Covina’s Mistakes Won’t Be Repeated

The Fullerton Recalls Committee strongly objects to (Carroll) Gewin’s letter (“Fullerton Should Heed Covina’s Fate,” Oct. 2 ). In Covina, the Covina Recalls Committee did not have a platform for reform, as the Fullerton Recalls Committee does. Covina’s recall proponents never proposed alternatives to the utility tax; in contrast, the platform of the Fullerton Recalls Committee does.

In Covina, four of the five people elected to the council are public employees or spouses of public employees. That council has not contracted out or privatized anything since it was elected. This is called the “trough feeder syndrome”: government employees elected to public office will act to protect other government employees’ jobs.

By contrast, the Fullerton Recalls Committee would not consider anyone for endorsement who was a government employee or who was married to a government employee. The FRC platform specifically mandates contracting out of non-safety services where this will save money.

The Fullerton Recalls Committee learned from the mistakes of the Covina recall and has ensured that these were not repeated.

W. SNOW HUME

Secretary, Fullerton Recalls Committee

* I am offended by Gewin’s assertion that I, Jack Dean and Conrad DeWitte are irresponsible. Gewin’s claims were based on a memo published by Gary Chalupsky, Fullerton Redevelopment Agency director. If Gewin wishes to point to financial irresponsibility, he should decry Chalupsky’s Aug. 29 memo that claimed that redevelopment helps the city’s general fund. In a memo dated Oct. 3, Chalupsky admitted that the “accounting logic behind the . . . schedule” in his Aug. 29 memo is flawed. Essentially, he admitted to “double counting” certain reimbursements by the agency to the city.

JACOB SPAARGAREN

Fullerton