Vote “NO” on Measure A Tax Hikes.
Vote for Suzanne Fuentes and Mike Dugan.
All El Segundo residents should visit the Election Information index page regularly, preferably daily, until the April 8, 2014 El Segundo city election.
Last updated: Friday, May 9, 2014 at 01:45 AM PT.
This page will be updated regularly with links to informative articles about the upcoming April 8, 2014 El Segundo General Municipal Election.
Bookmark this page and review it often for breaking news and information.
(Posts are in priority order, not chronological order; newer posts appear in bold text.)
April 8, 2014 El Segundo General Municipal Election
Ballot Argument and Rebuttal Against El Segundo Measure A Tax Hikes
City of El Segundo 2014 Measure A Tax Hikes – City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis
Recapping the Election – Letter to The Beach Reporter by Michael Robbins
El Segundo Flyer #1: Vote “NO” on Measure A – Eleven Tax Hikes in One Measure!
El Segundo Flyer #3 – Vote “NO” on Measure A, and Against BILL FISHER!
El Segundo City Employee Unions Contributed $17,500 to Measure A Tax Hikes Thus Far
Have the Measure A Supporters Earned Our Trust?
City of El Segundo Can Save $3.3 Million Per Year in Employee Pension Costs
Welcome to the City of El Segundo $100K+ CalPERS Pension Club!
El Segundo Herald Misreports City’s $6.3 Million Property Tax Revenue as $1 Million
El Segundo Firefighters’ Union is Bankrolling the Measure A Campaign to Hike Taxes
El Segundo Measure A Co-Chair Joe Harding was Against the Tax Hikes Before He was For Them
Wrong Time to Raise Taxes and Fees in El Segundo
Which El Segundo City Employee was Paid Nearly $600,000 in His Last Year?
2009-2010 City of El Segundo Separations due to Budgetary Reasons Mostly Early Retirements
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
April 15 Council Meeting – Letter to the El Segundo Herald by Mike Robbins
Post-election Council meeting – Letter to The Beach Reporter by Michael Robbins
Council pay procedures – Letter to The Beach Reporter by Marianne Fong
Fellhauer is a Union Puppet – Letter to the El Segundo Herald by Marianne Fong
Can We Save Mayberry? – Letter to the El Segundo Herald by Marc Rener
Recapping the Election – Letter to The Beach Reporter by Michael Robbins
Fire Union Bankrolling “Yes on A” Campaign – Letter to the El Segundo Herald by Marianne Fong
No on Measure A – Letter to The Beach Reporter by Michael Robbins
Not happy with Measure A – Letter to The Beach Reporter by Marianne Fong
No on Measure A – Letter to the El Segundo Herald by Mike Robbins
Something Fishy About Measure A – Letter to the El Segundo Herald by Marianne Fong
NO ON “A” – Letter to the El Segundo Herald by Art Lavalle
A Correction is In Order – Letter to the El Segundo Herald by Mike Robbins
No on Measure A – Letter to the El Segundo Herald by Helen Armstrong
Frustration – Letter to the El Segundo Herald by Richard J. Switz
Measure ‘A’ – Letter to the El Segundo Herald by Richard J. Switz
by Michael D. Robbins
Director, Public Safety Project, PublicSafetyProject.org
March 3, 2014
Here is a summary of Measure A, followed by the official City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis of Measure A. The summary includes information not provided by the Impartial Analysis, which required researching the El Segundo Municipal Code and making a Public Records Act request to the El Segundo City Clerk.
Measure A will appear on the City of El Segundo, California General Municipal Election ballot on Tuesday, April 8, 2014. It was put on the ballot by a vote of the City Council, primarily to pay for past and future excessive and unsustainable City employee raises and benefits and pension increases given by the City Council – especially for the firefighter and police “association” (union) members and their managers. Mayor Bill Fisher supported those raises and increases, and Councilwoman Suzanne Fuentes voted against them. City Council candidate Mike Dugan was not on the City Council and therefore did not vote for them, and given that he is fiscally conservative, it is likely he would have voted against them also.
