Let me be the first to say that if all local Republicans are a members of the Central Committee, then we should have all have committee voting rights and be informed of committee meetings. It's a bogus argument to spend a lot of money on specific candidates without input from even the bonefide committee. Too bad they didn't spend the money more wisely, it cost them a few elections.

I suspect that either the Democratic majority will start taking advantage of the Prop. 34 loophole, or they will legislatively/judicially close it real quick.

And I'm not interested in betting on the outcome. I know the integrity level of some of the people involved. It isn't very high.

Wow Katie. That's telling it like it is. The Central Committee has been an embarrassment for several years, even though I respect several of its members; especially from the East County. The Foy election showed the ability of the Central Committee to circumvent the law, get massive contributions from billionaires and toxic polluters, and thumb its nose at the honest voters of the District. How very sad.
Surfs up. See you at the pier.

Despite the fact that I am the President of a Democratic organization, I have to say this:

In the California Democratic Party by-laws it stats that "any registered Democrat in the state of California is a member of the California Democratic Party." I do not doubt that this is for similar purposes.

NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT, JUST SAYING THAT'S HOW IT IS.

It IS very sad that we have to win elections by skirting AROUND the rules...Democrat or Republican, is that truly representative of the people?

Why not bet if you think it is so wrong? The money goes to a good cause?

Katie, Was I wrong on any of the background?

Would a member of the central committee disagree with any part of the background? I want to make sure I have my facts straight.

Maybe Brett Wagner could bet the $1 he has in cash on hand.

Brian, I'm not the right person to ask. I was never an elected member of the Central Committee. I was just a volunteer.

I know many of the elected members of the Republican Central Committee read your blog so maybe they will weigh in with any corrections. Or not.

"I am shocked! Shocked to learn that there is gambling going on this blog!"

(By the way, if I decide to bet, can I win the bet if I say it will be for a technical violation for which there is NO imposition of any penalty? Please post an answer soon as I am going over to The Blue Parrot this evening for a cup of coffee and a conversation with Mr. Ferrari.)

Sounds fair to me.

Brian,
I'm sure the powers that be will get around to investigating the VCRCC right after they figure out who made the attack calls against Steve Bennett. Those calls were illegal because they did not identify themselves and funds were spent that were not reported. Of course I'm not holding my breath. I think this is why we need a group to come in from outside of VC and do an investigation into the VCRCC to see if they violated the law, to find out who made those illegal calls (Since thousands were made I find it hard to believe they cannot be traced) and also to look into Strickland inc to see if behind the smoke there really is a fire or not. In terms of betting I will leave that up to the Stricklands, since they took millions from gambling interests in the last election (of course that is a fact that does not jive well with the CRA you would think, but then again, I doubt they care where the $$$ comes from).

Bubbo, how do you know there were funds spent that went unreported?

I'm sure that an investigation will eventually take place; however, the likelyhood of an actual fine or punishment is very little. Generally, when the organizations get fined or punished for doing something wrong, the fine gets reduced to next to nothing or thrown away with a slap on the hand.

Did I mention that I'm also on the VCDCC?

Heather, we can agree that a "don't do it again" is a reprimand.

Money?

Chuck Bell, the attorney for the California Republican Party, along with an attorney representing the Democratic Party took the "membership" issue all the way to the Supreme Court, and it was upheld. Political parties can communicate with those who are registered to vote in their party. They cannot use their funds to communicate with those of other parties, nor the declined-to-state.
What would get any party into trouble would be coordination between donors and candidates, by operating as an agent for the donor to circumvent campaign limits, who may have maxed out on the legal limit to donate directly to a candidate. A donor must "trust" that their funds wil be spent properly, but cannot direct those funds to any particular candidate.
This is how I generally understand the law and its intent.

So the fact that Foy contributors and supporters contributed $10,000's the same time $10,000's was spent on "membership communications" for Foy probably wouldn't look so good. Same with Kunicki.

I'm only interested to find out if this large, last minute influx of donor money is behind the county's latest decision to actively assist one of those donors by trashing its Knolls' density study and devising a new methedology of determining how many dwellings can be built per acre. By ignoring the Boards' 2004 instructions, of assessing the density based on current dwellings per legal parcel, county planners have dreamed up a new way to assess current density: by imagining the maximum number of parcels that could be created through future subdivisions, without respect to current dwellings per parcel at all.

By way of example the county's neo-planners are basically saying that what if one day in the far far future a certain hillside lot was subdivided into eleven little lots, even though there's only one house on that lot today? In that case, let's white out the one dwelling for that parcel in our present density study and replace it with eleven dwellings.

Think of how easy land use planning will become in the future when ALL development proposals appear before the Board off Supervisors with a single criteria: density is determined on how many subdivisions might take place in the unforseeable future and that means density is already determined at the maximum possible units per acre in every single case brought before the Board.

So with a little bit of white out and a brand new way of looking at land use (by scrapping all existing base lines and using MPSP, maximum phantom subdivision possibilities) county planners have arbitrarily boosted the number of dwellings allowed on the Knolls ranch site from 70 to 120.

Why is the County doing this? The planning dept's letter to the donor, er....developer, suggests one reason WHY in the 2nd paragraph: "..it is not financially feasible..." to proceed with
the proposal without changes that help out the developer. Another reason may be that despite the campaign pledge to stop overdevelopment our new Supervisor doesn't give a damn or that donor money carries much greater weight than constituents' well being. We'll see. Mr Foy met with the Knolls folk a few weeks ago and embraced the community with the assurance that he is our mayor and will look out for our interests. Either county planners are showing their disrespect for the Supervisor by holding up rabbit ears behind his head or they're being encouraged to dream up new ways to put overdevelopment on a fast track. Please say it isn't so, Mr Foy!

