Endorsements and the Rexford Recall

The Rexford recall gang has a full page ad in this week's  Poway News Chieftain.  The ad says, "Add your name to the list of thousands of Poway residents and business owners including Sharon Cafagna, Mayor Don Higginson, Councilmember Merrilee Boyack, Sue Herndon, Chic Hume, Nazem Agha, Steve Vaus, Howard Lomas, Bill Racicot and others who support the Recall of Rexford and the election of a replacement."

My first thought when I saw this ad was,  "Who is paying for this?" My second thought was who in the samhill is .....well, let's just say I wasn't familiar with at least one of those names. But google is my friend and now I know who they are.

The recall group has  opened an office on Poway Rd and is sending out paid signature-gatherers.

It's crunch time. They have about 3 weeks to go and I don't think they have enough signatures yet.

The signatures are due Feb 10th, but in order for them to be counted and certified for the June election, they need to get them in around the end of January. A financial report is also due at the end of January, but it will only include expenditures through Dec 31st, so we may not know who is paying for the ad, the little office the group has opened on Poway Rd or the paid signature-gatherers until the next reporting period.

In the last few weeks, councilmember Merrilee Boyack has come out of the closet and exposed her rather significant role in the recall. Around Christmas, she sent out an email telling folks that she had set up a Kool-Aid booth a recall table in front of her house. And, if people couldn't make it to her house to sign, she'd send her son over to their house to get their signature. Could he be one of the paid signature-gatherers? Not that that would be illegal, or anything. But it would be interesting to know.

During the public comment portion of last Tuesday's city council meeting, Vaus and Boyack performed a little one-two punch on Rexford although Rexford had already wisely left the room before Vaus spoke.

During the public comment period, Steve Vaus, the leader of a movement seeking to have the 69-year-old councilwoman recalled from office, said the evidence is overwhelming that she demanded a firetruck be stationed near her home during the fire even as other Poway homes burned.Rexford has adamantly denied the claims in the past.“I recently got a call from someone you spoke to shortly after that 2003 fire,” Vaus said. “And way back then, you told the truth. You told that person you asked for a firetruck and got it — in fact, they said you took great pride in having a truck at your house. Do you remember that conversation?”

Like well choreographed kabuki theatre, Boyack then spoke her lines.

“I was the person that spoke to Mr. Vaus about that. Within a week of the Cedar fire, I was having a conversation with Betty and she personally told me that she had gotten a firetruck to protect her home and her neighborhood. I’ve been surprised that she has denied it. That makes no sense to me because she told me she had done that. … I know that to be fact.”

Rexford's husband then went berserk and called everyone a liar. Mayor Higginson (who recently revealed that he enjoys the the recallers livening up boring city council meetings) was obliged to tell Paul Rexford to sit down and STFU or he would have him kicked out.

I suspect the recallers are trying to poke a stick in Betty's eye and provoke a response so they can get a little attention in the press.  Maybe smoke out a few recalcitrant folks to sign their recall petition.

So, exactly where do I stand on the recall?

I did not support Rexford for re-election in 2006. I would love to see someone else on the council. Not just anyone, mind you, but someone who reaches out to the whole community, not just to one or two people or special interest groups.  The recall is also the best opportunity to get a fresh new face on the council. That is something I think Poway desperately needs. Despite my hope to see Rexford (and pretty much everyone else on the council) replaced, I will not join in the recall.

It's not because I'm opposed to recalls. I'm not. In fact, my husband and some of my friends were involved in a recall of Cafagna and Higginson some years back. The primary issues of that recall were a proposed amphitheatre in the industrial park and higher flood insurance premiums for the Pomerado Rd residents.  When those two issues were hot, the signatures poured in. When the council axed the amphitheatre and solved the insurance problem, tempers cooled and the recall drive fizzled.

The Rexford recall is a whole different animal from that recall. In my opinion, the Rexford recall seems particularly vicious and personal. I was appalled when the recallers served Rexford with the recall papers in the home of her dying son, who was in hospice care.  That just crossed the line of human decency.  Steve Vaus also asked folks who supported the recall to send email messages to Betty while she was at her son's side. Really, couldn't it have waited a week or two?  Or was the intent to try to upset her at a very vulnerable time in the hope that she would hysterically resign and pave the way for the council to appoint a replacement?

