Revised City Budget, FY 2006-2007
Letter to the editor

I made a copy of the revised 2006-2007 budget for the city on June 30 from

the city’s Web site. This revised budget for 2006-2007 is a nightmare of false assumptions and financial gimmickry. I counted seven or eight times the city has counted on the use of non-collected funds as a basis for some assumptions.

The city has $1.5 million in park development fees (non-collected) from Steadfast (currently in lawsuit), a balance of which will be taken from the General Fund. The city has $775,000 of accruals from the Mission Viejo Foundation (non-collected), which are deferred over five years, further diluting the seed money the city of Mission Viejo put in or will put in. The city has $35,000 for design fees for a bathroom in Melinda Park, which a resident stood at the podium and explained could be put in as a prefabricated unit for a total of $35,000. The council now wants to spend $35,000 just to figure out how to build it. The council has a Department of Information Technology built into the budget with a $153,000 director and four future employees. These services should be contracted out to remain consistent with Mission Viejo as a contract city instead of adding to the bureaucracy.

This waste of taxpayer funds the council calls a budget revision should be dead on arrival – DOA.

I have a question for the city staff. When City Manager Dennis put his name on the bottom of the Agenda Report as the submitter, did it embarrass him?

The improvements in infrastructure and pension funding are a small consolation in an otherwise poorly planned and disastrous budget revision.

The budget emphasis should be coming from the top down, which is the council, instead of the bottom up, which is the staff.

James Edward Woodin
Mission Viejo

All Was Not Fair at the Faire
Staff editorial

The Mission Viejo Activities Committee, host of the Mission Viejo July Fourth Street Fair, was off the mark this year. The projected crowd of 20,000 appeared to be overestimated by approximately 10,000. When vendors pay for a booth on the midway, they expect to see 20,000 faces. If the estimate includes the “other 10,000” who put blankets on the grass near the faire to watch fireworks, that’s a whole other story.

The news blog staff members have firsthand knowledge of another aspect of the event regarding policy and ethics.

Blog staffers joined with other community activists and paid for a booth inside the gates. Their primary objective was voter registration, but the Activities Committee required them to have an additional activity (craft, game or food) in order to participate. Activists reserving the booth specifically asked if they could put up a political sign or banner. The answer was, unequivocally, yes. The instruction stated, however, that no politicking or campaigning could take place at the booth or inside the gates of the faire.

On July Fourth, the activists put up their canopy in the designated spot and followed rules to the letter. They posted two 18” x 18” political signs for their choice of council candidates – not Council Members Trish Kelley and Lance MacLean. The signs were in place from 10:30 a.m. until approximately 5 p.m., when a Committee official came by with information about next year’s street faire.

The conversation went like this: Committee member: “You need to take down your political signs.” Activist: “Our signs were approved as part of our agreement for this space.” Committee member: “Political activity is prohibited at the faire.”

A short time later, a second Committee member came to the booth and suggested the activists put the signs at the back of the canopy instead of the front. The activist who had written the check for the booth said, “I’m going to ask for a refund of the booth fee, as this is a breach of our contract with you.” The Committee member said, “I’ll be right back with your refund.” The booth fee was returned almost immediately.

Meanwhile, Councilwoman Kelley, who is up for reelection, went from booth to booth, shaking hands with everyone and introducing herself. If this isn’t blatant politicking, what is it?

The situation at the faire is parallel to Kelley’s campaign in 2002 when she and activists were covering “back-to-school” nights. Kelley, because of her PTA activities, has a relationship with administrators of several Capistrano USD schools. At Newhart Middle School, the school principal told activists they couldn’t hand out political flyers on school property. The activists moved out to the street – except for Kelley. She stayed near the building, a short distance from the school’s front door. To the activists, she bragged, “They won’t ask me to leave because they know me.”

Kelley remained at the school’s entrance, handing out her flyers. School officials watched her and said nothing, but they chased out any activist who ventured near the building. In a subsequent visit to Newhart, an activist tried the same stance as Kelley, handing out flyers near the front door. The school principal called the police.

Kelley in 2002 was familiar with school district policy regarding politics. She relied on special treatment and flaunted her relationship with school employees, breaking rules without consequence.

Is this any different from the street faire, where Kelley knew the rules and broke them by politicking within the gates? Were street faire officials different from school administrators who watched Kelley and said nothing? By the time a politician has visited more than 100 vendor booths at the faire, officials are either giving her special treatment or asleep at the switch.

