To explain, I think Oxnard only has two seats. Seats are assigned by the County Clerk/Recorder based on how many registered Republicans there are in the supervisorial district, proportionate to the rest of the districts. Even though Oxnard is the largest city in the county, it was only allotted 2 seats on the committee. One is vacant.
It's always 21 or 22 members, plus the nominees for state and federal office - making a total of around 31 official members.

I notice that Tony Strickland is listed twice (not counting his mother in District 3), and that's because he has been the nominee for two offices. I don't think he gets two votes, though (would have to check the old bylaws!). I think he votes based on his most recent nomination/office.

It appears the county Republicans are happy with the county leadership. They definitely elected more of the same.

Leslie,

Two people were elected from Oxnard for the two seats from that area, but one chose not to serve.

where was i?

i wanted to be involved. very disapointed right now.

Being that there is an opening you might ask to get appointed to the seat.

You really interested in being a leader in the VCRCC? You know who to contact? If you say you are interested in a comment here I bet you get an email within 24 hours or sooner. Let me know if I was correct.

Daniel - You have to part of the "family" to be appointed. The vast majority are Strickland sycophants.

Sycophant:
Synonyms fawner, flunky, toady
Related words yes-man; hanger-on, leech, parasite, sponge, sponger; henchman, lackey, minion, satellite, slave, stooge; admirer, cultist, devotee, enthusiast, fan, groveler ( or groveller), idolater ( or idolator), worshipper ( or worshiper), zealot; adherent, convert, disciple, follower, partisan, pupil, votary

District 1 - Ventura
Mary Osborn - wife of Mike Osborn
Mike Osborn - re-elected chairman
Paul Thompson - good buddy of Mike Osborn

District 2 - Conejo, Thousand Oaks
Darin Henry - DMH and Associates - campaign printing service for Stricklands
Rebecca Henry - wife of Darin Henry
John Andersen - former candidate - Conejo Unified
Mark Lunn - Peter Foy Chief of Staff

District 3 - Camarillo, Santa Paula, Fillmore, Piru
Chris Valenzano - former candidate/president County School Board
Toni Strickland - Tony Strickland's mother
Deyla Valenzano - Chris Valenzano's wife

District 4 - Simi Valley, Moorpark
Dean Kunicki
Ray Cruz - former candidate - Simi School Board

Other voting members:
Tony Strickland
Audra Strickland

Executive committee (they control the money):
Mike Osborn
Mary Osborn
Dean Kunicki
Mark Lunn
John Andersen
Chris Valenzano
Patricia Scordy
Peggy Sadler
John Absmeier
Sandy Patrizio

Would you say the same if you supported Tony Strickland?

I bet if Daniel Goldberg really wants on he will be invited to join. He did say on his blog that he supported Tony Strickland.

I agree that the board looks like many of the people are close Tony Strickland allies. That's why I have said Tony Strickland is the leader of the Ventura County Republican Party.

yes i am serious. please contact me.

Daniel - Call their office: (805) 557-1240. They should get back to you.

I agree Brian, Stricklands are the most powerful Republicans in the county due to name recognition, incumbency and financial support. One might argue for Elton Gallegly, but Congressman Gallegly is much less involved in the county party and even less in local elections.

I also agree, Brian, that Cameron Smythe is the most powerful Republican in Sacramento that represents a portion of Ventura County. Although pretty darn conservative (not a BAD word!), he has been much more effective in legislation and working with his colleagues across the aisle.

Stricklands had little effect on local races this last election. The local candidates they supported lost, except for keeping control of the county Republican party money by reelecting the Central Committee.

Looks like Boss Hogg and Roscoe P. Coltrane and Enos and the rest of the boys at the VCRCC are the same buncha scum suckers as usual.

Daniel,

Anyone contact you?

The Stricklands and the Republican Central Committee will now lay low for a couple years. They won't do anything about voter registration. The election had nothing to do with working for the people.
Their work is done until it's time to work for their own reelections.

If the Dems in Sacramento get away with their attempt to push a simple majority finance package it may be the kiss of death for right wing finance hardliners. Would that have a direct effect on local GOP party leadership?

End of Story,

I predict the only thing the Stricklands and the VCRCC will do anytime soon is support any other puppets running for office that supported TS in his race. Other than that, they're pretty ineffective.

I heard many other states can pass a budget w/ tax increases with only a smile majority. Although reducing it to a simple majority sounds like it would hurt Republicans an argument could be made it would make them a powerful force that tries to control the legislature through winning elections, instead of giving up on governing.

The Dems and the Reps are equally responsible for the mess the state is in - we need people to lead and legislate - instead we get people more interested in getting elected/re-elected.

Meanwhile the kool-aid drinkers back home perpetuate the myths they have been fed.

I had to laugh when I read the LA Times today - fees instead of taxes. Well, I'm not surprised.