Measure A is a massive permanent tax increase on residents and businesses. It will cost residents and businesses $6.6 million per year for the first three years. However, all the residents will pay the business tax increases that are passed on to them as customers.
Measure A does not have a sunset clause (expiration date) as two (Suzanne Fuentes and Carl Jacobson) of the five City Council members requested. Mayor Bill Fisher, Councilman David Atkinson, and Councilwoman Marie Fellhauer rejected their request to make all the new taxes and tax increases temporary for only a few years as needed.
Measure A creates four new 2.5% Utility Users Taxes (UUTs) on residents (Electricity, Water, Gas, and “Communications Services”), nearly doubles three existing existing Business UUTs (Electricity, Water, and Gas) to to 5.5%, more than doubles the existing Business “Communication Services” UUT to 4.5%, increases the Hotel Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT, or “bed tax”) by 25% to 10%, increases the existing Business License Tax (BLT) by reducing credits from Sales Tax generation, and creates a new 10% Parking Tax.
The “Communication Services” UUT is all-encompassing and will tax every charge on every one of your bills for every conceivable existing and future technology form of communication. Per El Segundo Municipal Code (E.S.M.C.) Section 3-7-1, the “Communication Services” UUT includes voice, data, audio, or any other information or signals, using any existing or future technology including land-line, DSL, cable, wireless, cellular, broadband, VoIP, and Internet.
The Measure A “Communication Services” UUT will tax your land-line telephone, cellular telephone, cable TV, satellite, paging, security alarm monitoring, and all other communication services. It will tax your internet access whether it is via DSL, cable TV, cellular phone network, or satellite. It will tax every charge on all of your “Communication Services” bills, including service charges, charges for extra services or features, and even late fees.
Measure A taxes solar energy if the residential or business electricity user does not actually own the solar panels on their roof, as with various solar panel lease and financing plans.
Measure A also taxes electricity co-generated by businesses and residents for their own use on their own property even though that is double-taxation. The UUT is already charged on the natural gas burned to generate the electricity, and the user is merely converting the chemical energy from one form to another before using it (to heat and then to electricity).
Measure A would adopt an ordinance entitled the “Consolidated Tax Measure” (this Analysis refers to it as the “Measure”). If approved, on July 1, 2014 the Measure would increase the transient occupancy tax (“TOT”); increase the utility user tax (“UUT”) on commercial and industrial service users; impose a new UUT on residential service users; and add a new parking lot tax (“Parking Tax”), except for office visitor, retail, restaurant, theater, hotel, employee and valet parking. In addition, the Measure would reduce credits currently provided under the business license tax (“BLT”) beginning January 1, 2015.
A 8% TOT is currently imposed upon persons occupying hotels or motels within the City. The Measure would increase the TOT to 10%.
A UUT is currently imposed on commercial and industrial users utilizing electricity, telephone, gas, and communication services. There is no UUT currently imposed on residents. Under the Measure, the UUT would increase on commercial and industrial users and be imposed on residential users on July 1, 2014; then the increase would be reduced for all users on June 30, 2017, as follows:
| Type | Category | Current | 2014 | 2017 |
| Industrial/Commercial | ||||
| Electricity | 3.0% | 5.5% | 5.0% | |
| Gas | 3.0% | 5.5% | 5.0% | |
| Water | 3.0% | 5.5% | 5.0% | |
| Communication Services | 2.0% | 4.5% | 4.0% | |
| Residential | ||||
| Electricity | 0.0% | 2.5% | 2.0% | |
| Gas | 0.0% | 2.5% | 2.0% | |
| Water | 0.0% | 2.5% | 2.0% | |
| Communication Services | 0.0% | 2.5% | 2.0% |
The Measure would impose a new Parking Tax equating to 10% of annual gross receipts on persons engaged in the business of operating a parking lot for vehicles. The Parking Tax would be inapplicable to gross receipts attributable to office visitor, employee, theater patron, restaurant patron, retail patron, hotel patron, and validated parking; whether self or valet parking.
The current BLT allows businesses to utilize a credit against their BLT with a credit based upon the amount of sales tax revenue the City receives from the business. Currently, a taxpayer may use up to 40% of the sales tax revenue it generates to the City as a credit. For example, if a taxpayer generates $10,000 of sales tax for the City, it is entitled to credit $4,000 against its BLT. Beginning January 1, 2015, the Measure would reduce the BLT credit from 40% to 10%; and on January 1, 2018 the credit would be reduced from 10% to 5%.
Revenues generated as a result of the Measure are estimated to total approximately $6.6 million per year for the first three years it is in existence and then approximately $5.9 million per year thereafter. The revenues can be used for the City’s general governmental purposes.
To be adopted, the Measure must be approved by a simple majority of the voters in the city of El Segundo.
A “yes” vote on Measure A favors the Measure.
A “no” vote on Measure A opposes the Measure.
by Michael D. Robbins
Director, Public Safety Project, PublicSafetyProject.org
March 3, 2014
(This is an updated version of the article, Highest paid El Segundo City Employee in 2009, by Michael D. Robbins, August 17, 2010.)
Generally, El Segundo sworn firefighters and police officers are by far the highest paid City employees. Their “associations” (unions) endorse, contribute money to, and campaign for the City Council candidates who will give them the biggest pay raises and increases in benefits and pensions, and then raise taxes and fees on residents and businesses to pay for it all. Their total compensation, including salary, benefits, and pension contributions paid by the City’s taxpayers, has been about $150,000 to more than $330,000 per individual per year.
The managers’ salaries, benefits, and pensions are increased along with those of their subordinates, to prevent “salary compaction”, and to maintain a minimum 5% higher level of compensation than their subordinates.
Existing sworn police and firefighter employees, including managers, can retire as early as age 50 (police) or 55 (firefighters) with a guaranteed annual pension income of up to 90% of their single highest year salary, including all the “Special Compensation” add-ons in their union contracts for things that are already a requirement of the job or are unrelated to the job.
Thus, Mayor Bill Fisher increased the employee pension income and the pension cost to the taxpayers for the police and firefighter employees (and for all City employees) every year of the Great Recession, because he gave them all excessive and unsustainable raises every one of those years!
Here is a list of retired El Segundo City employees in the “$100K Pension Club”, i.e., with CalPERS pensions paying them in excess of $100,000 per year guaranteed by the taxpayers regardless of pension fund investment performance:
http://www.FixPensionsFirst.com/calpers-database/?first_name=&last_name=&employer=EL+SEGUNDO
Former El Segundo Police Chief David Cummings was the highest paid City employee in calendar year 2009. He retired in 2009 with about eleven weeks left in the year, and had total 2009 compensation of about $596,657. This included his City contract income and his CalPERS pension income while he continued working as the El Segundo Police Chief after his retirement. Cummings’ post-retirement City employment contract acknowledged that he would be receiving his $210,000 per year CalPERS pension income while he continued working as the City’s police chief after his retirement.
(NOTE: David Cummings’ annual pension benefit was listed as $210,213.36 in 2009 at the CaliforniaPensionReform.com web site at http://database.CaliforniaPensionReform.com/database.asp?vtsearchname=&vtsearchemploy=el+segundo&vtquery=1&vttable=calpers (a dead link now), but now shows up as $198,272.04 in 2014 at the FixPensionsFirst.com website at http://www.fixpensionsfirst.com/calpers-database/?first_name=&last_name=&employer=EL+SEGUNDO.)
Below are two tables, one showing how former El Segundo Police Chief David Cummings was paid a total of at least $596,657 in 2009, and the second showing how Cummings’ salary, vacation and sick leave payout, and pension were all spiked by the 23% raise he was given about a year before his retirement. Following these two tables is a list of links to related documents.
Note that Cummings was probably paid more than $600,000 total in 2009, which would have been determined if further research was done to determine the value of his City-provided car and gasoline, and other perks he likely received as police chief.
The following is an in-line HTML table containing the formatted spreadsheet data of former El Segundo Police Chief David Cummings’ calendar year 2009 total compensation and pension income.