Betty Rexford is serving her 16th year as a councilmember. When she ran for re-election in 2006 she was endorsed by a whole bunch of people and newspapers. The Poway News Chieftain endorsed her in 1998, 2002, 2006. Now they have asked her to resign.  Likewise the SDUT and North County Times endorsed her in 2006 (and other years) but have now asked her to resign. Did those newspaper endorsers not know Rexford very well when they endorsed her? How fickle to ask someone who really hasn't changed at all to step aside so an appointment can replace them after they told the voters to vote for this person 3 yrs ago. I think they need to check the quality control criteria in their endorsement departments.

Merrilee Boyack also endorsed Betty Rexford in 2006. Now Boyack says she had a conversation with Betty Rexford after the 2003 Cedar Fire and Betty bragged to her that she got a personal firetruck. She claims that Betty abused her position as a councilmember. And yet, Boyack asked the voters to re-elect Rexford in 2006, 3 yrs after the purported phone conversation. If Boyack thought Rexford had abused her position on the council, why did she ask the voters to re-elect her? That's not ethical.

Why has Boyack waited 6 yrs to make the conversation about the firetruck public? Was it something she never would have revealed, if, say, Betty had voted to make Boyack mayor instead of voting for Higginson to replace Cafagna? One wonders.

My personal opinion is that all those people (and newspaper editors) who successfully convinced the Poway voters to re-elect Rexford in 2006 should just learn to live with the consequences and be a little more careful with your endorsements in the future.

And speaking of endorsements, what's up with endorsing someone before everyone has had a chance to throw their hat in the ring? I mean, if you haven't seen all the candidates, and you are endorsing, then it pretty much looks like you are really shilling for that candidate because you have them on a leash and they are YOUR candidate, YOUR proxy, YOUR lapdog, YOUR protege. Whatever you want to call it, it is a signal to everybody that you expect to have power and sway over that candidate's decisions.

Last month, Carl Kruse, flanked by Bruce Tarzy and Merrilee Boyack,  announced he was going to run for re-election in 2010.

Kruse was appointed to the City Council in May to fill the remaining 18 months of Councilman Don Higginson’s term. Higginson had been appointed mayor that month to fill the vacancy created by the death of Mayor Mickey Cafagna in April.

At the time, Kruse said he intended only to serve for 18 months, but just weeks later, he said he wasn’t sure what he would do. Yesterday, during a news conference in front of city hall, Kruse said things have changed in the city and he viewed next year’s election as being pivotal to Poway’s long-term future.

My guess is that "what's changed" is that Bruce Tarzy is a little unsure that some known or unknown candidate, that he doesn't own, might get elected in 2010. So, just to be safe, he convinced Kruse to run despite the fact that Kruse's "not running" was a big factor in his appointment. 

Boyack also endorsed Kruse and Sabrina Butler (who was expected to announce her candidacy). But, lo and behold, things changed and Butler has stated that she isn't running and will not accept an appointment to the council.  In a very strange twist of logic, Merrilee also announced that she will not endorse Higginson if he runs. 

Boyack said she would not support Higginson's bid for re-election because he had said he would not run again after being appointed to mayor, and she wants to hold him to his word.

OK, let me get this straight. Carl Kruse is appointed to the council, based partly on his assertion that he will not run for re-election. Kruse changes his mind and runs for re-election.  Boyack endorses him. She doesn't "hold him to his word" because "things changed." But before Higginson can pull the same trick, Boyack announces that she will not endorse him if he does, because she wants to "hold him to his word." But Carl doesn't have to be held to his word because....because...because...why?  This is one I really, really don't get. If you do, please post a comment and help me out here.

I'm not endorsing anyone for 2010...yet. I'm not "not endorsing" yet either. I'm going to wait until all of the candidates have announced and revealed at least a little bit about themselves and their philosophies. I'm really ready for some new faces on the council and I hope all the people who take the time and effort to run, get a fair chance to introduce themselves to the voters before the power elite throw their weight around by endorsing. I would also advise the voters to ignore the endorsements of those who change their minds a few years later and want us to throw out the person they told us to elect. Enough! Bring on the candidates and let us make up our own minds. 

