This is an archive of a past election.
See for current information.
San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara County, CA June 8, 2010 Election
Smart Voter Political Philosophy for Fred L. B. Strong

Candidate for
Member of the State Assembly; District 33; Republican Party

This information is provided by the candidate

You need to know about me. This is about me and my relationship with you.

I am one of the leaders who have built the reputation of Paso Robles, statewide, as a community to be envied for its prudent, forward thinking and cohesive Council and City. I continue to work hard for the best interests of the City at all times. I have been a volunteer and participant in the evolution of Paso Robles from a sleepy agricultural community to the vibrant, friendly and successful community it is today. It has generally kept its small town feeling while providing more city amenities.

I try to build consensus. I am a team player. I emphasize that it is not me that is important, it is us.

I believe in a total approach to being a public servant.

I have been actively involved in issues and opportunities at every level of government and community life since I was a teenager. I have proven that we can make things work together and get things done with cooperation from people exhibiting a positive attitude.

When I learn of an issue, I move quickly to: (1) resolve it if I know how, (2) turn it into an opportunity for greater good for everyone if I can discover a way or (3) research with people and educational resources in greater depth before deciding upon any action or proposal.

To do the above I: (1) seek information and opinions from interested parties and professionals in the area of concern, government staff at the appropriate level(s) + city, county, state or national, (2) use my personal library of materials gathered across the State and Nation, with in-depth materials for the State of California, Central Coast region and cities, regions and states across this nation dating back over half a century, and (3) I do additional research, if necessary, on the world wide web with a cross check for reliability of the information.

I respond as reasonably as possible to nearly all inquiries within my schedule of activities doing my elected responsibilities. My current position involves approximately 50 hours a week with the responsibilities I have accepted. I currently represent the City Council; the City of Paso Robles; the cities within the counties of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura; and the President of the League of California Cities on various boards, agencies, corporations and policy committees throughout the region and state.

I have been actively involved, at the State level on your behalf, regarding realistic housing mandates; fairness in sales, use and transient occupancy taxes; the State budget process; securing and distributing State bond funds; fairness in State attempts to take away existing water entitlements and permits and impose State water rationing; and many more.

I have been the primary proponent of not solving one issue by creating another. I constantly watch for what are called "unintended consequences" and diligently oppose and offer alternatives to unwise decisions. I try very hard to offer fairness to every citizen without giving special consideration to any one citizen over another. I have lost the support of some previous campaign donors who thought their contribution bought them special consideration. It didn't and it doesn't. Contributions help fund an effort to provide fairness to everyone.

I recognize that I cannot please everyone on every decision made. I can only do my best as a concerned, involved and caring human being. Humans are just that: human. I am human. I have probably made some mistakes. I can only hope that all of you see the many good decisions also.

As an elected or appointed "official" I receive agendas for meetings. I review them, check facts and question opinions. I note any differences I find in "facts" and differing opinions about the topics under consideration. Prior to the meeting I will inform staff of differences between my research and alternative opinions and theirs. I seek additional communication and information. After receiving this I will raise those things that are unresolved for consideration by my peers and the public. Sometimes this means getting clarifications or explanations from staff before the public responds and comments so that we are all on the same page. I then listen to what everyone has to say, express my opinion and seek solutions that come as close as possible to accommodating everyone's concerns and proposals within a reasonable and conservative cost and time period.

When money becomes available from higher jurisdictions I try to secure a fair share for my constituents. Whether I agree with the original expenditure by that entity (state or federal) or not, once the decision has been made and my people are going to pay their share of the bill I want to make sure they get their share of the supposed benefit.

The other very important thing to assess is "unintended consequences". How might the decision before us affect other things such as individual rights, the economy, the budget, cash flow scenarios, time lines for other things, adjacent jurisdictions, other departments and their functioning, etc.? Can any of this be done by someone else more effectively, inexpensively or efficiently? There are many different elements to every single decision. Many decisions are going to impact different people in different ways. I always seek the most level "playing field" that I can determine and to have the costs paid by those who get the benefit or resource.

Government should not fulfill dreams and desires. It should collectively provide those necessities that people cannot provide for themselves individually. It should not compete with the private sector. It should try to see that reasonable mechanisms exist to facilitate individual enterprise. Regulations and requirements should be kept to matters of public health and safety. Individual tastes and preferences should not be a matter of public regulation. To do so is to institutionalize prejudice and discrimination.

This is how I have tried to function, do try to function and will continue to try to function. I also always recognize that I am only one vote and must abide by and cooperate with whatever decision is ultimately made. If I don't agree, I reserve the right to seek change but will live within each decision while it is in force.

Recently I was asked to write an article on conservatism for The Liberty Report. It was published on November 17, 2009, as follows:

Traditional Republican conservatism is institutional, not social, in nature. It commands respect for the basic principles of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and foundation philosophies of freedom found in these and other documents such as the Magna Carta.

It involves a love of freedom, equality and nation. It commands a respect for all ways of life and life styles that reciprocate that respect and embodies a love for diversity of opinion and lifestyle. It is big enough to include all those who desire and respect its laws and founding principles. It is proud enough to exclude those who seek to destroy its foundations.

It values mutual respect and balance among governing institutions and governance that guides without dictating. It demands a strong defense against enemies both foreign and domestic. It requires commitment to basic health and safety institutions for a secure society and commerce.

It requires that each level of government stay within its bounds, respect all other levels and jurisdictions and their prerogatives, and hold sacred the equal rights of each individual citizen.

Underpinning all societal philosophies are the basic tenets of civilization that include civility, order and both institutional and territorial defense. Civility is exemplified in clear and diplomatic discourse. Order by agreed upon common law. Defense takes place through an enforceable judicial process and a strong military presence to maintain territorial integrity.

A type of social conservatism has emerged taking religious tenets and attempting to institutionalize them within political systems. Social conservatism cannot be enforced through political systems without jeopardizing basic tenets of institutional conservatism. Individual rights cannot be politically maintained in a system that forces religious beliefs upon a populace. Where individuals are not able to maintain a non-intrusive personal lifestyle of choice, freedom languishes. Worldwide this is exemplified in societies that suppress individuals and groups based upon gender, race, religion or other basic characteristics of nature or belief.

Each generation is tested by various aspects of these principles and has to deal with challenges to its way of life. As a people granted freedom of thought by a gracious God and freedom of respectful action by restrained governance we have thus far successfully innovated technology and variation of response to specific situations.

My personal application of these principles can be found at

Next Page: Position Paper 1

Candidate Page || Feedback to Candidate || This Contest
June 2010 Home (Ballot Lookup) || About Smart Voter

The League of Women Voters does not support or oppose any candidate or political party.
Created from information supplied by the candidate: May 19, 2010 10:11
Smart Voter   <>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund