While the cityhood debate has been the hot topic in Menifee Valley, there is in fact a race for the 3rd District Supervisor seat.

Incumbent Jeff Stone is being challenged by Deane Foote.

Therese Daniels of Menifee Valley Talk Radio announced that Deane Foote will be a guest on the show for Monday, June 2, at 8:00pm (an evening show). Here's your chance call in and ask Mr. Foote why he thinks he'll make a better Supervisor.

Labels: Elections, Jeff-Stone

The Riverside County Registrar of Voters announced today that "vote by mail" ballots will require extra postage this time around.

The ballots themselves are an extra half-inch larger this time compared to ballots used last February, and may cause the Post Office to reject your ballot based on insufficient postage.

Instead of the new 42 cents required for a 1 ounce envelope, you may need to pay an extra 17 cents, simply because the ballots appear to weigh at 1.1 ounces.

Voters have the option of hand delivering their ballot to any polling place.

You can look up the nearest polling place here...
http://www.election.co.riverside.ca.us/.../pollplac.htm

Labels: Elections

The list of individuals seeking a position on the first city council has been released and will be on the June 3 ballot (along with voting on cityhood).

As excerpted from the Press-Enterprise story by Julissa McKinnon:

Six of the 19 candidates are from Sun City. They are:

Darci Castillejos, 47, a restaurant owner; John Denver, 61, a businessman and mortgage broker; Louis Mazei, 62, a Riverside County planning technician; Chuck Reutter (he has not yet filed age and occupation information with the registrar of voters); Carol Sullivan, 64, a businesswoman; and Gerald Walker, 45, a county maintenance plumber.

The remaining 13 candidates are from Menifee. They are:

Tony Amatulli, 49, a businessman; Dina Biedermann (age and occupation information not yet filed); Dean Deines, 52, a public finance officer; Wallace Edgerton (age not provided), a Mt. San Jacinto Community College political science instructor; Tom Fuhrman, 63, a businessman and owner/operator of Wooden Nickel Ranch in Menifee; Ken Gaunt, 67, a retired businessman and former county commissioner in Nevada; Darcy Kuenzi, 45, a legislative assistant; Scott Mann (age not provided), a risk manager for the Menifee Union School District; Marc Miller, 50, a rancher and businessman; Jason Reeves, 32, a businessman and
Sunday school teacher; Jerry Stamper, a real estate broker; Fred Twyman, 43, a high school math teacher and Menifee Union School District trustee; and Dorothy Wolons, 43, a businesswoman and mother.

Here is a link to the full story.

Labels: City-Council, Cityhood, Elections

Among the propositions that California voters will decide this Feb 5, is Proposition 92, community college funding.

Do a search on Google for "proposition 92 college" and you'll find lots of newspaper articles on the subject.

I was hoping Ann Motte would go in depth on this, but I haven't seen much detail from her. She did make a brief mention here, but it might create a conflict of interest for her to go into any detail, seeing that she's a board member for MSJC.

My Opinion

To sum it, Prop 92 seeks to raise funding for community colleges, but it does so in a very complicated way, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Prop 92 also does other things that doesn't make much sense to me either.

For one, it will actually require the State's constitution be modified to name "community colleges" as one of California's reasons for existence. In other words, a college education will no longer be our responsibility, it will be the State's. I don't understand why the Constitution needs to be amended. We already have a community college system without a Constitutional amendment.

The other thing to know in all this, is that the State of California limits its spending on public education to 40% of the General Fund. Public education includes K-12 schools, community colleges, and universities. Thus, if Mt San Jacinto College is to receive more State money, it'll have to be taken away from Menifee Union School District.

Remember that last week the Governor called for a 10% reduction on public school spending as a result of the budget shortfall.

Another thing that makes absolutely no sense to me is the formula by which community college funding is based. Instead of being based on how many people are attending community colleges, it'll be based on how many young adults reside in California, whether they attend college or not. So if the population increases (which it always does), community colleges will get more money, even if college attendance goes down. Does that make any sense?

Does this mean community colleges will benefit from having more illegal aliens cross our borders?

Proposition 92 will also require community college tuition to decrease to $15 per unit, from the current $20-$26 per unit. Even at $20-$26 per unit, California's community colleges are the cheapest in the nation. If Prop 92 is trying to raise more money for community colleges, then why lower tuition?

Keep in mind, the decrease in tuition is designed to boost enrollments. But considering that 90% of the per-student cost at community colleges is paid for by taxpayers, any boost in enrollment is going to create a bigger burden on you and I. Community colleges will argue that their education offers the greatest return on taxpayer dollars in terms of helping people find jobs.

But the cost of tuition isn't the problem with California's community colleges. Rather, it's time and complacency. Unskilled adults are either spending their time working unskilled jobs, or they're comfortable living off of their parents.

If young adults have enough money to buy iPods and Venti Frappucinos, then they have enough money for community college. Prop 92 should instead look for ways boost excitement, not money.

College education is the responsibility of each individual, not the State. Prop 92 creates more bureacracy, and does nothing to address complacency among young adults, especially when California's community colleges are already the cheapest in the Union.

I'm voting no on Prop 92.

For further reading...

• Sacramento Bee - against Prop 92


• San Francisco Chronicle - favors Prop 92


• California Voter Information Guide - neutral

Labels: Elections

Propositions 94, 95, 96, and 97 are voter initiatives that will allow four indian casinos in Southern California to build "super casinos" larger than those found on the Las Vegas strip. These will be on the Feb 5, 2008 ballot...

• Prop 94 - affects Pechanga Casino


• Prop 95 - affects Morongo Casino


• Prop 96 - affects Sycuan Casino


• Prop 97 - affects Agua Caliente Casino

Texts of these four referendums are essentially the same, the only differences being the number of additional slot machines they are allowed to add, and the amount of money they'll be paying to the State.

The Breakdown

What the Casinos get...

• Casinos get to triple or nearly quadruple their number of slot machines (Pechanga goes from 2,000 to 7,500)



• Casinos are no longer subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Any expansion must be backed up by an environmental report that the Indian tribes can conduct themselves.



• Casinos no longer have to have an impartial auditor count the slot machine revenues; they'll be able to audit them on their own.



• Casinos will receive a "fail safe" guarantee that punishes the State for permitting non-tribal gambling operations. That is, if an organization other than an indian tribe receives a clearance to build a gambling establishment, the indian casino will be allowed to reduce its taxes to the State, or eliminate them altogether.

What the State gets...

• Casinos will now pay taxes to the State General Fund. Previously, casino taxes were paid to two tribal funds (RSTF and SDF) that the State distributed to smaller tribes, and tribal administrative bodies. The General Fund is spent on all Californians.



• Casinos will now pay more money than before, almost double than under the current compact agreements. But as mentioned above, the Indian tribes will now get to audit their own revenues for the purpose of deciding how much money goes to the State. Under the current arrangement, an impartial auditor is used. So, it's not exactly clear how much more money California will receive.

History

The provisions spelled out above were actually passed by the State Legislature, and signed into law by the Governor, in June 2007. It was supposed to go into effect January 1, 2008.

But other indian tribes within the State, particularly the Pala Tribe, as well as some racing tracks, the California Federation of Teachers, and the California Tax Reform Association, managed to gather enough signatures to put Props 94, 95, 96, and 97 on the ballot as a last ditch effort to override the Governor's signature.

The Pala Tribe is concerned that their casino will lose business if Pechanga is allowed to greatly expand its casino.

A "no" vote means the existing 1999 agreements will remain in effect. A "yes" vote allows these new provisions to go into effect.

Opinion

I'm not in favor of the new provisions. I'll be voting "no" on these propositions.

I do want indian tribes to pay into the State General Fund. But I don't like two particular details: the "fail safe" guarantee that punishes the State for allowing non-tribal gambling operations to exist, and allowing the indian tribes to audit their own revenues for purposes of determining their payment amounts to the State.

As a free society, anybody and any business should be free to operate a casino. If indian tribes can build a casino, then why can't I? The "fail safe" provision takes that freedom away, because it allows indian tribes to reduce or eliminate their payments to the State General Fund if a non-tribal gambling operation starts up.

And letting tribes audit their own money is a priviledge that I don't have, nor you. When we pay taxes, the State is free to audit our money as they please. We don't have the right kick the state out of our books, so why should the tribes?

And why should the tribes be excluded from the California Environmental Quality Act? As a business owner, I don't have that priviledge! No other business has that priviledge.

I don't have anything against indian casinos, or building "super casinos", but I want fairness and equality. I own a small business, and I don't like the fact that indian tribes can get special priviledges just because they're indians. That's state-sanctioned racism, against me and you.

My solution to all this is to dissolve indian reservations. Let indians be treated equally as any other Californian. If we applied the same business and tax laws to indian casinos, we'll recieve plenty of tax revenues. And they'll be free to expand without compacts.

For further reading...

• Expensive ballot fight looms on February vote over Indian casinos - San Francisco Chronicle, Dec 7, 2007



• February 5, 2008, Supplemental Official Voter Information Guide, California Secretary of State

Labels: Elections

Perris Union High School District

Voters voted in two incumbents, and one newcomer. Joan Cooley got the most votes (6,266), followed by Eric Kroencke (5,298), and Randy Williams (4,360). These three have been elected.

Here's the official data...

127/127 100.00%
Vote Count Percent

NP - ERIC J. KROENCKE 5,298 24.15%
NP - BARRY R. BUSCH 3,496 15.93%
NP - MICHAEL PEREZ 2,520 11.49%
NP - RANDY J. WILLIAMS 4,360 19.87%
NP - JOAN D. COOLEY 6,266 28.56%

Total 21,940 100.00%

Romoland School Board - Full term

Teacher Garrick Stein won the most votes for the full term seat with 690 votes, followed by retired school employee, Irene Harris with 610 votes. These two have won seats.

Here's the official vote tally...

Mbr. Gov. Bd, Romoland School Dist. - Full Term

20/20 100.00%
Vote Count Percent
NP - GARRICK I. STEIN 690 32.05%
NP - IRENE HARRIS 610 28.33%
NP - BYRON ''ROY'' YOST 481 22.34%
NP - JESSE MULLINAX 372 17.28%

Total 2,153 100.00%

Romoland School District - Short term

Local businessman, Bill Gould, won the lone short term seat with 595 votes.

Here's the full tally of votes...

Mbr. Gov. Bd, Romoland School Dist. - Short Term

20/20 100.00%
Vote Count Percent
NP - ROBERT ''BOB'' GIBBONS 564 48.66%
NP - WILLIAM ''BILL'' GOULD, JR. 595 51.34%

Total 1,159 100.00%

Labels: Elections, Perris-Union-High-School-District, Romoland-School-District

With 100.00% of the precincts reporting, Measure G fails!

Measure G - Valley Health System
263/263 100.00%

Vote Count Percent
Yes 16,211 46.66%
No 18,529 53.34%
Total 34,740 100.00%

Labels: Elections

Find your polling station here...
http://www.election.co.riverside.ca.us/polls/root1106/pollplac.htm

Labels: Elections

This evening, two of the candidates running for Sheriff of Riverside County met in Sun City to debate over the County's law enforcement issues.

The two candidates who attended were Robert Ritchie and Rick Sayre. The incumbent, Bob Doyle, was invited but did not appear. Refer to your voter guide for background information on the candidates.

Much of meeting centered around a question/answer session with questions coming from the audience. The two took turns answering, and were given the opportunity to rebut, though in most cases neither rebutted.

Opening Statements

Both candidates acknowledged the need to find alternative ways to boost the number of law enforcement personnel.

Ritchie expressed his desire to get kids more involved and more exposed to law enforcement, such as getting department personnel to operating programs in schools.

Sayre expressed his desire to take the department back to the fundamentals of responding to calls, investing into the front line personnel, and expanding jail space.

Question & Answer Session

It's worth noting here that in many of the questions, Sayer received the first opportunity to answer. Ritchie's responses often seemed to agree with Sayer, however, instead of reiterating what Sayer had to say, he instead expanded on it, providing examples and details.

Also note, answers I've reported below are summarized.

Question #1: How will you plan for resources in light of rapid growth of population?

Sayer pointed out that the Supervisors have historically been willing to provide adequate funding to the department, but that it's been mostly a matter of spending that money wisely, naming on the front line personnel, such as deputies and dispatchers.

Ritchie called for creating a cadet program where by teenagers could enroll immediately after graduating high school and take on duties that don't require the use of a deputy. He also talked about bringing retired deputies back to help new recruits.

Question #2: Will you continue the practice of allowing officers to put on a DEA patch to arrest people using medical marijuana?

Ritchie said he would not allow any deputy to wear a different patch.

Sayer said he too would not allow deputies to make such arrests and pointed out there are other agencies that should address it.

Question #3 (posed to Sayer only): How do you differentiate the medical marijuana law between federal and state?