Are You Listening?

There were lots of goings on last week in the ol’ Poway corral.

First off, Rod Gould unexpectedly resigned. He is going to be leaving Poway in January to take the city manager ‘s job in Santa Monica. Gould has been Poway city manager for 4 yrs.  That's not very long by Poway standards (Jim Bowersox served for 24 yrs), but probably only a few years shy of the average city manager’s tenure. Gotta wonder just how much of Gould’s decision was a desire to get away from the rancor and contentiousness of Poway and how much was a desire to do something in a bigger city and get paid a lot more for it. Gould is a consummate professional. We will probably never know.

Betty Rexford was elated at the news about Gould’s leaving. Apparently she and Gould didn’t get along too well. I think there may have been some words between them about this city not being big enough for both of them. She’s still standing, so I guess that’s a win for her.
Last week, Rexford launched her website, therealbettyrexford.com. It is Rexford’s effort to get her side of the story out. As you might expect, the Poway Posse aka the recall-rexford folks responded to the rollout of her website by rolling up their recall tent. Not. You can read their responses here, but I suggest you avoid it, unless you have a perculiar nostalgia for your junior high years.

Last week was also the performance of Steve Vaus’ Carols by Candlelight. That’s his annual “for charity” gig. But since Vaus’ production company is a for profit company, we won’t know how much of the donated money and ticket revenue from Carols by Candlelight went to coddle the artists and line Vaus’ pockets and how much of it actually went to charity.  The recall stampede has been pretty quiet lately. I am not sure if that is because Vaus has been otherwise occupied or if they just ran out of steam.  Vaus hasn’t sent out a tweet since Nov 10.  No new republican leaders have stepped forward this week demanding that Rexford resign right this very minute.

Vaus’ claim that other houses burned to the ground during the Cedar Fire because a fire crew  was diverted to “babysit” Rexford’s house has been getting a lot of pushback.  I must say, the “facts” about the fire presented on the realbettyrexford site here, here, here  and here are pretty compelling. The documents on Vaus' site don’t back up his claims, they just show that a fire truck was sent to Rexford’s neighborhood to mop up after the fire. No document that Vaus provided shows that Rexford called and made any demands to send a firetruck. No document shows that any other house burned down due to a truck being sent to the Creek Rd neighborhood to quell spot fires.  Although not backing down or apologizing for what sure seems like a freakin’ distortion of events, Vaus (and his friend, Jack) are quick to point out that the issue of Rexford costing us a lot of money remains.

Do whatever you can to hide the real issue. Betty Rexford is unfit to serve and her repeatedly poor ethical choices have cost the city almost 1/2 a MILLION dollars. Does this not even bother you Gerold and Chris? You would rather put up with someone who is clearly unfit to serve rather than let anyone replace her?

So, maybe another house didn't "burn" as a direct result of her having trucks babysit her home, but does that make it any less salacious that she was able to have her own personal fire brigade stationed at her property and available to her beck and call?

Yes, it does bother me that the court case cost the city almost $500,000. I don’t agree with the recallers that Betty, and only Betty, was the problem that led to the court case. Nor do I agree that removing her from office just before her term expires and replacing her with an appointee is gonna fix things. But, consider the mathematics of the settlement. There are about 50,000 people in Poway. This case cost us about $10 ea. Or about $25 per household. Since January, I have been bitching about something that is costing me and many other Powegians about $50 per bi-monthly billing cycle. That is about $300/yr and it has been going on for years and will continue to go on until the council takes some action on it. I’m talking about my sewer consumption rates also known as “a variable commodity charge”. I’ve blogged about it here, here, here, and especially here. I’ve also complained about the fixed fees but that is another whole blog. Right now I am paying $72.23 for using 13 units of sewer water.(even when I only use 10 units). That is over $6/unit. Customers who use over 51 units are paying less than $2.29/unit. It isn’t fair, it isn’t just, it doesn’t comply with the best management practices of cities that have joined together to promote less consumption. Why should those who dump less water into the sewer system be paying a higher rate?


