The Fullerton City Council, after hearing public comments, decided to make changes to the following commissions and committees at January 7 city council meeting.

The Investment Advisory Committee will now have five direct members instead of five at-large members. 

Council Member Dr. Ahmad Zahra raised concerns about how the public understands the current appointment process. He reminded everyone that in the past, the mayor had most control over committee selections. Mayor Fred Jung agreed, saying that this lack of transparency was a problem. He suggested that the mayor, mayor pro tem, and committee chair should interview candidates to recommend to the council.

Zahra proposed that the selection process should be improved. He wants to ensure members can be independent from political pressures. He suggested including a staff member or a commission representative in the selection panel. City Clerk Lucinda Williams confirmed that the current process is set by city law, so any changes would need to follow those rules.

Mayor Pro Tem Dr. Shana Charles supported having council members on the committee and confirmed that it would keep a total of six members: five at-large appointees and the mayor. The council unanimously approved the recommendation.

The Transportation and Circulation Commission currently meets every month, but staff recommended changing the frequency to every other month and reducing membership from five direct and two at-large members to five direct members only.

Councilmember Nicholas Dunlap expressed concerns about changing the meeting frequency, recalling his experience on the Planning Commission where meetings varied in frequency based on the agenda. He preferred to keep the monthly meeting schedule, allowing for cancellations if necessary. Jung asked if anyone disagreed with maintaining monthly meetings and eliminating at-large members, to which Zahra opposed the reduction, believing the committee should remain unchanged. Ultimately, the decision was made to keep regular monthly meetings unless canceled and to have five direct appointees, which passed unanimously.

Active Transportation Committee (ATC) and the proposal to change their meetings from monthly to quarterly.

The discussion centered on the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) and the proposal to change their meetings from monthly to quarterly. Concerns were raised by Charles about the effectiveness of previous meetings, which had been frequently canceled by staff, impacting the committee’s work on the active transportation bike plan. Zahra suggested maintaining the monthly meetings and keeping the committee at seven members for better effectiveness. Dunlap expressed support for bimonthly meetings instead, with a reduced membership of five for efficiency. Council member Jamie Valencia emphasized the importance of collaboration between the ATC and the Infrastructure and Natural Resources Commission (INRC) to address overlapping topics. Ultimately, the proposal passed with a vote of 4 to 0, with Zahra opposing.

Parks and Recreation Commission continued until the second meeting in February.

During a meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Charles highlighted the proactive efforts of the commission in addressing certain issues and suggested tabling the discussion of changing the committee until February, pending a report from the commission. Zahra agreed to this and proposed including the Cultural Arts subcommittee in the discussion, noting its potential to evolve into a standalone commission due to the city’s abundance of cultural activities. The item was ultimately continued until the second meeting in February.

Planning Commission’s proposed meeting schedule and the addition of two at-large members.

The discussion centered around the Planning Commission’s proposed meeting schedule and the addition of two at-large members. Charles expressed uncertainty about the need for this change, noting that the commission has been effective and collegial in recent years. Zahra opposed the change, arguing for maintaining consistency and reducing numbers. Dunlap mentioned that he had previously served as an at-large member and supported keeping the commission at five members for efficiency. Ultimately, the motion to keep the commission at five members passed with a vote of 3 to 2, with Jung and Valencia opposing it.

Charles brought up concerns regarding the Infrastructure and Natural Resources Commission (INRC), noting that there are currently two vacant at-large appointments affecting quorum numbers. She suggested reducing the INRC’s at-large members from four to two and keeping five direct members to streamline the committee. Zahra expressed a similar observation about the missing seats and agreed that reducing the number for consistency could be a good idea. However, she hesitated to support the reduction due to the importance of the commission’s work, acknowledging a conflict between the need for consistency and the potential loss of voices. Ultimately, the proposal passed with a 4 to 1 vote, with Zahra opposing it.

Board, Commission, and Committee reorganization public comment

Karen Lloreda stated, “Given the recent election fiasco, our intimidated and, unfortunately, submissive city staff ignored the blatant disregard for the city code. The dissemination of lies and the thousands of dollars spent by developers seeking to profit from favorable policies should not come as a surprise. We have elected a self-serving council majority, and the results would likely have been different if we had an even playing field.
Make no mistake: some individuals believe that Fullerton is their town—not yours, not ours, but theirs. This is yet another calculated move to consolidate power and push policies that serve their interests. They are trying to sell you the idea that reducing the number of meetings and members will somehow improve efficiency and cut costs. But if you look closely at their plan, you’ll see they intend to eliminate most at-large positions, which are typically held by independent voices. Instead, they will replace these with five handpicked members, each chosen by one of the five council members.
The outcome? Every committee and commission will have a built-in 3-2 majority that mirrors the City Council. Any recommendations made by these bodies will align with the Council majority, ensuring their continued control and suppression of differing opinions. Sorry, Fullerton; you lose again.”