In this instance, if a finance solution (and this one's not too unlike Clinton's was back in 1993) I think the Dems would get a lot of credit for crafting a reasonable solution while the Repubs get the blame for being unreasonable obstructionists at best and they may even be labeled as destructionists.

I don't advocate a simple majority for tax increases but the system in place has actually encouraged the minority party to become more extremist and spoilers rather than full participants in the legislative process. Today's budget & deficit problems can clearly be laid at the repub's feet.

One Exception, so who do you think Tony and his goon squad will support in the next elections? Any likely prospects for local office from the current crop at the VCRCC?

GS - it is inexcusable what has occurred in Sac and I have never witnessed so much finger pointing in my life. And every time a citizen complains, the footsoldiers at home try to attack. Our reps are part of the problem and voters should expect more accountability from them. Oh wait - I can't say that! Imagine what a local elected official goes through. It is time they develop some backbone.

Katie, when referring to "repubs" I mean those spiteful ideologue idiots in Sacramento, not Republican voters (which I was at one time) as a whole.

The only hope for the State GOP is to find some new, energetic & open-minded candidates and guide them into public service through the Party, rather than rely on the same self-serving hacks that come to the Party loaded down with a web of quid pro quos. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening very soon.

Get with it, you two. The Dems are the party in control in Sacramento and they're now trying to foist a host of new taxes on us (disguised as fees). We should be thankful for the conservative Republicans we have in office up there. If it wasn't for them, we'd all be broke by now.

THat is the point - there is no longer ANY Republican voice and no, I am not thankful about that. And I'm sure many would argue that they do feel broke these days.

GS - I know you weren't referring to the voters.

Well, they'd be a helluva lot broker if the Dems had their way. This is not a good time to be loading new taxes on the public. As you said, a lot of people are really struggling these days and the last thing they need is State government dinging them some more, adding insult to injury.

Sorry, Mongo, but there's no way for you to justify the actions of those GOP obstructionists that have literally stopped the legislature from acting. The fact is, and you know it, that despite the Dems having a majority they have been unable to even open discussions about revenue enhancement because the Repub minority has enough votes to stop those discussions.

The Sacramento Repubs are responsible for the financial mess we're in by virtue of refusing to talk with the majority.

As far as new taxes/fees....the insanity that led to revoking of auto registration fees alone have lowered State revenues more than $4B each year...and, after increases in local fees, taxes and assessments to make up the difference, actually lost money for the average CA family. The insane lawsuit that prevented Davis from completing power purchases through 2023 have cost CA families thousands of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs.

Repub ideologues' No-Taxes-AT-Any-Cost policies have cost CA too much and when the voters find out there's no where they can hide.

GS, the bottom line is the Legislature has a budget crisis on their hands that's growing worse by the day because of their failure to act. My main point is that they can't tax their way out of this mess. It's the wrong time for additional taxes. The Republicans are right for holding their ground on this and I support them completely for doing so.

The Legislature needs to make the necessary cuts in the budget to put this ship back on the right course and, as painful as this will be to schools, highway projects, social services and public health programs, it's what must be done. In addition, they need to start setting aside a percentage of future revenue in a "rainy-day fund" to help the State through the economic ebbs and flows that will inevitably occur.

In other words, they need to get real. They need to start actively managing the budget, curtailing runaway expenditures on programs that have marginal benefits, and building a reserve fund for emergency needs and economic downturns. That is what we all have to do to manage our household budget, but these folks don't hold themselves to these kinds of standards because, after all, it's not their money, it's the public's money. So, why should they care?

Both the Reps and Dems share equal responsibility for the mess in Sacramento. All should be ashamed. Like I said before we need real leaders and real legislation. I can't defend the current mediocrity and incumbent protection when the state is in such bad shape - schools, traffic, health, etc. All the Reps do is talk "no new taxes" and that's it. Well, talk is cheap and as it turns out, their inaction has been very, very expensive. Dems and unions have to suck it up as far as spending and actual make some cuts that have impact. Honesty regarding the problem starts at home. The current representation of the California citenzry is indefensible.

Everyone agrees that spending needs to be cut but the Repub extremists refuse to discuss any solution that isn't ALL cuts, even though they know that's just not going to happen.

It's also not reasonable to borrow our way out of this mess. We now have to raise $3.5B each year to service the growing interest debt for all the bonds that have been floated and that figure will rise to $5B if The Terminator and his GOP supporters have their way. That's $5B to either raise in revenue or cut from services.

And yes, Katie, I also agree that both sides contributed to the mess. Yet now only one side is perpetuating and even adding to the mess, solely on misguided principle. The result is the Dems have chosen to go it alone and pass a simple majority finance package: an initiative that was too long in coming but necessary at this point.