Tonight, the council will take another look at the water rate increses that went into effect this summer. The GVCA (Green Valley Civic Assoc) has complained that the rates aren’t fair and that some people will be paying more than it costs the city to provide the water.  Well, hello, isn’t that what I have been saying about the sewer rates for almost a year now? Can anybody hear me?  At least with the water rates, everyone is paying the exact same rate for the same amount of water purchased. Not so with our sewer rates. Those who buy more pay less. So how is it that GVCA got the council to bring back the water rates, but my complaints about the unjust and unfair sewer rates have been completely ignored?

Not a single councilmember has stepped forward to bring back the unfair sewer rates and put it on the agenda. In fact, Merrilee Boyack is the only council member to even respond to my many emails. Ms Boyack said maybe the council will look at it in a couple of years. A couple of years, eh? In a couple of years, that $300 extra that water-wise Powegians are paying each year is going to start adding up. It makes the Rexford settlement look like chump change.

Betty Rexford has also spoken in favor of rehearing the GVCA call to roll back the water rates to a flat rate. My request to rehear the sewer rates? She has done nothing.  Here is the issue where I am in total agreement with the recall folks. Betty Rexford has not been doing a good job of representing all of us.  But I’m not looking to replace Rexford with an appointee chosen by the council. I want the voters to replace her with someone who will listen to everyone in this community, not just the GVCA.

As for Higginson, Kruse and Cunningham, I haven’t heard a peep out of them about the unfair sewer rates either. They all live in north Poway and are pretty much tethered to the GVCA, but, uh, don’t you guys represent all of us? The unfair sewer rates  are not a north v south issue. The people who are getting ripped off are the ones who don’t use a lot of water in the winter months.  They are paying up to 10 times the sewer rate of the people who are putting a lot of water down the drain.

To be fair, most of my complaints were sent to the council before Carl Kruse was appointed.  So, here is your chance Carl. At tonight’s meeting, I am hoping you will ask to bring back the sewer rates and change them so that everybody pays the same rate for their sewer use. Not the same fee-  the same rate-  for each unit of water put into the sewer pipes.  Are you listening, Carl?  


Is anybody listening?

The Rabble Rousers

In my last post (written a few eons ago) I promised to blog a bit about some of the locals who are rousing up the crazies. This blog is not about issues, it more of a behind-the-scenes look at two local rabble rousers  and how they derive personal income from their political and charitable activities.

The first rabble rouser is Gary Kreep.  Kreep is a long-time political activist for conservative causes. Kreep was even a teabagger way back in 1975. 

Back in the mid 1970s, Gary Kreep spearheaded a national tea bag-based movement to protest the Ford Administration's tax policies, he confirmed to TPMmuckraker today.

"To protest unreasonably high taxes, people stapled tea bags to their tax returns," explains Kreep, now director of the United States Justice Foundation, but then a law student and an officer in the California chapter of the Reaganite Young Americans for Freedom.

When the the 2009 teabagger movement began to emerge earlier this year, Kreep thought: "It's deja vu all over again."

In 1975 the top income tax rate was 70%, today the top rate is half that, 35%.  That is very nearly the lowest rate  that the top earners have had to pay in the last 80 yrs.  Since 1960, federal taxes (income taxes, capital-gains taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, gift tax and corporate tax) have decreased for low earners, risen slightly for middle income earners and dramatically dropped for high earners.  Distribution of wealth? Well, of course.   But shhh!!! Don’t tell the crazies. It stupefies ‘em. 

Kreep is also engaged in the lunatic fringe’s refusal to recognize that Obama is the legitimate president of the United States.  Kreep and birther queen Orly Taitz filed a lawsuit in Orange County, California on the day the president was inaugurated, claiming that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but rather in Kenya.  As “evidence” they produced Obama’s purported Kenyan birth certificate which is now acknowledged to be a fake.

It took just 48 hours to definitively expose Taitz's find as a forgery, and for the document that it was apparently based off of to surface. It's a certified copy of a birth certificate for one David Jeffrey Bomford, born in South Australia in April 1959.

Images of both certificates can be viewed below -- for comparison purposes, you can see a larger, more legible version of the forgery here. The similarities are striking; they bear the same seal, have the same document numbers at the top left and top right corners and have identical book and page numbers. The names of the registrar and district registrar listed on each document are remarkably similar as well -- the source has the registrar listed as "G.F. Lavender," while the forgery names him as "E.F. Lavender." In the original, the district registrar is "J.H. Miller;" in the forgery, it's "M.H. Miller," and the M is slightly askew, overlapping the period.