Helen Higgins emphasized that municipal commissions and committees play a vital role in connecting the public with local officials. She expressed concern that reducing membership and meeting frequency jeopardizes democratic processes by limiting public participation. Higgins questioned the need for such changes, suggesting they might not be solely aimed at addressing budgetary issues, especially since neighboring cities like Anaheim, Brea, and others maintain regular monthly meetings to ensure public involvement. She challenged the rationale behind Fullerton’s proposed cuts to participation.

Diane Vena urged the board to reject proposed changes to the structure of boards, committees, and commissions, arguing that they are unnecessary and counterproductive to promoting public involvement and providing expertise on important issues. She questioned the rationale behind claims of increased efficiency and the timing of these proposals, emphasizing that the work of commissions is vital and should be enhanced rather than diminished. Vena highlighted a lack of clarity and transparency in the agenda report, noting unaddressed questions about who recommended the changes and who canceled commission meetings. She also pointed out disparities in how different commissions are treated, with some facing reductions while others remain unchanged, raising concerns about the overall effectiveness and goals of the proposed changes.

Karen Yinling called on the council to rethink item number 11. Although my primary focus is on the Fullerton School District, I found the agenda document intriguing. It claims to aim for “greater resource efficiency,” which appears to imply a reduction in staff workload while increasing the legislative body’s effectiveness. However, the only change I observed was a simplified scheduling process for the council chambers, which seemed odd to me.
As someone who relies on data, I examined the report and found it states that each committee meeting demands a considerable amount of staff time. Multiple departments support various legislative bodies, making it seem somewhat self-serving for staff to suggest a recommendation that eases their workload. While decreasing workload can be beneficial, it poses risks when it compromises the accountability and transparency owed to the public. Staff are not employed by a corporation; they serve the public, and this is an essential part of their duty.
I also questioned whether alternative methods for streamlining had been explored. If our staff is truly overwhelmed, have other options for improving their workflows been considered? The report indicates no, as the only discussions were between staff and the mayor. The commissioners were neither consulted for their opinions nor did they have a say in understanding the reasons for the cancellation of certain meetings.
Would fewer ATC meetings make things easier for the council? The perspectives of other council members, the public, and the commissioners were noticeably missing in this conversation. If we want to boost efficiency, shouldn’t we involve the commissioners and empower them to find ways to improve their operations? We need to go back to the drawing board and include all relevant stakeholders in this discussion.

Joseph addressed the need to reconsider proposed changes to the Parks and Recreation Commission while presenting himself as a concerned resident of Fullerton’s 5th District. He argues that reducing the Commission to five members would eliminate valuable diverse perspectives and compromise its effectiveness. Joseph highlights the contributions of Commissioners Angela Lindstrom and Susan Ray, who emphasize community engagement. He expresses concern that switching to bimonthly meetings would hinder the Commission’s ability to address important issues promptly and provide necessary guidance on matters like the Parks Master Plan. However, he supports integrating the Cultural Arts subcommittee into the Commission to streamline efforts related to art and recreation without losing focus on either.

Anjali strongly opposes proposed changes to committee and commission meetings, arguing that these gatherings are essential for public and member input on ongoing projects before they reach the council. She believes that reducing meeting frequency undermines transparency and democratic processes, as it limits opportunities for public involvement. Anjali points out that most other cities hold regular committee meetings at least monthly and criticizes the reasons given for the changes as unfounded. She emphasizes the commitment of committee members who prioritize their roles and expresses concern that these changes could diminish public participation. Furthermore, she questions the rationale behind reallocating council chambers for other events without clear explanations and highlights discrepancies in meeting schedules for certain committees. Anjali urges council members to reconsider and respect public input, asking them to vote against the proposed changes.

Andrew Galusha, a student at Cal State Fullerton and member of the Active Transportation Committee, opposes the reorganization of city committees. He highlights that the committee faces varying activity levels, needing the flexibility to meet during peak times, especially when responding to new projects from grants. He emphasizes that the committee is a vital platform for residents to express concerns about infrastructure projects. Galusha urges against the proposed changes, as they could hinder the committee’s functionality and limit public input on important transportation issues.