Note: This Public Records Act request data was provided by the City of El Segundo, California on December 15, 2010 in response to a PRA request made by Michael D. Robbins on December 5, 2010. It is provided here as a courtesy of Michael D. Robbins and the Public Safety Project, P.O. Box 2193, El Segundo, CA 90245, PublicSafetyProject.org. The estimated (calculated) data and additional data annotations were provided by Michael D. Robbins.
| David Cummings – El Segundo, California Police Chief Paid in Calendar Year 2009 |
|
| Pay and Income for the first 41 weeks (289 days) of 2009 (1/1/09-10/16/09): |
|
| Regular Earnings | 225,627 |
| Special Compensation (Uniform Allowance) | 480 |
| Regular Earnings + Special Comp | 226,107 |
| Leave Payout (Vacation and Sick Leave Payout) | 199,668 |
| Total Earnings | 425,775 |
| CalPERS Pension – Employer Contribution – Paid by the Employer (City) | 48,894 |
| Percentage of Regular Earnings + Special Comp – Paid by the Employer (City) | 21.6% |
| CalPERS Pension – Employee Contribution – Paid by the Employer (City) | 16,755 |
| Percentage of Regular Earnings + Special Comp – Paid by the Employer (City) | 7.4% |
| CalPERS Pension – Employee Contribution – Paid by the Employee | 0 |
| Percentage of Regular Earnings + Special Comp – Paid by the Employee | 0.0% |
| CalPERS Pension – Employee Contribution – Total Amount Paid | 16,755 |
| Percentage of Regular Earnings + Special Comp | 7.4% |
| TOTAL CALPERS PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS PAID BY THE EMPLOYER (CITY) | 65,649 |
| Percentage of Regular Earnings + Special Comp – Total Paid by the Employer (City) | 29.0% |
| NOTE: CalPERS pension contributions were made for the period 1/1/09 – 10/16/09 (41 weeks) | |
| 401(a) Deferred Compensation Plan | |
| 401(a) Deferred Compensation Plan – Amount Paid by Employer (City) | 11,592 |
| 401(a) Deferred Compensation Plan – Amount Paid by the Employee | 0 |
| 401(a) Deferred Compensation Plan – Total Amount Paid | 11,592 |
| Annual Regular Earnings + Special Comp for period 9/27/08 – 9/25/09 | 231,839 |
| Percentage of Regular Earnings + Special Comp | 5.0% |
| Total Insurance Benefits Paid by the Employer (City) | |
| A D & D | 17 |
| Dental | 853 |
| Life Insurance | 154 |
| Long Term Disability | 692 |
| Executive Long Term Disability | 1,031 |
| Vision | 168 |
| TOTAL | 2,915 |
| Post-Employment Health Insurance for 11/09 & 12/09 | 2,302 |
| 2009 TOTAL EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION | 508,233 |
| Pay and Income for the last 11 weeks (76 days) of 2009 (10/17/09 – 12/31/09): | |
| Estimated Contract Employee Pay | 43,956 |
| (At $111 per hour x 36 hours per week average x 11 weeks) | |
| Estimated CalPERS Pension Double-Dipping Income | 44,468 |
| (At $210,213.36 per year for 11 weeks) | |
| ESTIMATED TOTAL 2009 EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND PENSION INCOME | 596,657 |
| (All pension income was obtained while “double-dipping” by working as a contract employee El Segundo City Police Chief) | |
Regular Earnings, Leave Payout, and Pension Benefit Spike
Police Chief David Cummings received a 23% pay increase effective October 1, 2008, about a year before his retirement, which spiked his 2009 total earnings and leave payout, and his annual pension. The raise spiked his regular earnings by $42,190 (from $183,437 to $225,627), and his accumulated vacation and sick leave payout (cash-out) value by $37,336 (from $162,332 to $199,668), for a total earnings spike of $79,527. His annual pension was spiked by an estimated $39,308 (from $170,905 to $210,213).
Police officers and firefighters are credited and allowed to accumulate and roll-over from year to year huge numbers of vacation and sick leave hours, which can be cashed out at a higher pay rate in later years and upon retirement. His total 2009 earnings was $425,775 – consisting of $225,627 Regular Earnings, $480 Special Compensation, and $199,668 Leave Payout. He retired in 2009 with a pension of $210,213.36 yearly ($17,517.78 monthly) according to CaliforniaPensionReform.com, plus medical insurance, for the rest of his life.
The following table summarizes Police Chief David Cummings’ spikes resulting from his 23% raise.
| Regular Earnings | Special Comp. | Overtime | Leave Payout | Total Earnings | Yearly Pension | |
| Before 23% Raise | 183,437 | 480 | 0 | 162,332 | 346,248 | 170,905 |
| After 23% Raise | 225,627 | 480 | 0 | 199,668 | 425,775 | 210,213 |
| Spike Amount | 42,190 | 0 | 0 | 37,336 | 80,007 | 39,308 |
The reason given for Cummings’ 23% pay increase that spiked his pay, leave payout, and pension was salary compaction, also known as salary compression, caused by large pay increases given to the police union members.
Links to Related Documents:
Click here to view or download a PDF file containing the formatted text of former El Segundo Police Chief David Cummings’ after-retirement City employment contract. (28.5 KB PDF file)
Click here to view or download an RTF file containing the formatted text of former El Segundo Police Chief David Cummings’ after-retirement City employment contract. (9.82 KB RTF file)
Click here to view or download a TXT file containing the unformatted text of former El Segundo Police Chief David Cummings’ after-retirement City employment contract. (8.36 KB TXT file)
Click here to view or download a PDF file containing a bitmap scan of former El Segundo Police Chief David Cummings’ after-retirement City employment contract. (249 KB PDF file)
Click here to view or download a PDF file containing the Public Records Act response data for former El Segundo Police Chief David Cummings’ after-retirement City employment contract. (11.2 KB PDF file)
The following table itemizes former Police Chief David Cummings’ calendar year 2009 total compensation and CalPERS pension income.
Click here to view or download a PDF file containing the formatted spreadsheet of former El Segundo Police Chief David Cummings’ calendar year 2009 total compensation and pension income. (20.3 KB PDF file)
Click here to view an HTML file containing the formatted spreadsheet of former El Segundo Police Chief David Cummings’ calendar year 2009 total compensation and pension income. (40.8 KB HTML files)
Click here to download an XLSX (Microsoft Excel 2007) file containing the formatted spreadsheet of former El Segundo Police Chief David Cummings’ calendar year 2009 total compensation and pension income. (16.6 KB EXCEL 2007 Spreadsheet file)
Click here to view or download an XLS (Microsoft Excel 97-2003) file containing the formatted spreadsheet of former El Segundo Police Chief David Cummings’ calendar year 2009 total compensation and pension income. (45.0 KB EXCEL 97-2003 Spreadsheet file)
Click here to view or download a CSV file containing the unformatted spreadsheet data of former El Segundo Police Chief David Cummings’ calendar year 2009 total compensation and pension income. (3.24 KB CSV Data file)
Click here to view or download a TXT (tab-delimited text) file containing the unformatted spreadsheet data of former El Segundo Police Chief David Cummings’ calendar year 2009 total compensation and pension income. (3.24 KB Tab Delimited Text Data file)
by Michael D. Robbins
Director, Public Safety Project
February 13, 2013
The video below, SAAMI – Sporting Ammunition and the Fire Fighter, “is recommended as an educational tool for fire departments.” Its length is 25:47. It “explains how firefighters face no danger from sporting ammunition in a fire when protected by standard turn-out gear.” Even hundreds or thousands of rounds of firearm ammunition cartridges stored in boxes or other containers are safe for firefighters fighting a fire. Thus, firefighters are safe fighting a fire even in a gun store or target range with lots of boxed or loose sporting ammunition present.
This result is based on extensive testing. “Nearly one million rounds of sporting ammunition were subjected to ten different tests-from open burn conditions to tightly confined burn conditions-to examine what happens to sporting ammunition exposed to severe impact and fire.” A link to an article on the subject follows the video.
