discuss Waste Management dump expansion? Katie and Barbra (both advisory members) have been talking about it and was wondering if any discussion on that part of the platform had been discussed?

Do you think CAPC should come out on local issues if they intend to endorse the local candidates?

I hope CAPC takes a tough position on Waste. That's a real issue we can do something about. I hope Katie and the Advisory council will start dealing with this issue.

Expansion,

CAPC will not be taking on single issues like Waste Management, LNG, SOAR, etc. We will be involved in ranking (not endorsing) local candidates and government reform such as redistricting and open primaries.

There are some anti-CAPC people that would like to make pension reform one of our issues, but it isn't. I suspect the anti-CAPC people are the same ones who like polarized politics and are terrified that people in the community now have an option. That's why they keep hammering on pension reform and CAPC - trying to make an issue where there is none. And when that doesn't work, personal attacks will soon follow. Fortunately, I think most of the CAPC Advisory Council and leaders are immune and will continue on their path to try to rectify the polarization that is occurring with our local politics.

I think it is good that we are obviously getting people worried. We have people in Sacramento worried - both Dems and Reps. That means we are on the right track.

We are in the process of developing our website (www.PoliticalCentrists.com) and will be posting information regarding our positions on redistricting and open primaries. We will also have candidate information, campaign finance disclosure links, information on the various slate mailers that are available, the candidates that are behind them, etc. It will have a lot of good information - information that can't be found anywhere. I'm really excited about it.

I love Brian Dennert's blog but it does have its weaknesses as far as getting out facts. CAPC will have the luxury of being able to post its business plan on its own website. In the meantime, if you would like to get a copy, please e-mail me at KatieTeague@verizon.net

Pensions Matter:

I am NOT working to undermine anything NOR do I consider California a stagnant state.

I DO believe in civil discussion and debate between people with varied viewpoints should and will be possible if people make the effort for it. Sometimes mutually beneficial ideas come out of that process, but you do not know until you start talking with - and not shouting at - each other.

Subjects like drawing district lines and conducting primaries have been discussed and argued as long as I remember. I see nothing wrong with discussing and debating them and working to see what serve the voters best. No one in any state seems to have come up with a viable solution yet that is mutually agreeable or goes much beyond the tradition approach of "to the victors go the spoils" or some variation on it. Given that last fact, open primaries at least offer some hope to voters to select better candidates. Candidates would have to have broad based appeal and a wider more reasoned approach to providing what is important to the people that elect them. I suppose one word for these candidates could be "centrist".

California, as it was in 1849, is the place to be. Just one good example is a look at the innovative energy technology industry that is here and growing. These new technology companies will serve to free this nation from a foreign policy that binds us to foreign suppliers of fossil fuels whose national aims are anything, but democratic. At the same time, this important new business will yield real gold for the citizens of this state as it grows to reach its huge potential.

To my mind, this is just one example of California positioned for the future and there is bi-partisan government support here to do that. This is also true here with the regard to environmentalism and other areas for which California is the cutting edge. Finally, we have a diversity of ideas, peoples and achievements that provides huge benefits to everyone and that you will not find anywhere else in the country.

If Dorothy were here she might say "Toto, I don't think were in Kansas anymore - and thank goodness for that!"

Geez - I take care of work and the family business for a day and all heck breaks loose on the blog. As much as I enjoy blogging and discussion of issues, I DO have a real life too!

I'll tell you why I personally believe in CAPC. I know too many people - neighbors, friends, clients and colleagues through my numerous activities, that feel disconnected from the government that regulates us. I believe that the "regular folks" that enjoy or suffer the affects of the legislation passed have value and should be engaged in the process.

If CAPC educates people about the political process, the candidates and sponsors informational forums I will believe we will be a success. Too often current politics are controlled by a few powerful candidates who are not accountable to the public (unless they commit a BIG crime) because the districts are fixed. The people don't believe they have a voice.

Decline to State voters are growing in numbers because they feel disenfranchised. They need a source for political information and CAPC will reach out to them. CAPC is non-partisan, not bi-partisan. We invite anyone to join that is hungry for information and wants to participate in rational discussion of our government.

As you will learn from my bio in the soon-to-be-live CAPC website, I love to travel. I love to see the world, study people, language and history. But more than anything, I love to come back to California. We have our issues, but there is no better place on earth.

To CAPC, congrats on getting the brightest Dantona on your board. I think there are changes that need to be made to the pension system in order for it to work, but those changes need to be only for those employees hired after another agreement is signed. That agreement should be discussed by both sides and a fair arrangement that promotes a healthy budget and takes care of the future for our public employees who give of themselves. CAPC can take up this issue, but if you are true centrists you will look for a fair compromise - not a Richman crushing of public employees and not a liberal give all employees everything.

