The California Term Limits Defense Fund, the committee formed by term limit advocates to oppose any possible ballot measures to weaken California’s existing term limits law, announced earlier in 
the week that they had hired veteran political organizer Bob Adney (pictured) as its Executive Director. Upon hearing the news, I reached out to Adney to welcome him to his new post, and see if we could have a little "on the record" chat about him and his new post. Here is a write up of our Q & A…
FR: So Bob, welcome to California! Why don’t you take a moment and ‘introduce yourself’ to FlashReport readers, perhaps with some of your past political involvement, and maybe a little bit about you personally?
Adney: I started my involvement in politics while in High School. A teacher ran for Mayor in Poughkeepsie, New York and I worked for her campaign. She was a Republican running in an overwhelming Democratic city and she won handily. It was a great experience and I realized then that I had been bitten by the political bug. I left New York and graduated from the University of Maryland. While in college, I volunteered and worked on numerous campaigns. I’ve worked in races on New York, Maryland, and Nevada. One of the political highlights of my career was running a state Senate campaign in Nevada in which a 20 year incumbent was unseated in a huge upset. I’ve also worked for the Nevada Legislature and on two initiative campaigns last year in Nevada.
I am a big sports fan; I like the NY Yankees, Chicago Bears, Orlando Magic, and the Maryland Terrapins. I also like to play sports – including biking, running , and even bowling (after all, I am from Poughkeepsie, New York) in my spare time.
**There is more – click the link**
June 7th, 2007 at 12:00 am
In addition to the Beltway-based US Term Limits, now we have another out-of-state consultant telling California voters what to do — and getting it wrong off the bat. And this from a fellow Yankees fan!
June 7th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Sorry to dissappoint you Steve but word on the street is this thing is a dog and only the most desperate of petitioners are working this issue and most are misrepresenting the initiaive. If the voters knew this was designed to save Don Perata’s job they would burn the thing.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:00 am
And I’m sorry to disappoint you, Karl, but all three major polling organizations in the state give the initiative at 10%+ point lead, and more than 500,000 signatures have been gathered.
Like the original term limit legislation, it grandfathers existing members for a time certain, but it most definitely reduces the number of years a legislator can serve.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:00 am
It is the grandfather clause people are not being told about and anyone who knows how this works knows the easiest signatures come before the halfway point which you have already passed now the flow slows way down and you still have 600,000 to go with no other issue to draw in voters your initiative probably won’t even make the ballot 10 point lead or not
June 7th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Let’s not be too harsh with Mr. Maviglio on this topic.
According to his posts here he… (A)… grew up in NEW JERSEY and went to college
in MASSACHUSETTS then he ….(B)…. was a state legislator in NEW HAMPSHIRE
before…(C).. going to WASHINGTON, DC, to work for a NEW JERSEY congressman,
and the House Dem caucus. Then he…(D)…moved to California in 2001 to rescue Gov.
Gray Davis, so he can now…(E)…repeatedly WARN Californians about “OUT OF STATE”
consultants and their sinister “Beltway” mentality.
In Olympic high diving, these maneuvers might be called 3 rotations, with a twist,
and in the tuck position…. Degree of difficulty: 3.6.
Let’s give credit where credit is due, my fellow Republicans…. not everyone can
do this kind of thing !
June 8th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I think Jim’s excellent research has got you there, Steve. Besides, the “out-of-state” argument was pretty lame even before Jim pointed out you aren’t the ideal one to be making it.
After all, it’s California voters who passed term limits in 1990 (before you joined us here in the Golden State)and re-confirmed it in 2002 by a landslide. It’s California voters who oppose the Perata/Nunez scam when it’s honestly explained to them in PPIC polling by greater than 2 to 1.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:00 am
One thing that is missing from the discussion about this measure is whether or not legislators would be more effective serving in one house. The fact that they become more aware of the rules of their house and also develop more of a working relationship with their colleagues in part because they won’t be feeling the pressure to raise campaign funds for a possible future race for another office that has essentially the same responsibilities strike me as good reasons to pass this measure even if it will cost my slate committee’s a lot of money, but I would like to hear more from the other side about why that is a bad idea apart from the questions about how long legislators might serve.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I bet those dedicated dems would never manipulate the system or build little fiefdoms or punish political enemies if they were allowed longer stays in one house. No that would never happen.Sounds like a great idea kind of like their hero hugo chavez would never shut down opposing media if they started exposing his thirst to keep power.