Fullerton has a fair rotation policy for selecting the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem (No. 226 in the Policy and Procedures Manual). The policy states, “The Mayor Pro Tem shall automatically become the Mayor after serving one year at Mayor Pro Tem…” (Note that this also means the Mayor will serve only one one-year term). The other significant element in this policy is that selection is based on seniority according to the number of years a member has served consecutively on the city council without serving as Mayor. By that standard, at the upcoming December 5 meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Bruce Whitaker should become Mayor, and Councilmember Dr. Ahmad Zahra should be selected as Pro Tem.
In fairness, Zahra should have been Pro Tem and Mayor by now. But, as it turns out, this policy is advisory. Three years ago, to almost everyone’s surprise, the newly elected Councilmember Fred Jung nominated newly-elected Nick Dunlap to be Pro Tem, bypassing sitting members Zahra and Silva and undoing years of effort to establish a fair, ration, and non-political selection process. In 2021, when Dunlap showed no interest in being Mayor, Jung was elected to that position, again bypassing Zahra and Silva; and in what was an unprecedented move in recent years, outgoing Mayor Whitaker was selected as Pro Tem, placing him next in line to become Mayor again.
Despite the best efforts of newly-elected Councilmember Dr. Shana Charles to get the council to follow established policy, the council majority (Jung, Whitaker, and Dunlap) were not having it. She pointed out that now that we have districts, the lack of an orderly rotation process denies an individual member the right to be Mayor and an entire district the right to equal representation. She pointed out that while the office is mainly ceremonial, it does have some significant powers like agenda setting. Unswayed, the majority proceeded to re-elect Jung as Mayor and Whitaker as Pro Tem, unprecedented actions in recent years. Charles and Zahra strongly dissented.
But, arguing in favor of ignoring policy, Dunlap spoke to the importance of collegiality before acting in the most uncollegial way possible. He also said, in effect, that the Council should elect someone they respect and that respect has to be earned. He gave no example of why Zahra had not earned his respect.
One has to wonder what happened in closed sessions that made council members Jung, Whitaker, and Dunlap publicly disrespect Zahra. Will the council members ever tell the public the reasons? Or is it so petty or phobic that it can not be uttered? Whitaker was more candid; he dwelt on perceived past injustices, saying that while he initially favored fixed rotation, the first time that the current policy was violated was when he was due to be Mayor Pro Tem several years ago, and that while the current situation was not his preference it is “…where we are right now.”
Jung never joined the discussion nor offered any reason why he wanted to be Mayor again or deserved to be. No mention was made of accomplishments or what he hoped the Council would achieve in the next year. The City has not been in a good position during the last couple of years, losing several valued senior staff with institutional knowledge. There is a lack of continuity. Most of the new staff have historical reference amnesia.
Zahra is one of the most visible Councilmembers, widely available to his constituents and other residents. He also survived a vicious negative campaign funded by Tony Bushala. Both Charles and Zahra defeated candidates supported by the Mayor, showing they had reliable support in their respective districts. Also, it shows that the Mayor may not be viewed positively citywide and does not have much influence outside his district.
One of the constants of politics is that “what goes around, comes around.” That has worked to Whitaker’s benefit and against Zahra (he made some rookie mistakes in his first years and should have anticipated some payback). But in 2024, the seats of the current majority will all be up for re-election. Whitaker is termed out in a heavily Latino district. Jung does not have any competition in District 1 yet. And although Dunlap often appears more interested in sports than the interests of his District 2 constituents, he is running again. Jesus Silva, who was Gerrymandered out of District 3, now lives in District 2, and although this district is marginally Republican, it is competitive, and he would be a formidable candidate.
And there are other possibilities, but those who want to see a change in the Council must identify strong candidates and start supporting them now.
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Local Government, Local News
You are quite wrong. Jesus Silva was not “Gerrymandered out of District 3” in 2022. If anything, the Silva residence was Gerrymandered in to the old District 3 in 2016, allowing his election to the council in the first place. For the benefit of your misinformed readers/writers, I offer the following:
Council district lines were updated in 2022 following the national census. The 2022 council district boundaries are far more regular in form than the absurdly unfair map adopted in 2016–a map whose irregularly shaped districts all literally fit the definition of Gerrymandering. The 2022 map eliminated the snaking tendrils from five districts that reached from the city borders to the downtown area, including the sliver of District 3 that reached all the way from Fullerton’s eastern border near CSUF to the Silva residence in the middle of the city. In 2022 the Silva residence and its surrounding neighborhoods were very sensibly moved to District 2 in the north center of Fullerton.
The Observer seems intent of misrepresenting the 2022 district map revision to the public. In a story from March of this year Silva was said to have been “forced to step down” from his seat, even though he served the full four year term of it, because he would have to wait two years to run again in his newly defined district. I challenge anyone reading these comments to compare the 2016 and 2022 maps and decide for themselves which one is Gerrymandered.
Matt- As you know – they are all Gerrymandered. The 2016 bar map placed Silva’s home in a long finger and Sebourn’s home in even a stranger little appendage – (certainly not the fault of Silva or the public who were ignored by the council majority vote to accept the 2016 bar map). But – appointing politicians like Sebourn and Nelson and political action committee and major political donor Tony Bushala to sit on the re-districting committee making up the 2022 maps – also stinks. In the re-districting process – both times so far – the public has been ignored.
The public had the opportunity to join in that re-districting committee for the 2022 maps. So the public had its opportunity to be heard but did not take it. So NO the public was not ignored.
These people absolutely refuse to admit that their ridiculous intervention to protect Silva was actually political. Also they don’t know what gerrymander means.
Jeff – I don’t know what town you are living in but must not be Fullerton. Participating residents have been completely ignored.
Also – I guess Observer is allowing the repetitive “Screenshot” comments even though they all seem to be one person just for the sake of allowing everyone their opinion. But it would be nice if only real people were allowed to comment. No Robo calls or Robo messages.
The 2022 map was sensible, clean, and could pass any legal challenge. Which is why nobody sued the City just to keep Silva in office. None of the Keep Silva in Office At Any Cost maps made any sense at all. Matt Leslie is 100% correct.
Matt, stop talking sense.
This is an op ed correct? You should not label it as local government. You are noticeably biased against Councilman Dunlap and Mayor Jung, and lauding Councilman Zahra. This is not news.
It’s an ongoing disaster. Absolutely news and EVERYONE in district 5 should be outraged at the council majority for disenfranchising them without an iron clad reason.
Instead, there’s no stated reason.
Well I guess District 5 could pick a right winger / Bushalite and then suddenly the majority would be OK with a District 5 representative becoming mayor.
It has nothing to do with Zahra except that he cannot be bought by Bushala.
Wrong John. Ahmad took money from Bushala too. Get the correct information before you carelessly comment.
No, I’m not wrong. Taking a donation and being bought are two totally different things, Karen.
No donation since 2018 says he couldn’t be bought.
…to be fair, John, CMZahra accepted a donation from Bushala back in 2018. (:Sarcasm laid on pretty heavily:).
Accepting it is still accepting the donation regardless of what year it was. Plus paying $42 per voter just to stay in District 5 and still have nothing to show for all the years he has been on councilman. Oh I know!!! lets just make him Mayor now because he is throwing a tantrum along with Fullerton Observer that he lost his turn… you lost it for a reason Zahra! Stop making him the victim!!
“lets just make him Mayor now”
“Lets” as in “let us”?
Who is this “us?”
In American Democracy we are supposed to pick our executives.
The “us” here is the conservative council majority, so “we” have no choice in the matter.
Either the seat should rotate which would be fair to all districts. Or the mayor should be democratically elected citywide.
I don’t blame politicians for accepting any donation. You’re missing the point. Politicians can and normally do take donations from anyone less objectionable than, say, the KKK without getting any flak for it.
The problem in politics is appearing bought by a donor the Bushalas, and Zahra never has. Last donation being in 2018 is as good a proof as you can get.
s’why I said, “sarcasm laid on pretty heavily.”
Jeff: Actually, CMZahra has never thrown a “tantrum.” Fred, in fact, is on PublicRecord throwing :multiple: tantrums.
“s’why I said, “sarcasm laid on pretty heavily.””
Yeah, I got that. I was responding to Jeff. I had a separate response to you.
I’m sorry, John. That’s FULLY on :me:. I should have been more clear. That wasn’t in response to :you:.
Oh, BURRRN!!! You got me, Jeff! *Again, sarcasm laid on REALLY heavily* Gaslight elsewhere, please.