Several years ago, when Kelley attempted to jump in front of the line by becoming mayor before it was her turn, a resident wrote a letter to the newspaper, sarcastically calling Kelley "the Queen of Character." Why not cut the chase? Kelley is the Queen of Hypocrisy.

In certain places, such as the ethical wasteland of Capistrano USD and the street faire’s venue of smoke and stink bombs, Queen Kelley rules.

Crooked Priority?
Letter to the editor

Does Mission Viejo have its priorities straight? Why would a deck for the Sierra Recreation Center be considered before the promised deck (of several years) for the Nadadores? Don't our city fathers understand that one of Mission Viejo’s stellar assets is having the home of the Nadadores in our midst? Even my friends from out of state know and respect the achievements of the Nadadores.

Since the Sierra Recreation Center was to be refurbished on a budget of $1 million, does it seem fair that the cost is more than $2,100,000 already and its deck request requiring more money is on the preferred list? With Ms. Kelley's insistence, the contractor selected for the recreation center charged more than three times what any other recreation center contractor in Southern California charged, according to Councilman John Paul Ledesma's figures. Doesn't "enough is enough" apply here?

Completion of the Nadadores’ deck has financial benefits to the city as well, so I've been formed. There will be a new electrical system saving us money, AND the Nadores will pay for their own utilities!!!! Now, which deck do our citizens believe should have priority? Who is shuffling the phony deck? You can always go to the Trishatoria to get the baloney.

Beverly Cruse
Mission Viejo

Rejection of Recall Wasn’t Reasonable
Letter to the editor

I was among Mission Viejo residents who attended the June 27 demurrer hearing before an Orange County Superior Court Judge regarding the attempted recall of Capistrano USD trustees. The case involved is a lawsuit filed by a group of CUSD parents after the Registrar of Voters threw out 35 percent of 177,000 recall signatures in December 2005. The lawsuit will progress on July 11 with a writ of mandate hearing.

One problem that hasn’t been discussed in newspapers was an error caused by the Registrar of Voters. When residents were signing the petitions last summer to recall all seven trustees, the petition pages were stapled together. Those signing would sign all seven petitions by turning pages. When the petitions were submitted to the Registrar of Voters, the officials required the petitions to be separated into seven stacks for the seven trustees. The Registrar’s decision was a fatal error that couldn’t be reconciled.

By separating the petitions, the seven stacks were in no particular order. It caused workers at the Registrar of Voters to look up and verify each signature – not one time but seven times. The overwhelming job of validating seven signatures of more than 25,000 voters became an impossible job of validating more than 177,000 signatures when the petitions were separated.

The Registrar of Voters had 30 working days to validate 177,000 signatures, and they blew the deadline. I saw the petitions after the count was certified, and entire pages of signatures were disqualified. Instead of admitting they didn’t have time to validate signatures, the Registrar gave bizarre reasons for throwing out entire pages. Thousands of signatures were disqualified as “not a registered voter.” Signature gatherers who rechecked voter information found a very high error rate in this category alone.

Voters have another chance to be heard this November when three CUSD trustees are up for reelection. It would be somewhat of a consolation prize to get three of them out of office.

Connie Lee
Mission Viejo

Three will challenge school district incumbents
CUSD Update

Three challengers have emerged as Capistrano Unified School District candidates for the board of trustees. Ellen Addonizio, Jack Brick and Larry Christensen have each declared their intention to run in the November election. Trustees up for reelection are Sheila Henness, Crystal Kochendorfer and John Casabianca.

Addonizio, a Mission Viejo resident, is a Certified Public Accountant. For the past 20 years, she has represented large and small companies, as well as individuals. Her practice has included auditing, investigative accounting and tax services. Her background includes general accounting, tax planning, long-range capital and operational budgeting and cost accounting. She will challenge Sheila Henness for the Sixth District seat.

Jack Brick is an aeronautics industry professional with administrative, budgeting and personnel experience. His background includes management of multimillion dollar budgets and hundreds of professionals. Brick is a former harbor-master and police chief with experience in campus security. He has a teaching credential and a family with longstanding roots in public education. Brick will challenge Crystal Kochendorfer for the Fourth District seat.

 Larry Christensen of Coto de Caza has owned and operated a civil engineering firm for 33 years and has developed extensive experience in facilities planning, real estate development and matters involving the California Environmental Quality Act. Christensen will challenge Casabianca for the Seventh District seat.

In 2005 more than 177,000 signatures were obtained from south Orange County residents calling for the removal of all seven CUSD trustees. The attempted recall campaign focused on allegations of financial mismanagement and corruption.

