Last week’s NewsBlog included a summary of campaign promises made and ignored by council members. Following is an account of how things went awry for the council’s “great new team,” beginning with the 2002 defeat of Sherri Butterfield and Susan Withrow.

On Nov. 5, 2002, election winners John Paul Ledesma, Trish Kelley and Lance MacLean, along with Gail Reavis, were drinking champagne together. Their jubilant supporters expected City Manager Dan Joseph would be fired as the first order of business. MacLean had proposed during his campaign selling Dan’s $6,000 desk on eBay, and Ledesma had revealed his distrust for Dan. On Nov. 21, Ledesma and MacLean attended a political meeting, where both spoke briefly. Ledesma described the first 100 days after an election as a crucial time to move the platform forward. MacLean countered, “What’s the rush?”

By the end of November 2002, following one-on-one meetings between MacLean and Dan Joseph, MacLean was quietly telling people he was the city’s unofficial mayor, although it was Ledesma’s turn to serve as mayor. MacLean viewed himself as the bridge connecting Council Members Craycraft, Reavis, Ledesma, Kelley and the city staff. Before long, MacLean ironically became chummy with the two council women he defeated, along with their earlier-deposed sidekick, Roger Faubel (knocked off the council by Reavis in 2000).

In December 2002, Dale Tyler wrote an editorial in a private newsletter distributed only to members of Citizens for Integrity in Government, of which MacLean was a member. The article called for firing Dan Joseph and other housecleaning at City Hall. Tyler’s opinion piece reached L.A. Times reporter Dave McKibben, a friend of Dan Joseph. McKibben lambasted Tyler in the Times for attempting to direct the council. Kelley instantly distanced herself from the CIG, saying she wasn’t anyone’s puppet. To the contrary, she appeared to be falling under the spell of Dan Joseph.

Susan and Sherri had taken heat for their “progressive” (politically correct term for liberal) views, monument building and self-aggrandizement. Both women seemed dependent on Dan to furnish the ideas if not the words they delivered from the dais. Out with the old, in with the new: inept council members continued believing Dan would prevent and/or cover their mistakes.

By January 2003, Ledesma was pressuring Kelley to help him fire Dan Joseph. Reavis had previously clashed with Dan, including a blowup in City Hall witnessed by Sheriff’s Dept. employees when he stormed into her office. Kelley balked at Ledesma’s pressure, saying, “Dan has never done anything to me personally.” MacLean also objected to firing Dan and said the comment about selling Dan’s desk on eBay had been a joke. He neglected to finish the sentence … on the voters.

A second schism of significance came with the May 2003 Audi dealer’s request for a city subsidy in the form of Redevelopment Agency funds. On one side of the tug-of-war were CIG members and others who opposed corporate welfare. Those supporting a subsidy for Audi included outside interests – politicians, lobbyists and school district personnel -- all of whom had a political or family connection with Audi’s owner. Audi lost the first two rounds, with Reavis, Ledesma and Kelley voting against and Craycraft and MacLean voting for the subsidy. As a surprise move, Kelley in June brought the issue back for a third vote after outsiders continued leaning on her.

When Ledesma learned Kelley was bringing back the Audi deal, he called a certain anti-redevelopment activist and said, “Go find out what’s wrong with her.” The activist dutifully called Kelley but surprised Ledesma by suddenly embracing corporate welfare to support her proposal. Kelley, with the blessing of the activist, proposed giving Audi $300,000 as an incentive to sell cars in Mission Viejo. Several other former anti-redevelopment activists joined in, saying the deal “saved” the city a pile of money by giving Audi dealer less than the amount he requested. With zero dollars on the table after Audi proposals were twice defeated, giving the Audi dealer any amount was unnecessary. One cannot subtract $300,000 from zero without red ink.

What happened next is based on speculation and rumor, particularly regarding closed-session negotiations. It may have occurred as follows: upon hearing Kelley’s proposal, Reavis added stipulations she believed would be deal-breakers and suggested offering Audi $600,000 in an agreement she thought Audi would turn down. Regardless, Kelley believed the proposal had unanimous council support. She may have hoped all five council members would get a pass from residents if they voted together.

In open session in July, Reavis said she had discovered that the deal-breaking terms and conditions she had proposed had been removed from the contract offered to Audi. She cast the dissenting vote in the 4-1 approval of the $600,000 subsidy to Audi. Kelley was incensed at Reavis’ public refusal of support and later sent out emails, defending the originally proposed gift to Audi as “only” $300,000 – as if it were the amount and not the principle that mattered.

As a side trip, the Committee for Integrity in Government developed a schism of its own, with several former anti-redevelopment members spinning Kelley’s Audi deal as beneficial to the city. Their inconsistency might otherwise have been overlooked by fellow CIG members. However, in public comments and letters to newspapers as well, the CIG spinners claimed it was a CIG decision to support the Audi deal, although it hadn’t previously been discussed by the club. About a third of the club’s members walked away, giving a variety of reasons for their departure.

Somewhere along the line, one should mention the council voted 3-2 (Ledesma, Reavis, Kelley voting for, Craycraft and MacLean against) to fire Dan Joseph in October 2003. While the city could have bought out his contract in January 2003 for around $75,000, he and his spouse (City Clerk Ivy Joseph) agreed to leave in October for $647,700.

Despite the passage of weeks and months, Kelley remained angry at Reavis over the Audi vote. Instead of working together for things they both believed in, competition developed over everything from ideas to supporters. By the end of 2003, Kelley announced she would not permit Reavis to take a turn at being mayor in 2004. Kelley promoted herself for mayor, saying Reavis was unqualified. Considering the title of mayor is passed around among those elected, everyone on the council is qualified to take a turn. It was Reavis’ turn. While Kelley lacked support to become mayor, she found favor among Reavis’ enemies, Susan and Sherri. The deposed pair had no common views with Kelley except their distaste for Reavis. During the week prior to Kelley’s attempted takeover of the center seat, she tried to get residents to endorse her for mayor from the public microphone. The friends of Susan and Sherri seized the opportunity to lash out at Reavis. Following the odd assortment of public speakers, Kelley read a prepared statement saying she wouldn’t accept the title of mayor. The date was January 6, 2004, and the worst was yet to come.

To be continued next week.