Bit of a bully, aren’t you.
David – Are you referring to Bernard?
Yes. I’ve seen his act.
Yes, exactly. I’m not saying he won’t take their donations. I’m saying they couldn’t buy him.
Donors tend to hedge their bets by giving to “both sides.” But if they don’t get the access and actions they are attempting to buy, they rationally stop or reduce their donations.
Zahra has not gotten any donation from them since 2018 so it’s reasonable to conclude that Zahra has fallen from favor in their investment portfolio.
Good for him.
Yeah Zahra doesn’t earn pay from the Bushalas. GOOD.
In my opinion the Bushalas seek through political contributions to get greater influence than their public contribution or how many Fullerton residents they are proxy interests for warrant. They are simply wealthy people willing to throw their weight around.
If they represented established public interest groups or significant employers I could see an argument in their favor. They don’t represent my interests and much of anyone else so this needs to be talked about.
And their personal campaign targeting Zahra is going to continue to be called out. Look what they’ve done to you.
If that is the case, have Zahra give back the donation the Bushalas gave in 2018! Simple as that!
Jeff (NOT John…sorry, John for lack of clarity last time): CMZahra has NOT “fallen off favor from a lot of people.” WHAT are these “shady antics,” of which you claim (I repeat: ESPECIALLY in the “City of Education,” please provide actual evidence as academic research REQUIRES.) ?!
Also, the ONLY person on the dais “crying”/ that admitted to “crying” is: Fred. You don’t need to believe me. It’s on PublicRecord.
“Have Zahra give back the donation the Bushalas gave in 2018! Simple as that!”
Uh… why? That would reward Bushala for his attempts to control political outcomes. I’d rather he be effectively punished by his money being spent to no avail. Incentives and disincentives in alignment.
Money in politics is a fact. And I don’t mind if donors have expectations of having their issue be heard out. Everyone has a constitutional right to petition. But that’s all you’re supposed to get. Ultimately the elected representative should decide what to do in the interest of all their constituents, not just the ones donating money. It’s not supposed to be a quid pro quo.
I feel that Bushala not donating to Zahra since 2018 is prima facie evidence that Zahra could not be bought by a donation, so they stopped flowing.
If Zahra felt like and could afford giving up that donation, he should take that amount and donate it to charity. But he doesn’t have to and I don’t see any reason he should at this point.
Are you trolls allergic to providing salient evidence for your accusations? Please gaslight elsewhere.
I love how you turn your comments off so no one can reply.
The people who have not fallen off favor of Zahra are the people he pays to believe his empty promises and who he pays to vote for him.
Again, Mayor Jung has not cried or whined about anything in the council meetings. It is simply calling out Zahra’s BS when Zahra wants to play victim or not take responsibility for his votes before Jung even became a councilmember.
Again, Zahra can easily give the 2018 donation back to the Bushalas. Will he? NOPE! Go kick rocks!
“the people he pays to believe his empty promises and who he pays to vote for him.”
What you’re saying is has no basis in fact. Vote buying is illegal and you have no proof of any such thing. You’re simply spreading falsehoods.
HAHAHA Continue to “love,” Jeff. (Re: “I love how…”) :Pattern recognition: much? That’s NOT how the :comments section: works. :face_palm:
I actually said, “admitted to crying;” …which he has. Again, watch PublicRecords. He VERY clearly stated that, “a 10yr old girl made (him) cry.” He is also on PublicRecord throwing tantrums, blaming others, stifling transparency, shutting down fellow dais-members, shrugging accountability, flat out LYING… Now, again, you don’t have to believe me. It’s ALL on PublicRecords (as in CityWebsite. No need for “deep dive” research).
However, the same can NOT be said about CMZahra. Again, where’s your proof?
Seriously, stop trolling/gaslighting. It’s absurd. The information you somehow parse is that CMZahra paid :me:, which he very much did NOT, to vote for him and support him?! From what money source? According to you; he’s NOT a “doctor, producer, etc, etc.” Where does he get the money to pay me off?! My vote is NOT cheap.
oh Bernard!
Do you even know the story behind him saying why the girl mad him cry? Get your story straight and go back watch the State of the City to refresh your memory. Its on YouTube.