“Sporting ammunition includes shot shells up to 8 gauge and handgun and rifle cartridges up to .50 caliber. This video examines sporting ammunition only. It does not address military or law enforcement ammunition, such as tear gas cartridges, tracers, or incendiary projectiles.”
“Note that ammunition loaded in the chamber of a firearm and exposed to a fire IS dangerous just as if the trigger of the firearm was pulled, and the bullet can shoot out the barrel with full velocity.”
Therefore, all firearms should always be treated as if they are loaded and should be pointed in a safe direction.
“CONCLUSION: Projectiles ignited outside a firearm have significantly lower velocities and energies than when shot from a firearm.”
The reason there is no danger to firefighters from sporting ammunition in a fire is that the ammunition is not contained in the chamber of a firearm and therefore the walls and head of the cartridge casing are not supported by the steel walls of the chamber and the steel bolt face. The cartridge cannot build up enough pressure to propel a bullet out of the shell casing at a dangerous velocity.
The bullet will pop out of its shell casing at an extremely low velocity, and will NOT have sufficient kinetic energy to cause injury to firefighters protected by wearing standard turn-out gear. After the bullet pops out of the shell casing, the gas generated from the burning powder is not contained by a chamber and barrel, and it has little effect in propelling and accelerating the bullet. Furthermore, the shell casing may split open, releasing pressure from the burning powder. Typically, much of the powder in the cartridge is left unburned.
Firearm ammunition is designed to be fired from the confined volume inside the firearm chamber, where the shell casing is supported by the round steel walls of the chamber and by the steel bolt face. This builds up high pressure of substantially more than 10,000 PSI in the shell casing inside the chamber and in the barrel, propelling and accelerating the bullet down the barrel to full muzzle velocity when the trigger is pulled and the firing pin or striker strikes the primer in the head of the cartridge and ignites the powder contained in the cartridge.
This educational video below was provided by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI), an association of the nation’s leading manufacturers of firearms, ammunition and components. SAAMI was founded in 1926 at the request of the federal government and tasked with:
SAAMI – Sporting Ammunition and the Fire Fighter
“The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI), the standards-setting organization for the industry, has provided this video to fire departments nationwide to help firefighters better address the realities of fires in which sporting ammunition is present.”
“WARNING: These demonstrations do not apply to a loaded firearm (with a cartridge in the chamber). In a fire, a chambered firearm will shoot as if the trigger was pulled.”
For more information, CLICK HERE to download the following article (PDF file) from the SAAMI web site: Facts About Sporting Ammunition Fires, by Harry Hampton, Fire Journal, January, 1977.
These statements and recommendations do not supersede local, state or federal regulations. Local authorities should be consulted regarding regulations on the storage, transportation, sale and handling of sporting ammunition in each specific community.
All ammunition is carefully engineered and manufactured as an article of commerce. It has a specific use; if stored in a proper manner and used as intended in firearms in good condition and designed for the specific cartridge, the safety and satisfaction of the shooter should be assured.
Small arms ammunition is packed in cartons and cases as specified by the US Department of Transportation. These container designs were developed in the interest of safety in transportation, storage and marketing. Therefore, unapproved packaging should never be substituted.
Specific properties or characteristics of small arms ammunition of particular interest to shippers, warehouse operators, dealers and users are as follows:
This fact recognizes the inherently safe, non-hazardous characteristics of such ammunition in public or private storage.
Insofar as the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute has been able to determine, there have been no substantiated reports of serious or fatal injuries caused by the discharge of packaged or loose ammunition in handling or in fires, regardless of the quantity or type of cartridges or shotshells involved. SAAMI has no verified report of any fire fighter hurt by flying bullets or shot pellets in fires involving a sportsman’s in-the-home personal supply of ammunition, a retail sporting goods store’s stock, wholesaler’s or distributor’s sizable inventory, or an in-transit cargo of this product.