Looks like CA employees will be taking a really big hit....sort of like they're being taxed 10% of their total income....because the obstructionists in Sacramento refuse to consider new taxes. Sure, it's just state employees now but soon it will be all of us that are taking 10%, 20% or 100% pay cuts simply because the obstructionists refuse to pay for the cost of feeding the cow they've all been milking for so many years.

The Club4Growth's become this insane father who's prepared to kill his own kids in an effort to save them from having to grow up in the real world.

GS - you know that a Republican personally profits from all the Prop 13 agitation? Jim Lacy likes to see it in the news. So do the Howard Jarvis people. It is a little industry that puts money in politicians pockets.

Now mind you, I think we have waaaaay too many state employees but I really think our Representatives should start at home. Layoff/cut money in their various "offices" and then cut money from state employees.

The unemployment rate in the private sector is rising dramatically, and average Americans are now struggling to pay their bills in a tough economic climate, perhaps the worst since the great depression. Many of these same people have seen the value of their 401Ks plummet, and those that have kept their jobs are often having their pay, healthcare and pension benefits reduced. Why should Californians who are struggling now have to be burdened with higher taxes in order to prevent government employees from making any sacrifices? Spending by the state of California has grown out of control for decades, and many public employees now enjoy outrageous pay and benefit packages that go well beyond what is available in the private sector.

So please spare me the whining about how government employees will now be suffering in order to absorb a 10% cut in payroll costs. I say it's about time. Maybe they can give up a few of those 14 paid holidays, or reduce some of those excessive pension plans. At the same time that ordinary people in our city are losing their jobs and their homes we are giving 7% pay raises to cops who are retiring at 90% pay. This year the City of Ventura just approved a 50% increase in pension benefits to firefighters. Just this month the state legislature approved an average 5% pay raise for their staff, which is on top of the 6% pay raise their staff received in February. Something is wrong with this picture.

You just don't get it, do you BK? Every day the budget is held up ADDS to next years state costs burden through higher interest rates, lost tax revenues and high-cost catch-up emergency spending.
Pretty soon our interest debt service will rise from $3.2B to almost $5B annually.

You're not saving anyone money by refusing to catch up to existing obligations. You're only adding to the taxpayers' out-of-pocket burden.

Public schools just received a $4B cut yet we're still spending almost $9B each year on freeway widenings. How about cutting Edu by $1B and freeway widening by $3B?

Why are we borrowing $9B(a $450M/annual interest payment) to design and start building a high speed train between LA & SF? Can't we spend that $450M better someplace else? Or perhaps use that savings to cut spending elsewhere?

As for the cuts being forced on State employees, no matter how you feel about those jobs it's THOSE employees who are subsidizing YOUR refusal to share the state burden. If all the laid off and underemployed workers in this state were asked to vote on full employment or a 1/2% sales tax increase, you know darned well what they'd do. That's going to be the upcoming issue and the Repubs in Sacramento are going to be strangled on it.

Jerks like the Club4Growth bamboozled voters into dropping the $4B/year car tax. The immediate result was a $4B/year deficit which led to Davis being replaced with a far, far more incompetent governor who's answer to everything is to cut and borrow. That's mistake has evolved into a $45B deficit, courtesy of C$C and the GOP obstructionists.

You can't initiate massive tax increases during a severe economic downturn when millions of people are losing their jobs. You can't expect those in the private sector to absorb pay cuts and tax hikes, while shielding those in the public sector from making any sacrifices at all.

All the programs you talk about involves reducing programs to the public, but none of it requires sacrifices from public employees themselves. The public is paying more for less, yet public employees get to keep their jobs, paychecks and bloated benefits. Why aren't public employees willing to offer some concessions to lessen the impact to the rest of us? Why can't they give up a few of those extra paid holiday? California public employees get 14 paid holidays per year, which is twice as many paid holidays as the average private sector employee. Public employees get far richer pension plans. We could hire thousands of additional cops with the pension savings if benefits were rolled back to levels that were common just ten years ago. There is no reason why public employees should be retiring at or near full pay while everyone else has to delay retirement and pay more taxes.

Education budget would go further if democrats were willing to loosen the restrictive funding rules that earmark such a large percentage of the existing budget to specific programs. There are rules that prevent outsourcing, which drives up the cost of building and maintaining campuses. School districts around the state waste billions of dollars every year because they can't do competitive bidding or hire private firms for basic services. Those things need to be fixed before asking taxpayers for more money.

No, you are the one who doesn't get it.

Is Bubba Kidd saying the raise for the SVPD was too much?

I haven't advocated massive tax increases nor public jobs protection. I've only used, as an example of more to come, the decision of having a select group (that happens to be state employees) subsidize the failure of our legislators to pass a reasonable finance package.