On Public Record, I have only seen YOU throw your tantrums, blaming Mayor Jung, and shaking in council meetings. His response is “Next comment” when your 3 mins is up and proceeding to conduct the meeting accordingly. So Please show me YOUR proof.
Zahra throws his tantrums using the Observer to throw his tantrums and battles for him. What a joke! Move Along Bernard! Go kick rocks!
Bernard is a bully.
Are you trolls allergic to providing salient evidence for your meritless accusations? Please gaslight elsewhere.
The reason is obvious: they really don’t like Zahra and don’t want him representing Fullerton as Mayor. Now assuming that Jung, Dunlap and Whitaker are sane people there must be a very good reason, indeed. Probably a lot more than one. I guess they could just come out and say it but why? It’s obvious to any sentient being.
It’s obvious to me of course: it is political, not personal to deny the mayorship to district 5.
And I say it’s personal. I’ve met numerous Democrats who don’t like Zahra either. Sorry. A district doesn’t get to be Mayor. A person does.
Well it’s obvious to any sentient being that you’re wrong.
And it’s obvious to me that you’re just another garden variety Observer ideologue.
The observer ideology. Hilarious.
This may come as a surprise to you, but ideology and ideologue aren’t same same thing. More school.
More school might have helped you libertarian ideologue types. But I doubt it.
This is an op ed correct? You should not call it local government. You are deceiving the readers. You have a noticeable bias against Councilman Dunlap and Mayor Jung, and are obviously for Councilman Zahra. This is not a local news story.
And you’re engaging in character assassination and charged political sloganeering. I’ll note the words you didn’t use, “tried and convicted”… of anything.
I’ll give you two words that are indisputable: “duly elected,” by district 5 voters who should not be left disenfranchised by the political power plays of the conservative council majority.
He got lucky. As a first time offender you plead guilty and get your criminal charge expunged.
So you’re just going to make up lies. Par for the course…
Says the man defending someone who says he is a family man, Doctor, film producer, etc, etc.
Paul B. – You were fooled. Those signs and fliers sent to 5th district homes falsely claiming Zahra was a criminal and others falsely connecting him to marijuana were dreamed up, paid for, and placed by the Bushala political machine which wanted another candidate to win. The Observer looked into all the issues. The “case” was based on Zahra’s unhappy divorce where his soon-to-be ex-husband came to Zahra’s front door with a friend – scaring his mother who was home alone. When Zahra got home – his ex-spouse’s friend was filming the front-door confrontation and Zahra says he did knock the cell phone out of her hand. The two attempted to “citizen arrest” Zahra. When FPD got to the scene – (called by Zahra’s mother) – Zahra was given a citation for the broken cell phone. The OC District attorney dropped the “case.” This nothing “crime” did not prevent Bushala from falsely using the incident in political ads and signs.
DA does not charge unless there is evidence, in which case there was evidence of Zahra committing a criminal act.. Zahra had a plea deal, which included his criminal case to be sponged. Yes, Zahra is a criminal. I would not want a criminal to be Mayor for my city!
Guilty until proven conservative. Yeah we get your argument Jeff.
This is proof that the idiots of the world are winning
It is not character assassination to point out articles from legitimate news sources like the OC Register, LA Times and Voice of OC that document Zahra being arrested for domestic violence and charged by the district attorney’s office. We are doomed if we can’t see the truth for the truth. Just because Zahra signed and completed a plea deal and buried it doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.
It is misinformation and very like Animal Farm to continue to say the wrong information over and over with total disregard for the truth. Dr. Ahmad Zahra was never in a domestic abuse case. He was accused of hitting a phone out of the hand of a woman who was blocking the entrance to his home. He was never prosecuted by the DA. The DA dismissed the charge and Dr Zahra requested to seal the case to protect all those involved from being doggedly and obsessively harassed.
Again, the DA does not charge unless there is no evidence.. Which again there was evidence, in which Zahra did a plea deal, in which included his criminal record to be expunged.
You really are under the Zahra Trance!!
No you’re manufacturing a “plea deal” out of absolutely nothing. I call that lying.
Even the Bushala sloganeering only went as far as “arrested and charged.” You’re going past misleading and misinforming straight into outright lies.
No one is falling into your “trance.”
It is not misleading information or misinforming when it’s true. Why would Zahra mention he took a plea deal? Because that would make him guilty of his charges? He was charged.. if he was not charged, no record would need to expunged by the DA! Again and as I keep repeating myself, the DA doesn’t charge unless they have no evidence!!