To Dantona Playbook, just come out and say "Keith Richman is the best, rah, rah, rah!", don't impugn the CAPC or Frank Dantona. The Richman plan is partisan, he needs to look for a non-partisan compromise if he wants it to succeed and if he ever wants to get elected to office again. Though the chances of getting re-elected with this plan are slim and none. Don't blame CAPC for not pushing your agenda, because it seems like a one-sided agenda.

To Pension Matters, I think a redistricted state would not necessarily affect the course of the state as drastically as you think. A more balanced district will bring you more balanced elected officials who won't go crazy left or right with their opinions and will look to solve problems. I think you would see some changes, but to balance this state out some change is needed on both sides of the aisle.

To Katie, Leslie and Frank, keep to the mission and find the title of your group, "centrist". The center is where most of us live and breathe and we hope for representatives who will follow in that same mold. I hope the CAPC is not a front for some other cause, because you have a real chance to make something happen here. Leslie is right, people are becoming more and more detached from parties as the parties grow further and further from us. We'll never eliminate the parties, but wouldn't it be wonderful if we did. Imagine voting your conscience rather than your team.

Leslie,

You are the Chair of CAPC. It appears CAPC's main purpose is electing people regardless of party, yet you are still in the leadership of the VCRCC.

The VCRCC's only purpose is to elect Republicans. How can you square both positions?

That appears to be hypocritical.

hyp·o·crite:
"a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements."

I'm sure Lelsie will speak for herself (and for the CAPC) and correct me if I'm wrong but it appears this thread has generated some notion or other that the CAPC is designed as an alternative political party, rivalling the Dems & Repubs. I never saw it as such. My understanding is the CAPC is a gathering place for Dems, Repubs, Greens, Purples, PolkaDots and DTSs who feel that strict adherance to their present party's line is NOT in the best interest of the community.

In this gathering place there seems to be no requirement that you give up your previous political affiliation, only that you are prepared to enter into political debate with an open mind and be willing to acknowledge the better candidate, regardless of their party label.

GS & Jack Burden,

I think you two have pretty well pegged CAPC. I hope you consider joining us in our efforts.

Voter,

Get over it. As Frank Dantona says - We aren't in Kansas anymore. If you think Leslie can't do a good job because she belongs to CAPC, then you should exclude anyone who belongs to unions, charitable organizations or political PACS that include non-Republicans, etc. Otherwise it is you who is being the Hypocrite.

First, open primaries were already found unconstitutional because they violated a party's right of free association. The case was 8-1 against CAPC's position.

Is the Supreme Court wrong? Is CAPC hiring constitutional lawyers to try and change their minds?

Interesting articles a couple of weeks ago on Democratic speaker Nunez. He wanted to present a redistricting plan with a independent commission, but democrats in the House of Representatives basically said stop trying to undermine our slim national majority against George W Bush.

California Congressional Democrats are already proposing a 10 million dollar campaign against redistricting. Not too mention the DNC might have access to a little money and won't take to kindly to someone taking out their majority in congress.

CAPC may not outwardly say they are pro-Bush, but they are supporting policies that help his minority in the House of Representatives.

And the idea that pensions wouldn't change if the composition of representatives did change is naive. The current pension system is supported by the current majorities. To change those majorities would open the door to pensions reform like Keith Richman is proposing.

Ok, for gs & Katie I'll try and talk slowly.

Leslie is an officer in the VCRCC. Their mission is to only elect Republicans. I think the members take an oath to carry out the mission.

Leslie is chair of CAPC. Their mission is to elect regardless of party.

Does anyone else see a conflict here? Or will Leslie only support Republicans?

Yes,

I am a Richman fan. He's taking on tough issues that no one wants to talk about. I'm really surprised some in here are running away from his agenda as I believe it is best for the state and is pretty middle of the road.

I do support redistricting because it will close the representation gap between Republicans and Democrats.

If you polled the public, people generally hold Republican viewpoints, such as low taxes, anti-immigration, and tough on crime. The problem is the districts are drawn in such a way that democrats can pay lip service to those issues and rely on the numbers to keep getting re-elected.

I see CAPC as a stealthy way to close the gap between Republican representation and democratic. Same goes for the House of Reps. I'd love to see California in play on the decisions of who controls the House.

In terms of collective bargaining and pensions, I don't think collective bargaining should apply to public employees. I think if they strike you have the right to fire'em on the spot because they serve the public.