Although much has been written and rumored about the 4th-of-July characteristics and so-called havoc of ammunition in fires, it just isn’t so. Members of fire fighting units are understandably uneasy when confronted by fires where ammunition is involved.
Several members of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute have undertaken extensive experiments to show what can be expected when ammunition is involved in a fire. These companies have also made careful investigations after such fires, which show that the missiles do not have sufficient energy to penetrate the garments and protective gear worn by fire fighters.
Tests also show that the whizzing sound heard in the vicinity of ammunition fires are caused by primers expelled from the burning cartridges. The “pops” and “bangs” are exploding primers; the propellant powders burn inefficiently and make little noise.
Metallic cartridges in a fire are difficult to sustain in a burning condition once the packing materials have been consumed due to the cooling effects of the metal parts and the relatively high ratio of metal weight to smokeless powder. Only a vigorous fire around metallic ammunition stocks will cause all cartridges to burn. Shotshell ammunition is difficult to ignite, but once ignited it will sustain its own burning due to the plastic or paper tubes (hulls).
NOTE: SAAMI is the source for all quoted material above.
“SAAMI – Sporting Ammunition and the Fire Fighter” video
http://www.saami.org/videos/sporting_ammunition_and_the_firefighter.cfm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SlOXowwC4c
Facts About Sporting Ammunition Fires, by Harry Hampton, Fire Journal, January, 1977. (PDF file)
http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/publications/download/SAAMI_ITEM_212-Facts_About_Sporting_Ammunition_Fires.pdf
SAAMI leaflet, “SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION: Properties & Recommendations for Storage & Handling” (PDF file)
http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/publications/download/SAAMI_ITEM_202-Sporting_Ammunition.pdf
Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute – Who We Are
http://www.saami.org/who_we_are/index.cfm
The following letter to the editor was published in The Beach Reporter newspaper (TBRnews.com) on Thursday, November 1, 2012 in the Letters section. The Beach Reporter has a strict 250-word limit.
State Ballot Measures
Please vote “yes” on Propositions 32 and 35, and “no” on all others, including all tax measures, all L.A. County measures (except B?) and El Camino Measure E. Taxes are unreasonably high. We’re forced to pay for massive welfare fraud (at least 25 percent, billions of dollars per year statewide) and K-12 education costs for illegal alien children who are not supposed to be in California (about 40 percent, $20 billion per year).
Proposition 32 bans automatic employee payroll deductions for political purposes, and bans direct union and corporate contributions to state and local candidates. Proposition 33 repeals some consumer protections in Proposition 103 and increases costs to many drivers. Proposition 34 repeals the death penalty in all cases, even for terrorists and mass-murderers, no matter how many murder victims. Without the death penalty, lifers can murder guards and other prisoners with impunity. The death penalty saves money by plea-bargaining down to a life sentence without an expensive trial.
Proposition 36 weakens the three-strikes law and will likely increase violent crime. Many violent felon repeat-offenders have committed unsolved violent felonies and have violent felonies plea-bargained down to lesser crimes due to court overcrowding before they accumulate their official third strike. Proposition 37 is a trial lawyer’s full-time employment act in the guise of consumer protection. It was written by trial lawyers to create a giant and expensive trap for farmers, grocers and consumers, where lawyers can file frivolous lawsuits without a client and without injuries or damages.
See http://PublicSafetyProject.org for more information.
Michael Robbins
El Segundo
The following letter to the editor was published in The Beach Reporter newspaper (TBRnews.com) on Thursday, November 1, 2012 in the Letters section. The Beach Reporter has a strict 250-word limit.
No to Proposition 30
It seems that The Beach Reporter has decided to jump into the political arena and into the deep end for that matter.
Proposition 30 is yet another shifty tax increase, disguised to “save the children” yet once again. The money will go to schools and nobody can touch it, just like Jerry Brown promises. (Anybody buying this one?) But where in the “schools” — classrooms, teachers, supplies, teacher benefits?
Please tell me:
Whatever happened to all the money that lotto was supposed to infuse our schools? Paying for all the “stuff” to free up the money for actual school operations.