All he would need to do is show folks the communication from the DA that charges were dropped. Everybody would be “protected.” Of course his claim that he was exonerated would still be untrue. But hey, what do want?
The Fullerton Observer did a story on the DA dismissing all charges against Dr. Ahmad Zahra. “After the investigation concluded, the charges were dismissed by the DA and sealed by the court. In accordance with California State Law, if a person has not been convicted of a crime, they may have their record sealed by a court.” Please stop with your misinformation.
Charges were dismissed by a plea deal which Included his record to be expunged.
Please stop going around the truth!
“Charges were dismissed by a plea deal”
That is not what a plea deal is.
From what I understand a “plea deal” means you admit guilt to a charge in exchange for something else. If there is only one charge, and it’s dropped that’s not a plea deal. It is the state deciding not to proceed with a prosecution.
The Plea deal was agreements between defendants (Zahra) and prosecutors (DA) in which defendants (Zahra) agree to plead GUILTY to some or all of the charges against them in exchange for concessions from the prosecutors.
Zahra took the plea deal by pleading guily w the charges against him which included his record being expunged.
The state deciding not to prosecute?? That is because he took the plea deal!!
Again the DA does not charge u less they do not have evidence.
Jeff you are obviously playing the telephone game and are the last one in a long line of people who did not get the right information to begin with. https://fullertonobserver.com/2021/08/12/case-dismissed-case-closed/
@Jeff “agree to plead GUILTY to some or all of the charges against them in exchange for concessions from the prosecutors.”
Some or all? So vague. Maybe none then.
So you have no actual idea what happened, if he actually plead guilty to any charge. Stop acting like you do.
Innocent until proven…
Another fine example of investigative reporting or just another “in my opinion” piece ? Though this article complains bypassing Zahra undoes the “non-political process” on the heels of this assertion is the comment from Shana Charles who say the office of mayor is mainly ceremonial. This article claims bypassing Zahra for position of mayor is due to Jung, Whitaker and Dunlap’s “petty or phobic” reasons. Is it asking the Fullerton Observer too much to support their subjective comments with a shred of proof? As for the compare/contrast of Zahra and Dunlop, there is no proof offered by this newspaper showing Zahra is “widely available to his constituents” while Dunlop “more interested in sports than the interests of his District 2 constituents,”. Fullerton Observer touts itself as Fullerton’s only independent newspaper, then it should realize it is held to legal standards and this “news” article defames without proof Fullerton city council members.
@Stefanie that’s a lie though. Please stop.
Another fine example of investigative reporting or just another “in my opinion” piece ? Though this article complains bypassing Zahra undoes the “non-political process” on the heels of this assertion is the comment from Shana Charles who say the office of mayor is mainly ceremonial. This article claims bypassing Zahra for position of mayor is due to Jung, Whitaker and Dunlap’s “petty or phobic” reasons. Is it asking the Fullerton Observer too much to support their subjective comments with a shred of proof? As for the compare/contrast of Zahra and Dunlop, there is no proof offered by this newspaper showing Zahra is “widely available to his constituents” while Dunlop “more interested in sports than the interests of his District 2 constituents,”. Fullerton Observer touts itself as Fullerton’s only independent newspaper, then it should realize it is held to legal standards and this “news” article defames Fullerton city council members.
Screenshot sen to FFFF? As if Bushala and minions aren’t on tenterhooks reading and commenting on every article on local politics at The Observer. They react with hostility to nearly every political article lately.
FFFF isn’t about good government. It’s about their extreme anti government ideology. And in a democracy an anti government ideology is really about being against the majority of your own community. No real way around that.
Calling the kettle black l… you and your buddy Bernard have been commenting on every article as well being hostile.. stop pointing fingers!!
The Observer isn’t good reporting.. it is more like biased and opinion reporting. Go back and read those articles and then come back with a valid comment.
Someone has to push back on your brand of nihilistic, destructive negativity.
I believe we as a community can still do great things. You and FFFF and Bushala simply don’t and wouldn’t want it to.
That’s untrue.. again you and your buddy Bernard simply want to point fingers and blame. Maybe start w your actions and observer being biased and opinion articles.
And you are right as a community everyone can still do great things..