Voter, Since you are obviously on the VCRCC, would you care to bring the rest of us up to speed on the status of the ethics complaints that have been filed against your organization? Is it true that the DA is looking at your organization and I've heard the AG also has some interest?

Your statement on the mission of the VCRCC is nothing like what is posted on the VCRCC website. Your statement on the mission of CAPC is nothing like what is stated in their business plan. And you didn't answer the previous question if VCRCC officers were allowed to be part of unions, political PACS, charitible organizations, etc. that may have non-Republicans.

Is the VCRCC general meetings open to all Republicans? Can I attend the next meeting? If so, when and where is it? I'll ask Ms. Conejo your questions and also ask if union members, etc. are allowed to serve. I'd also like an update on all of the financial irregularites that have occured with donated money (mine included).

Rather than trying to remove one of the few remaining ethical people in your organization, I would focus more on trying to regain some semblance of integrity. I'd start with removing your current Chair and anyone having anything to do with the associated financial irregularities.

California Professional Firefighters and the California State Firefighters Association urged a "no" vote on redistricting during the Governor's failed special election.

Enough said!!!

Geez:

What I'm watching on this blog represents the disaster that is centrism.

Remember, "there's nothing in the middle of the road, but yellow stripes and dead armadillos." Jim Hightower.

Playbook,

Your right on the issues you specified the state would be more Republican. If you polled social issues; pro-choice, equal rights for people of all facets of life and environmental regulation the state would be more Democrat. In fact, the reason the Democrats are in power is people want government out of their lives more than they want someone who is going to reduce taxes by .00025% or take a criminal off the street for an additional 5.5 hours.

That is why a group like the CAPC is important we need to move moderate Dems and moderate Reps in to the Fed, State and local levels to move to a place where we can make changes rather than, as Frank Dantona said, "winner take all" (ie; ban all immigration or allow all immigrants - moderates will find balance that won't undercut the earning power of Joe Citizen).

Take off the blinders and look to moderates to solve problems and hopefully if Richman wants to succeed he will move back to the middle, rather than embracing the far right.

Who is playbook?

I will tell you that being a part of CAPC will not be boring, and no one will be served Koolaid.

CAPC will not be endorsing candidates. It will be rating them based on their demonstration to support the mission statement of CAPC.

Balance, moderation, centered = healthy government. This is why we will use the fulcrum as one of our symbols (not just because we want to attract engineers!)

Maytag or Katie, whichever you prefer,

Since no one has offered to answer my question, let's discuss your post.

Does anyone want to argue that the mission of the VCRCC is to elect Republicans? I can't speak to it personally, but that seems likely.

Katie, Leslie, Frank, et al have stated that they want to change the way California does business. They propose redistricting, open primaries, etc. They talk of accomplishing this by helping to elect centrists. If I'm in error please correct me.

And Leslie, if you're not going to help people get elected what good are you? Do you honestly think that a website rating will sway the voters? You have stated your organization is a PAC. Are you going to spend money to support your candidates? If not how will you effect your vision?

I think I agree with a previous poster, you have to stand for something. Being comfortably in the middle is no recipe for winning.

I am a Lincoln (civil rights), Teddy Roosevelt (envoronmentalist), Reagan (peace through strength and an optimist) Republican. Lately, that makes me a "moderate."
Voter - what do you think of the new initiative for redistricting proposed by Ted Costa and supported by Common Cause and Voices of Reform?
If we are to have no impact, why do you seem to be stressing?

Leslie,

I don't know how I can make this any clearer, but I'll try:

Is CAPC just another front group for your Republican agenda?

Do you intend to help Democratic candidates and DTS candidates?

Is CAPC just going to rubber stamp the VCRCC endorsements?

We'd all like a clear, concise answer to these three questions.

Voter,

1. No, CAPC is not a Republican front group.

2. CAPC will be ranking ALL candidates per the mission statement/business plan, regardless of party affiliation. Whether or not this is a "help" or not is probably in the eyes of the beholder. If candidates do not wish to be ranked, they will receive a Not Ranked type designation.

3. CAPC will rubberstamp no endorsements - period. We are a non-partisan organization.

If you would like a copy of the business plan, please feel free to contact me at KatieTeague@verizon.net.

Voter,

I'm sorry - I just realized that your post was to Leslie. I'm sure she will be checking the blog later on today or tomorrow and will respond.

Katie, the CAPC's sounding more and more like a hybrid between the LofWV and a Slate Mailer group.
On the one hand you won't endorse candidates but you will put their names on your mailers if they so desire?