Today, "reasonable" is the operative word because if you think we can cut our way out of the state's financial mess without also raising revenues then we're talking about bankruptcy without any chance of financial recovery. There has to be a compromise but there can't be without all our legislators coming to the table, without preconditions. The Dems have shown a willingness to support some cuts. The Repubs have not shown a willingness to support any taxes, even those that will not affect most CA residents.

The Edu budget has again been cut, despite the entire teacher union offering substantial wage & benefits concession that helped net CA taxpayers over $3.5B. No other union did that when asked. Instead every other union insisted on raises and benefit hikes....and got them.

I agree fully with the need to keep administrational waste out of the classroom. Start by saving $Bs each year by dropping out of the federal education reform program. The program's proven to be a failure yet our schools continue to be saddled with the costs of catering to inane demands by Washington.

Yes, I think the pay raise for SVPD was too much. The city is in the process of eliminating jobs for lower paid employees and eliminating vacant public safety jobs, while simultaneously giving pay hikes to the cops we already have. In the middle of a financial crisis we should, at the very least, be putting a temporary hold on any pay hikes. No rational person can argue that our local police don't already enjoy a very generous pay and benefits package. At the very least they could help out the community they serve by offering to postpone pay raises for a few years. The city has already announced that they are making cuts to Public Works, Environmental Services, Community Services, Administrative Services, City Attorney, City Administration and transit. It is wrong to give pay raises to one group of public servants while giving pink slips to others. Everybody needs to make a sacrifice.

On the state level, the problem I see with the plan offered by the democrats is that it increases taxes and trims services to the public, but doesn't require any real givebacks from public employee unions. I'm not aware of any substantial wage and benefits cuts that have been put on the table. In fact, the public employee unions are threatening to go to court to prevent the governor from even enacting a work furlough program. If we are to have a serious conversation about balancing revenue increases with cuts then it has to involve real cuts to the cost of government that go beyond just cutting services to the public. Requiring the public to pay more money for less service is not a balanced approach.

The governor has also asked the legislature to loosen the rules for education funding so that school boards have more flexibility in how they can spend money. I think this is common sense, but the special interest groups in Sacramento will never let that happen. Instead the option is always to either throw more money at the problem or cut programs for kids while leaving the bureaucracy in tact. Democrats are also refusing to go along with a proposal to loosen some of the ridiculous labor and environmental rules so that billions of dollars in infrastructure projects can be fast tracked. At a time like this everything needs to be put on the table. But all I see from the democrats is posturing and clever tricks to try to find ways to increase taxes and fees. I don't see why republicans should agree to tax increases until democrats get serious about the cuts they are willing to offer in exchange.

Bubba,

I admire your consistency, especially since it is unpopular to go after education and law enforcement funding.

It sounds like you would support some tax increases ,but only if serious cuts to spending were being made also. Is that correct?

At a time like this there can be no sacred cows. I think that some types of additional taxes need to be considered, but only if democrats show a willingness to enact meaningful cuts, combined with some sort of future spending reforms so that we don't continue with the irresponsible spending. State revenues are double what they were ten years ago, increasing at more than twice the rate of inflation plus population growth combined. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. But to get out of our current situation will likely have to involve more than cuts alone. At the same time, we cannot tax our way out of this situation. It will take some hard choices and sacrifices by all sides.

The state of California is no different than the American auto companies in that respect. We have gone on for decades ignoring our financial irresponsibility. We will have to go to the brink of oblivion before the major players will get serious about making tough decisions. We're almost there.

A top budget reform for me would address the budgeting by ballot proposition. There are reasons to do it including Proposition 13 and Proposition 98 which seem well thought out and people were informed of the choices, but many times the process is abused which constrains the legislature.

Brian, does the fact that voters elected the governor of a state that was virtually in last place in education, environment, health, etc, in exchange for a tax rebate worth the equivalent of eight months of basic cable TV give you reason to think a bit harder about having the State budget via the ballot?

GS,

I don't think we are in virtually last place in health, the environment, and I think education isn't as bad as it looks.

The difficulty is that voters haven't been able to say no to sympathetic groups or projects. Maybe if ballot propositions had choices. Like Build either a hospital or fund environmental protection.

Sorry, Brian. I was referring to Texas and the 2000 election, although CA's on its way to matching that state.

Where do you get your facts? Last in education, environment and health? Those statistics are complete fabrications.

Who is "you guys"? I disagreed with what GS said. GS is only one person.

Check the state of Texas relative to the other 50, in 2000.

GS,

Sorry, I misread what you meant I thought maybe you were talking about our state and our taxes.

So far this year, Sacramento Dems have offered $18B in spending cuts, including in education, health, elderly & disabled benefits, prisons, etc. The Dems have also offered $9B in revenue enhancements, virtually all of which do not effect the incomes of CA residents.

So far Sacramento Repubs have blocked all efforts and offered no solutions to breaking the budget deadlock.

So, for the Repubs it's NOT just a matter of cutting spending. It's something much more destructive.