Where is the reform in the pension programs and operations? I’ll pay more, but show me where you’re going to cut.
Do I need to remind any Manhattan Beach resident of all the past failures with the school administration?
It’s hard to rally us for new taxes as a new building goes up at the high school. Yes, “we need it,” I know. Still think the new administration building next to the school looks great? Let’s just forget how much money was wasted on it.
If we, as a state, would stop wasting money on feel-good projects (high speed rail) we would have plenty of money to fund schools. We are taxed enough, near the top of all the states. Use the taxes you already take from us properly and we would be fine.
Kurt Schweter
Manhattan Beach
The following letter to the editor was published in The Beach Reporter newspaper (TBRnews.com) on Thursday, November 1, 2012 in the Letters section. The Beach Reporter has a strict 250-word limit.
Wrong Choice
No congratulations on your first endorsement of a proposition. The column has total emphasis on that old emotional manipulator, education. Voters should be aware that Proposition 30 has no guarantee of funds going exclusively to education. It will only provide more money to a state that is already spending too much in the wrong direction. Priorities are badly scrambled. Not many students are likely to be taking the “Bullet Train” to class.
Bob White
Manhattan Beach
The following letter to the editor was published in The Beach Reporter newspaper (TBRnews.com) on Thursday, November 1, 2012 in the Letters section. The Beach Reporter has a strict 250-word limit.
R.B. schools have received enough
The Redondo Beach School Board and Superintendent Keller should be ashamed of themselves. Putting another bond on the ballot four years after the last $140 million Measure C is a slap in the face to all the parents who constantly support the fundraisers, the never-ending cash requests and the Ed Foundation donations.
What’s worse are the deceptive glossy mailers coming to our homes. The latest one, received this week, lists over 200 names of “community leaders and members.” That list includes principals, few if any who actually live in our district, RBUSD administrative staff, including the superintendent, who don’t live in our city and handfuls of business folks who don’t own or operate a business in Redondo. I counted almost 80 names on that list that I personally know don’t live or own property in Redondo.
To further illustrate the deception is the Political Action Committee (PAC) that is behind Measure Q. It’s called “Redondo Citizens for Quality Schools.” When I checked PAC contributions with the county office, I found that the actual people behind this PAC are all developers, land use attorneys and more developers! Almost none of these companies have Redondo addresses either. These developers have given in excess of $60,000 toward funding the Measure Q bond campaign. Are these developers really in it for the “greater good” or because they stand to win contracts, based on their assistance with the bond campaign? If these developers are in it to help R.B. create “quality” schools, then why haven’t they ever donated to our Ed Foundation? I’ve given my last penny to R.B. schools and I’m also voting “no” to Measure Q.
Mitch Kimball
Redondo Beach
The following letter to the editor was published in The Beach Reporter newspaper (TBRnews.com) on Thursday, November 1, 2012 in the Letters section. The Beach Reporter has a strict 250-word limit.
Don’t support Measure E
As a longtime, knee-jerk supporter of education, the decision to oppose Measure E was not easy. In making my decision I considered the following:
El Camino College is unable to provide instruction to meet the needs of current students. There is not enough money to pay operating expenses, (i.e. money for classroom instruction). Measure E does not address this problem, instead it creates debt to rebuild and remodel existing infrastructure. Proponents advocate the expenditures for “future students” who they assume will attend classes on campus.
Opponents fear that the community will incur debt for buildings that may stand empty for lack of operating funds. Opponents suggest that online courses may continue to replace on-campus classes as they are already doing at many colleges and universities, including USC’s Virtual Academic Center and El Camino College, which currently provides over 100 online classes.
I have decided that we should not incur 21st century debt on the basis of a 20th century idea of the future of education, especially when we cannot meet our obligations to provide an education to current students.
Marilyn Montenegro
Redondo Beach
@PSP_USA
PublicSafetyProject
http://www.youtube.com/user/PublicSafetyProject
El Segundo Police Officers' Association (ESPOA) Exposed
Response to the El Segundo Police Officers’ Association City Council Endorsements