C'mon! Be the king makers and make it the CAPC's business to ACTIVELY WORK to get the best candidates elected. If you don't then no candidate's gonna feel any need to give more than lip service to the term, "Moderate". Sure, you'll get everyone from Strom Thurmond's ghost to Lil Kim SAYING they're for moderation but the reality is we'll just see more of the same elected.

Seems like CAPC is going weak in the knees.

Their first press release said they were a "non-partisan political association that supports candidates," and that "CAPC will promote the election of moderate candidates regardless of party affiliation."

Looks like things have changed.

Predictable.

gs - Give us time. We could have made a bigger splash last fall when we first formed, but decided to take the thoughtful, long-term approach. If you believe in our mission statement, come join us.

voter - I suspect you are trying for a "gotcha" and try to remove me from the Central Committee. If you are a Central Committee member, call me directly and don't be afraid to give me your real name. I would be happy to discuss your concerns in the appropriate venue. It's already been discussed ad nauseum, believe me.
Does the Central Committee really want to spend its time and energy trying to remove the bilingual businesswoman married to a South American (legal) immigrant representing Oxnard? What message does that send the public? Shouldn't a party be spending time recruiting members rather than purging?

For a group that supposedly wants to end political "business as usual," you're sure doing a lot of bobing and weaving.

It seems like you're mostly spinning, not straight talking.

Leslie!

I will join you. I understand the coughs and hiccups that accompany a start up like the CAPC but as long as the organization leaves the door open to healthy debate, remains flexible to change and is prepared to help get the best elected then I can work within. Please send the pertinent info to gary@CalUnion.com

So, if a candidate is far right or left and is very partisan instead of a low rating they can get an "unrated" score?

"Does the Central Committee really want to spend its time and energy trying to remove the bilingual businesswoman married to a South American (legal) immigrant representing Oxnard? What message does that send the public?"

To the GOP, Oxnard is just an inconsequential void between Camarillo and a flat of strawberries. Leslie, since they removed you as Chair, I'd say the answer is a resounding YES, they do want to spend their their time and energy attacking a bilingual businesswoman. The message is clear. Women and hispanics need not apply at the GOP. The sooner you accept that and move on, and quit pretending you can be a Republican and a Moderate in this county, the better.

Is CAPC playing the race card?

Leslie,

For years gerrymandered districts have damaged the representation of minority communities at the state and federal level. Is CAPC supporting more minority drawn districts?

If not, will you make the pledge to carve out about 35% of total representation in both state and federal districts for Hispanics?

Cornejo will support it as long as it's Republican.

Ask about her Republican Hispanic group.

Cornejo=VCRCC=Republican

With the exception of Leslie, about the only people left on the VCRCC are white and male. If they are female, they are Stepford Wives or work for the said white males. Even Audra doesn't speak for herself. I think Voter would like to have Leslie off the Central Committee because he/she is very scared.

Voter - I just went to the VCRCC website to see which one you might be and the group photo you have up is completely outdated. Let's have some truth in advertising. Half of the people shown have quit in disgust.

By the way, who is the Executive Director these days? I want to find out if the General Meetings are still open to Republicans.

It seems to me that voter is pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

It looks like CAPC is doing everything it can to avoid saying that they won't support non-Republicans.

Why not just tell us what CAPC intends to do in the upcoming elections. Sounds like Leslie and Katie are the ones trying to hide something.

Ron, if you think that's true then you should join the CAPC and help guide them in another direction.

All stats show that within five years VC will be a completely blue county, nothing the VCRCC or CAPC can do about it.

What color is DTS (Decline to State)? - the fastest growing voter block!

Voter has a legitimate point that hasn't quite been answered. Unfortunately, I am still rather ignorant on local politics. Leslie, in your view, what is the role of the VCRCC, and what is your role within it? Voter posits that its (and your) role is to promote Republican candidates. If so, does that not contradict the role of CAPC, which is to rank candidates regardless of party. Can you be fully committed to both groups?

Owen and voter are right.

I don't see how Leslie can bear allegence to both groups. There is no way that she can say on one hand that she will work to elect Republicans and on the other that she will work to elect moderates no matter what party. Unless, that is, we accept the possibility that in her world only Republicans can be moderates.

I guess there is always the possibility that Leslie is trying to dilute the work of one of the two organizations so as to make the other more effective.

So Leslie, are you planning to make CAPC Republican, or are you planning to reduce the effectiveness of the VCRCC?

We would all like these questions answered.

Again, who cares about the VCRCC or the CAPC? VC is turning blue and within 5 years there will not be an elected republican in this County. Bush has turned off the moderates and the hard core conservatives have all moved to San Berdoo or Idaho or down to Florida to pop pills with Rush Limbdrug.