The source material was indisputably published prior to the revelation of the forgery; it was available on a family genealogy Web site and popped up in Google image searches. (The Web site is no longer accessible, apparently due to the sudden increase in traffic prompted by the exposure.)

You can join the fun and make your own forged Kenyan birth certificate .


Lucas Smith, the witness who purported “found” the fake birth certificate now claims that Taitz asked him to lie to the court, as did Larry Sinclair, another witness, who was claiming to be Obama’s homosexual lover.

Smith also reveals that Taitz stopped speaking to him after he told people that she was sleeping with Charles Lincoln, a member of her legal team. And he describes in detail Lincoln, who has been disbarred in three states, relating his opinion of Taitz's sexual performance.

Folks, it is not a freakin’ reality tv show. It’s the courts. You are all batshit crazy. And you are wasting the taxpayer’s money with your frivolous court suits. Judge Carter dismissed this case. In another birther case (also dismissed), the judge fined Taitz $20,000 for abusing the courts. She says she is not going to pay. Ohhhkaaaay. Let's see just how much longer until Taitz is disbarred.

I’ve met Gary Kreep. He has defended the Minutemen, anti-abortionist Connie Youngkin, and the cranky (but harmless) Poway octogenarian-government-watchdog Ed Carbonneau. He is a true believer in conservative causes. Why he would team up with Taitz I have no idea. Well, maybe I do. For a while there, the birther delusion was just hot, hot hot, and it was a great hook to keep the money rolling in.

Kreep is the executive director of the US Justice Foundation, a nonprofit organization that seeks “to advance the conservative viewpoint in the judicial arena”. US Justice Foundation makes money several ways: by charging clients or winning their case and collecting attorney’s fees or by asking for donations.  This fall, USJF was running a “birther infomercial” in several selected southern states.  At the end of the infomercial which featured Kreep and Bill Keller (a fundamentalist who was imprisoned in the late 1980s for an insider trading conviction) viewers are asked to send in a donation. In return the donees get their name on a petition and a bumper sticker. 

As I said, the USJF is a nonprofit group. They file a Form 990 every year with the IRS. The documents are available on guidestar. 


In 2005, Kreep was the only paid officer for USJF. He was compensated $299,000 and an additional $9,000 went into his deferred compensation plan. Stirring up the crazies can be lucrative. So, to sum up, Kreep's message seems to be, "Don't pay your taxes, send your money to me, Gary Kreep, instead."

The second rabble rouser is Steve Vaus, the Poway resident who is leading the recall of city councilmember Betty Rexford. Although Vaus was an unknown entity in local politics before the recall, he is hardly a political neophyte. He has a long history of political activism. In fact, Vaus once ran for office. Way back in 1986, when he was living in the city of San Diego, Vaus ran for a seat on the school board. He campaigned for “back to the basics” and also against school health clinics (that might dispense birth control paraphernalia). Although an early favorite, Vaus lost; he came in 5^th out of 8 candidates.  Afterwards, he compared his loss to a woman losing an unborn child late in her pregnancy:[1]

"I really think I understand what it's like for a woman to have a miscarriage," Vaus said. "You go along for so long-in my case, eight months-nurturing this dream, then all of a sudden, it's just not there anymore. You're left with an emptiness that's very hard to deal with."

Ummm...right. After the election, Vaus resumed writing jingles for ad campaigns and sound tracks for movies. And he started writing “political” songs. The first was an ode to Oliver North, written in 1987, and inspired by North's testimony during the Iran- Contra hearings. [2]

Titled "The Ballad of Lt. Col. North," the song extolling the Marine officer as the "kind of man who built the USA" made its debut on local radio and television shows.

Vaus, 35, said he wrote the song because North impressed him during his testimony "with his honesty and his clear-sighted action in supporting his superiors and the country he loves deeply."

"He looks like a hero," said Vaus, who lives in Scripps Ranch and runs Steve Vaus Productions, a company that churns out songs for local advertisers at its Kearny Mesa offices.