Vince Buck, a member of the Active Transportation Committee, expressed his agreement with the evening’s discussions but wanted to emphasize the importance of revisiting the committee’s resolution, which was passed unanimously by the City Council in August 2019. He noted that much of the resolution’s goals have not been achieved recently due to frequent cancellations of meetings and a proposal to meet only quarterly, which he believes would hinder the committee’s effectiveness. Buck highlighted his experience on other committees, where regular meetings and collaborative agenda-setting led to significant accomplishments. He is concerned about the current direction of the committee and its reduced meeting schedule.

Jane Reifer expressed her gratitude for the opportunity to speak about the Active Transportation Committee (ATC), emphasizing its focus on enhancing walking, biking, and public transit access. She introduced the “Complete Streets” concept, advocating for planning that accommodates various transportation options beyond just cars. Jane highlighted the need for more ATC meetings, noting that important projects, like the housing element, often do not involve the committee despite their relevance to transportation. She mentioned that improving accessibility often requires simple changes rather than significant funding.
Additionally, she addressed concerns regarding the Planning Commission’s delayed meeting minutes, which have not been approved since August. She stressed that this lack of documentation represents a significant issue. Jane also pointed out that during ATC meetings, staff have prevented discussion on important topics related to biking and pedestrian access, contrary to the committee’s enabling legislation. She concluded by urging against any restrictions on the committee’s ability to discuss these crucial issues, expressing frustration about the situation.

Matthew Leslie expressed concerns about a lack of detail in the agenda report and the absence of public discussion before making significant decisions. He emphasized the importance of the Active Transportation Committee and cautioned against restricting their meetings, noting that crucial city decisions should occur within that committee. He also criticized a motion to reduce members on the Parks and Recreation Commission while increasing the Planning Commission’s size, arguing that there were no valid reasons for these changes. Leslie raised the issue of potentially diminishing representation on Parks and Recreation and suggested exploring alternative meeting venues if access to council chambers was a concern.

Jensen Hallstrom expressed disappointment over the decision to change the Parks and Recreation Commission’s meetings from monthly to bi-monthly. He disagrees with the reasoning that this change will enhance effectiveness, arguing that it could hinder ongoing discussions about pressing issues in Fullerton. Hallstrom believes that having to cover more information in less frequent meetings might decrease the commission’s productivity and undermine the efforts of dedicated volunteers. He sees this reduction in meeting frequency as unjust and hopes for a reevaluation of the decision.

Maureen Milton expressed disappointment with the lack of transparency in discussions, which she feels limits citizen engagement. She highlighted that meetings occur every three months, hindering progress and overlooking key issues. Although she supports the Youth Advisory Committee, she is concerned about its large size of 17 members and how it may impact effectiveness. Maureen stressed the importance of regular attendance and staying informed, warning that limiting decision-making to a few individuals could threaten democratic values. She urged for more frequent meetings to better serve the community.

Angela Lindstrom, a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission since June 2021, emphasizes the importance of prioritizing excellence in the Commission’s work while being mindful of budgetary constraints. She advocates for reflecting community voices in public programs and facilities, which was overlooked in a recent staff report. Lindstrom believes scheduling issues for conference rooms should not hinder public input and suggests using alternative venues if necessary. She also mentioned that the Commission has formed a subcommittee to improve its effectiveness, with a report due next month. She urges decision-makers to consider stakeholder input regarding any proposed changes to ensure they do not compromise the Commission’s effectiveness and excellence.

Jose Trinidad Castaneda expressed his support for the unanimous approval of recommendations presented at the meeting, noting their similarity to proposals he previously made in Buena Park. He emphasized the importance of these changes for resource efficiency and the effectiveness of the legislative body, highlighting the crucial role of commissions and committees in gathering public input for funding proposals. Castaneda urged committee members to participate in public forums with consulting teams, as these meetings are key to achieving valuable outcomes. He praised the staff for their recommendations and encouraged their adoption, citing successful implementations in Buena Park as evidence of their effectiveness.

Nan, a casual attendee of City Council meetings, expresses frustration over the frequent cancellations of active transportation committee meetings. Given the upcoming capital improvement projects related to transportation, road resurfacing, and parks, she questions the logic behind reducing the frequency of these meetings and the number of members involved. Nan requests clarification from previous commenter Jose and the Council regarding the rationale for these proposed reductions, suggesting it seems unreasonable considering the city’s plans.

Kayla Sotto expressed confusion about the decision to reduce the membership and frequency of the Parks and Recreation Commission while adding responsibilities related to the Cultural Arts subcommittee. She understands the need for budget cuts and resource management but questions how the Commission can effectively function with fewer members and reduced input while taking on additional work.