Well said, gs. It isn't financially feasible according to Gorian so we we need to give more units? How silly. A land speculator like Gorian never builds at the current zoning. His money comes off upzoning. If the County buys this argument, then Foy is not better than Mikels. My trust is in Foy, though. I think he is smart enough to see it for what it is, support a reasonable density and get the support of the Knolls residents who have been dealt from the bottom of the deck for far too long.

Go get 'em gs.

Surf's up. See you at the bon fire Friday night.

Big words on both sides for people not willing to throw down $20.

Brian, I don't think anyone wants to take the bet. I guess that is a vote of "no confidence" in the system. Pretty sorry statement.

"You have it now . . . and now you are crowned . . . I fear you have played most foully for it."

Katie-
You're such a hypocrite. You shoot your mouth off constantly about how corrupt the VCRCC is and how they've violated so many campaign laws.
WHY DONT YOU PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS? Instead you make a disingenuous statement "I don't think anyone wants to take the bet. I guess that is a vote of 'no confidence' in the system. Pretty sorry statement." You are a joke.

Lighten up, Francis.

I stated on an earlier post that I have no interest in betting on a liar's club. I suspect you are a member of it.

Here's my original post. Looks like nobody else wants to bet either.

"And I'm not interested in betting on the outcome. I know the integrity level of some of the people involved. It isn't very high."

Coincidence - it all depends who you ask.

Donations - Mid-September to early November

Approx. $50K is donated to VCRCC
>$32K of money is from earlier Foy contributors
>$5K of money is from earlier Dean Kunicki contributors (Colton Lee Communities)

Slate Mailers - Late October/early November

At least three VCRCC “membership communications� are sent out on behalf of Foy
At least two VCRCC “membership communications� are sent out on behalf of Dean Kunicki
At least one “membership communications� sent out on behalf of state and East County candidates

Foy’s mailers handled by C & L Graphics which is owned by Charles Ball – an early Foy supporter and endorsee

Kunicki’s and general mailer handled by DMH & Associates - Darin M. Henry who works for Audra Strickland.

Hey, both of the charities help out kids so I will throw in $20 to get it started.

I will bet that member communications will be struck down and the VCRCC will get a slap on the wrist.

Anyone think it will be upheld?

Reading your hot air Katie makes think I'll go ahead and run next year to join em.

I'll take you up on it Brian, I've got $50 to go to charity. However, its on the member communications thing. Your definition of a slap on the wrist could be for minor stuff. For example, many years ago I volunteered extensively for a few campaigns and in one of them, they got a reprimand for not checkmarking a box on a form or something like that. I'm sure that stuff like that happens all the time.

I'm in for $100, I say everything gets dropped, no action.

Not much of a gambler, so no bet from me (in Vegas you can find me entertaining myself at the "high stakes" quarter machines).

But, in a decision that may change how campaigns will be run in the future, the Supreme Court just overturned the part of the McCain Feingold campaign finance law that kept unions and corporations from doing issue ads in the 30 and 60 day periods prior to an election. I'm not clear on the details yet, but it appears that more campaign monies may now go to the unions, corporations and non-profits for these "issue ads." It was a freedom of speech issue.

It will be interesting to see how this changes the game board.

So I take it no one is taking us up on the charity wagers?

VenturaFreedom, it is called a "sucker bet" and most people avoid them.

These days my favorite charity is me.

So Katie, you finally admit, after all these months of jacking your jaws that the VCRCC didn't do anything wrong.

Quite a change from all the "money laundering" rhetoric that you were spewing in the past.

The VCRCC didn't break any laws, in fact, or in spirit, and the county will pull all charges.

You heard it here first.

Voter - I fully expect people to lie through their teeth. They have in the past and will in the future. I have no clue about how the ethics commission works, if it involves sworn testimony or anything. I know Joe Gibson's complaint against Linda Parks got thrown out - was this valid?

So when are you going to post under your real name anyway?

Voter, I don't know the details and legal pleas of the cases involved but as both charities try to do some good for kids the money wont be wasted.

I bet you $10 you are wrong. I am basically throwing 10 bucks in within an educated guess which way it will go. But for toys for kids or an anti-drug program it is worth it.

We on?

You're on.

So we've got $10 to charity if there is no wrongdoing found and $160 if there is any wrongdoing.

Katie, you never cease to amaze me. You've made such a flap for the past several months that the county party is under investigation and that all these unethical, if not illegal, findings are going to come out. "Sucker bet"?

Sounds like you're not so sure of yourself. Maybe from now on there should be an asterisk next to your posts and a footnote with some sort of disclaimer that you really have nothing to base your charges on and that you are likely to back down from your claims at a later date.

VenturaFreedom, find your backbone and put your name behind your words. I have been asking questions out of Voter and Ron and probably you and you guys never answer them. We can start over if you like.

Here's one: Why did DMH & Associates get $10,000's in uncontested printing bids from the VCRCC.

Here's another: Why does Chris Valenzano and Dean Kunicki refuse to answer my e-mail regarding the Vista Real Charter School system? More specifically, who are the stakeholders and what is the relationship to the STricklands.

Here's another: Isn't there a conflict having an employee of Audra Strickland, Chris Wangsporan, also serve as the Executive Director of the VCRCC?

And another: Exactly who makes the decisions on "membership communications"? Who decided that Foy and Kunicki would get the vast majority of the mailings? THis never went to the general committee. And what about the coincidence of the donations received just before the "membership communications" and the donors' relationship to Foy and Kunicki?

I look foward to your answers. You can e-mail me privately at KatieTeague@verizon.net and use your real name so I know if you are someone who might actually know.

If you are someone outside the Central Committee like Stephen Frank or Dr. Flap, why on earth are you on Rudy G.'s team and does this explain why he has no presence in the county?