I guess Vaus and I differ on our definition of heroes- mine don’t secretly sell American weapons to Iran.

In 1992 Vaus wrote another politically inspired song, “We Must Take Back America”. The song was a fundamentalist pitch for prayers in school. For about a month, the song was hot, hot, hot and Vaus was a rising star.  RCA records wanted the song and sent Vaus on a promotional tour.  Then the song crashed. Vaus blamed the dive on “liberal radio stations” that refused to air his song because it was "too patriotic". Jack Weston, vice president and general manager of RCA in Nashville saw it differently.[3]

JWeston, who signed Vaus, says his decision to drop the singer was motivated by economics, not political pressure.

Despite its Top 100 chart appearance, "We Must Take America Back" sold fewer than 25,000 copies and obtained airplay on fewer than two dozen of the nation's more than 200 key country radio stations.

Music industry insiders say that it is not uncommon for a label to drop a new artist if the performer's debut does not receive substantial airplay or sell records.

"Sometimes you see the writing on the wall and you try to cut your losses as quickly as you can," Weston explains. "When we first heard Mr. Vaus' music, we thought that, given the election and the current political climate, it might appeal to a lot of folks out there. But we were wrong.

"Radio programmers said they didn't think their listeners wanted to hear somebody harping about all these causes in such a preachy manner. Fact is, the record just didn't sell."

Vaus has recently re-released “We Must Take America Back” with new lyrics. The school prayers appeal has been cut.  There is still plenty of dark, patriotic doom and gloom in the new lyrics, along with a lament against pols who “stick and bleed us” and who are “not even fit to hold office". The new lyrics are a general, all-purpose, whiny angst, perfect for a tea-bagging event or a recall.

This post is not an attempt to discuss (or debate) the merits of the Rexford recall. But I do find it ironic that in 1998, Vaus teamed up with Roger Hedgecock to do a hit piece on president Bill Clinton. Yes, I said  Roger Hedgecock, the same Roger Hedgecock who was the mayor of San Diego from 1983 until he was forced to leave office in 1985 after being convicted of taking illegal campaign donations from none other than Nancy Hoover and J. David Dominelli.  Dominelli was kind of the “Madoff of the 80s";  he ran a company that scammed millions of dollars from some very wealthy, high-profile investors. His investment company collapsed because it was really a ponzi scheme.  Hoover and Dominelli ended up in prison. Hedgecock was luckier. Most of his convictions  were later overturned by the California Supreme Court.  One remaining charge was reduced to a misdemenor, for which  Hedgecock merely served probation. 

Four days after he resigned his mayorship, Hedgecock took a giant leap to the political right and re-invented himself as a talk radio host. It was on Hedgecock’s KOGO show that Vaus introduced his“Wrong is Not Right” anti-Clinton song and ad campaign in 1998. The ad campaign consisted of several 60 second radio spots that featured letters from children writing to the president for advice on how to get away with lying to their parents.  Vaus asked people to send donations so that he could raise a million dollars to run the ads on various radio stations.  Vaus asked people to send the money to him at a P.O. Box. No PAC or political group is mentioned on the website, so I have no idea where to find an accounting of how much money was raised or how it was disbursed.

Hedgecock also pitched Vaus’ anti-Clinton ad campaign fundraising request on one of the 2 min commentaries he did for  KUSI TV news. And he got "indefinitely hiatused" for it. [4]

Hedgecock says he had permission from KUSI management to tell viewers to send money to a local musician who's trying to place commercials on radio stations around the country urging the removal of President Clinton from office.

Rawdin, and station owner Mike McKinnon, says he violated their orders not to air the live commentary.

                                                 Snip

Hedgecock, who was paid $250 for each of his two-minute KUSI commentaries, says he's frequently done fund- raising for local charities in his commentary, but Rawdin responded: "We don't do political fund-raising through our newscast."

Said Hedgecock: "Under my contract, if they don't like a script I've submitted, and this one was submitted, the remedy is not to air it.

"Not only was it approved by the producers, but the production staff assisted in making the (graphic) board which was put on screen which asked for the money.

"They allowed it to be aired, and after the fact, they censored me by putting me on suspension indefinitely because Mike McKinnon didn't like it for some reason."