Sayer said that it is a state issue superceding federal.

Question #4: What is your position on handling illegal aliens?

Sayer responded by saying that illegal immigration laws should be enforced and that he will not allow his deputies to let personal opinions or desires to get in the way.

Ritchie went on to say that he supports building a wall on the border, and that he has personally arrested illegal aliens shoplifting in area stores. He also said that any illegal alien who commits a crime should not only be arrested but deported under the full effect of state and federal law.

Question #5: How will you keep pedophiles away from schools?

Ritchie said he wants to push for a state law to impound the cars of registered sex offenders who violate the terms of their probation, noting that offenders usually use their cars to wisk children away.

Sayer took the opinion that our penal system should not even allow sex offenders out, and wants changes to keep them incarcerated for much longer periods, perhaps indefinitely.

Question #6: Will you create written policies on how to handle medical marijuana patients?

Ritchie said that there should definitely be written policies and procedures in place to avoid miscommunication on how such cases be handled.

Sayer reiterated the same opinion, but went on to add that if a physician has prescribed a course of treatment, assuming that treatment is within the law, it should be respected.

Question #7: What is the problem with enforcing trespassing laws?

Sayer said that trespassing is a misdemeanor and that in order for an officer to take action on a misdemeanor he or she must personally witness the act. He went on to recommend that citizens take some first-level course of action, such as posting "no trespassing signs", or setting up cameras, to provide deputies with evidence.

Ritchie elaborated by recommending citizens obtain restraining orders to give law enforcement an additional tool towards arresting and prosecuting trespassers.

Question #8: What is your opinion on operating a tent city?

Sayer expressed his support for running a tent city, but went on to say that the biggest offenders we face in our society today are the repeat "mid-level" offenders, such as the trespassers, the taggers, the hookers, vandals, etc. On the other hand, the murderers are always put away. There is not enough jail space to house the mid-level offenders and thus are set free. He said that at the current pace, Riverside County is about 8-10 years away from getting more jail space, and that jail space is the number one problem in Sheriff's department right now, with adequate radio equipment being number two.

Ritchie also supports the idea of a tent city and went on to provide more examples of county jails being overcrowded.

Question #9: Will you crack down on street corner vendors?

Sayer said that this a code enforcement issue and not a adequate use of deputy personnel. He said that we have a bigger problem of not having enough deputies answering calls.

Ritchie seemed to agree with Sayer, but went on to say that if street corner vendors are particular problem for a community, the community needs to organize itself and make it a perogative.

Question #10: What will you do for calls for crime?

Sayer spent time detailing his desire to take the department back to the fundamentals of focusing on answering calls. He said deputies are currently doing tasks that civilian workers can handle. By doing this it allows the department to put more deputies and dispatchers on the front lines.

Ritchie went on to elaborate on the problem of deputies not being able to find the location of calls. He pointed out the rapid growth of new communities and housing tracts, and not having adequates maps. He suggested deputies be outfitted with cell phones specifically for calling the callers and asking for driving directions. He said that having GPS devices would be a big help too.

Question #11: What about going after gangs, domestic terrorists, and bad cops?

Sayer focused on the need for increasing the education of Sheriff's personnel, particularly in the area of understanding the communities they service. He stressed helping personnel achieve their own personal goals to prevent them from going bad, and to give them the tools they need to do their jobs.

Ritchie elaborated on his desire to get more kids involved and exposed to law enforcement as a key towards preventing them from getting into gangs. He also suggested that all department personnel be polygraphed on a regular basis to discourage them from illegal activity.

Question #12: How will you make the department more competitive with other law enforcement agencies towards luring the best talent?

Ritchie explained that deputies are having to contribute into their own retirement plans, and that by eliminating these paycheck deductions it would go a long ways to keeping and luring good officers.

Sayer seemed to reiterate the point about offering competitive retirement plans, but also went on to say that officers are more attracted to work places that help them achieve their career goals.

Closing Statements

Ritchie went first mostly by reiterating his desire to get kids involved and exposed to law enforcement. He reiterated his background as a police officer and city councilman. He also made the remark that deputies should hand out quality surveys to the people they answer calls to.

Sayer continued to stress his desire to bring the department back to the fundamentals of answering calls, answering them quickly, and investing resources into the front line personnel. He again questioned why deputies were handling tasks that could be handled by civilian personnel, or even volunteers.

Labels: Elections, Sheriff