Which is not the way Rawdin remembers it.

Rawdin says he instructed Hedgecock's representative, Jimmy Valentine, that Hedgecock should not deliver his pitch for Vaus. "He didn't follow our procedure," Rawdin said. "He was told by me not to do that. Then he did it.

"The word `suspension' was never used. Roger violated. . . explicitly what I did not want (him) to do. Since then, I've put Roger on hiatus while we evaluate his violation of our procedures."

Gotta wonder if Hedgecock is another one of Steve Vaus' heroes.

I’ve never met Steve Vaus in person, but I did have a phone conversation with him in Sept. Steve had left a comment on my blog and somehow got my email address and asked me to call him. After the call, I started getting group emails and news updates about the recall from Steve although I had never asked to be placed on any list. About a month later, I got an email about a Christmas concert promotion called “Carols by Candlelight” that Vaus produces. The email asked for my help “keeping Carols afloat” and it stressed that “the sole reason that Carols exists is to raise money for LOCAL children’s charities". A link from the email mentioned that this was the first year in 19 yrs that Carols did not have a title sponsor chipping in $25,000, so they really needed some angels to send money to them. Could I be an angel and send them $250- $25,000?

Carols by Candlelight 2

Two friends who were also getting unrequested recall emails from Vaus, got the Carols by Candlelight email too. Was Vaus using the recall to phish for email addresses so he could pump Powegians  for donations to finance his concert? It seemed that way to me.

Ken Leighton, who covers the music scene for the San Diego Reader, raised my query up a notch or two. He wanted to know  just how much money Steve gave to charity from his concert. He called Vaus and asked him, but Vaus couldn’t (or wouldn’t) say how much money the concert gave to charity in 2008.

After I read Leighton’s piece and the comments that were posted. I called Make-A-Wish foundation on Nov 11^th and asked “Rachel” just how much they got. Rachel said they got $25,000 from Carols last year, but she would not specify if the money came from a corporate sponsor or if Vaus cut a check to her.

$25,000. That is how much an event sponsor pays. What happened to all of the other angel donations and the proceeds from the ticket sales. (Tickets cost $30-$100 this year). Why didn’t this concert have more proceeds? Where was all the money going?

Vaus has been doing his “Carols by Candlelight for 19 yrs.” Although Carols by Candlelight  is purportedly being done for charitable purposes, Vaus does not have a nonprofit foundation handling the donations and expenses of producing the showing. If he did, the corporate sponsors, the private donors and the public would be able to see how much of the money  goes to pay expenses, how much goes to pay Vaus and how much goes to a charity.  None of the donations are tax deductible either, unless they are given directly to the charity although the original email I got from Carols by Candlelight doesn’t mention that.

I know that there are “for profit” fundraising companies out there. I mean, someone doesn’t just give cookies to the Girl Scouts to sell for free. But, I can find out just how much goes into the bakers pocket and how much goes to the girl scouts. And the cookie makers don’t solicit angel donations to help cover  their production costs. Not so with Vaus’ fundraisers.

Vaus’ charity fundraising goes way back to 1989 when he produced a Christmas album titled “The Stars Come Out for Christmas”. The album was a fundraiser for Children’s Hospital. Some of the songs were sent to Vaus by the stars and others were recorded in his San Diego studio.  Although there is no formal accounting that is available to the public, articles in the newspaper shed some light on how the fundraiser worked. Star ATM System underwrote the manufacturing and related costs ($40,000). Eagle Limousine gave the stars free transportation and San Diego Marriott agreed to provide them with free accommodations. Taco Bell and Imperial Savings sold the albums at their sites. The album netted Chilren’s Hospital $160,000.[7]

In 1990, Vaus planned to do a bigger project, marketing the albums nationally and benefitting a lot more hospitals. And maybe benefitting his production studio with a little more, too.  But Vaus and Children’s Hospital Foundation didn’t see eye-to eye on the terms, so they dropped Vaus and hired someone else to produce a benefit Christmas album.[5]

The decision to sever ties with Vaus and find another producer was based on a "a whole variety of reasons," said Stuart C. Turgel, senior vice president and executive director of the Children's Hospital Foundation of San Diego. The primary one, he said, was Vaus' insistence on a $250,000 "production fee" for this year's album,substantially more than the $16,000 he charged last year, when the album was a local effort. This year, Turgel wants to expand marketing drastically and take it national.

"We don't believe an individual should enjoy financial gain, if you will, from this work," Turgel said. "The original idea was that all proceeds would go to the hospital."

Vaus, however, said his request for more money was prompted by necessity rather than greed.

"Let me shed a little light on that figure," he said. "The amount was to cover air transportation, lodging, and food for all the artists; roughly 1,000 hours of studio time; designing and printing the graphics; mastering and sequencing the tapes, and then promoting the album to 10,000 radio stations around the country.

"I'm not an independently wealthy person; I've got an operation to run and a staff to pay. And this year, we were talking about a significantly different animal, because it's no longer just a local project, it's a national project. It would have taken a whole year, from start to finish, and we would have had to bypass all our customary business, which generates well in excess of $250,000 in that same period."

Another reason for dumping Vaus, Turgel said, was the producer's demand for complete artistic control.

"We wanted a project that would represent Children's Hospital in the most appropriate way," he said, "and not having the ability to approve or disapprove certain artists, certain songs, was very problematic for us."

Said Vaus: "I'm in the business of music, they're in the business of fund raising, and it's difficult sometimes when the artistic world and the fund- raising world have to come together because you get people trying to do each other's jobs and it simply doesn't work."

In any case, Turgel said, "it became clear to us that we wanted to find somebody else to work with us," and that "somebody else` turned out to be Lloyd, who was not only willing to work for free, but didn't mind giving hospital officials final say as to what tunes would appear on the album."

            snip

Meanwhile, Vaus is busy working on "The Stars Come Out for Christmas 1990," which will benefit an undisclosed local charity and also be marketed nationally. The charity will purchase the entire stock at 50 to 60 cents per tape over the manufacturer's cost, Vaus said. The extra money will cover Vaus' expenses, including salary for him and his staff.

So basically, Vaus' idea of fundraising is that he will produce a product which the charity will have to pay for and then the charity can have the proceeds when it sells. Like girl scout cookies. Only, nobody knows if Vaus’ production costs are excessive or in line with what others would charge for the same work. And although there are claims about how much money went for charity in the newspaper promo pieces there are also blurbs like this one comparing Chrildren’s Hospital’s Christmas album and Vaus’ Christmas album[6] :

Once again, there are two star-studded Christmas benefit albums competing for San Diegans' generosity. You might remember the local "Christmas album war" of 1991, a quietly venomous battle for charity- minded dollars between two seasonal benefit recordings.

On one side was "The Christmas Album . . . A Gift of Hope, Volume III" which was produced in Los Angeles by Grammy-winning producer Michael Lloyd; featured a number of major recording stars; and eventually raised $300,000 (in San Diego alone) for San Diego Children's Hospital and its counterparts across the country.

In the other corner was "The Stars Come Out for Christmas, Volume III," which was produced locally by Steve Vaus. It also boasted a number of major recording stars. Nationally it raised $2 million. North County's Casa de Amparo center for abused children and families shared in the proceeds but were unable to disclose how much.

So is Vaus in this for the "charity" or for the benefit of Steve Vaus? Are his concerts just a hook to provide himself with a good living? There is no way to know without any disclosure. Just how many Poway angels forked over some cash thinking it would benefit Rady Children's Hospital? No way of knowing. But, if you were one of them, be careful. That donation was NOT tax deductible.

Kreep’s fundraising efforts may be cheesy and self-serving, but at least he is upfront about who the beneficiary is and how much he is paid. With Vaus, we just don’t know. 

---

[1] BARRY M. HORSTMAN. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Jun 15, 1986. pg. 1

[2] Bob Corbett. The Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Jul 11, 1987. pg. A.6

[3] Chuck Philips.. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Sep 13, 1992. pg. 68

[4] ROBERT P LAURENCE. The San Diego Union - Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Jan 21, 1999. pg. E.6

[5] THOMAS K. ARNOLD. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: May 4, 1990. pg. 1
[6] JOHN D'AGOSTINO. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec 9, 1992. pg. 1

[7] THOMAS K. ARNOLD. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 2, 1989. pg. 1