CUSD is one of the largest school districts in California. Rancho Santa Margarita, Mission Viejo, Coto de Caza, Wagon Wheel, Las Flores and Ladera Ranch. Approximately 50,000 children are enrolled in CUSD schools.

Sixth-district candidate Addonizio described her concern about district issues. “Just like me, thousands of people across south Orange County have come to realize how serious the financial problems are at CUSD. The current CUSD trustees have squandered millions of taxpayer dollars, and by so doing they have relegated our children into overcrowded and substandard conditions. Now is the time to restore fiscal responsibility into our broken CUSD public school system. I have the financial, financial, accounting and auditing expertise to ensure that our scarce tax dollars are spent wisely. ”

To learn more about the candidates and CUSD issues, visit www.cusdrecall.com.

July 3 Council Meeting Summary
Editorial staff

The council had a light agenda and relatively short meeting on the eve of July 4th. Few residents attended, and most of them left after making public comments. One resident said the city should close the community foundation because it’s not raising money. A year ago, the foundation board chairman said it would raise $1.5 million during its first year for the benefit of the community and senior center expansion. The foundation has obtained $360,000 in pledges, but the total collected is unclear.

Another resident questioned why the city staff hadn’t followed up with a manufacturer to get information about prefabricated restrooms for the proposed facility at Melinda Park. Councilman John Paul Ledesma asked the city staff about following up, and a staff member reported the information had been received. It was noted by the resident that the total cost of a prefab restroom is $35,000, and the budget calls for $35,000 for the design process alone. City Manager Dennis Wilberg clarified the much-discussed cost of park restrooms, $500,000, as being the cost of the restroom at Florence Joyner Park. He said future restroom facilities wouldn’t necessarily cost $500,000.

No consent calendar items were pulled by council members, and the public pulled only two items. The ordinance permitting Senior Community Activity Team members to write parking citations passed 4-1 with Councilwoman Gail Reavis dissenting. The item regarding the Marguerite Recreation Center (YMCA) renovation (completion of the fire suppression system) passed 5-0. The council voted 5-0 in favor of the city’s annual weed abatement program (Phase 1) following a public hearing, during which no members of the audience spoke. Another item, the citywide classification and compensation study, was continued until the next meeting.

Assistant City Manager Irwin Bornstein presented a report on the revised fiscal year 2006-2007 city budget, which will be acted upon during a special council meeting on July 31. Only Councilwoman Reavis appeared ready to discuss the budget. She said, “I spent three hours last night typing my notes.” It became apparent the other four council members had either not read the report or were unprepared to talk about it. Councilwoman Trish Kelley asked what topics Reavis found worthy of discussion.

Reavis described the city’s plan to spend uncollected funds, such as the foundation’s money that hasn’t been raised for the community center. She also mentioned the problem of trying to spend the anticipated $2-million in-lieu fees from Steadfast when its mixed-use project has been frozen by a lawsuit. Another developer, UDR/Pacific, received council approval for its housing project, but the project – and any anticipated fees – are now off the table. Reavis added other concerns, such as the planned deck at the Nadadores’ facility, which isn’t in the budget. Reavis summarized, “We’re saying we have the money, and we don’t. Let’s be honest about it.”

Councilman Frank Ury said, “There’s nothing you’ve said that worries me a bit. I think all five of us are thinking way too hard.” No one responded to what seemed an ironic statement.

Another council member appeared to offer an excuse for being unprepared to discuss the budget information, saying “for the benefit of the audience” that being a council member isn’t a full-time job.

Those watching the program might still conclude that anyone working in a part-time job is obligated to work part of the time.

A member of the audience, Jim Woodin, made public comments after the council’s discussion. He asked about the revised budget, including spending of funds that hadn’t been collected and hiring staff members to grow the city bureaucracy. He said the budget revisions should be dead on arrival. He added, “The budget emphasis should be coming from the top down, which is the council, instead of the bottom up, which is the staff.”

Councilwoman Kelley responded, “We’ve been giving direction to the staff.” Kelley appeared unfamiliar with any portion of the revised budget.

The Buzz Column, July 4

The two remaining members of the Edison-haters club spoke at the July 3 council meeting to enlighten everyone about Electromagnetic Field readings under the power lines in north Mission Viejo. They took readings on their own and compared EMF numbers under the new, taller poles with previous readings taken under the old, shorter poles. SCE claimed putting the lines on taller poles would reduce EMF readings on the ground. The council directed staff to follow up by measuring EMF. Following the meeting, a council member said the readings should be lower with the new poles, and it’s a problem if the numbers are actually higher.

***

Regarding EMF readings taken by the two residents, SCE added three new lines on the taller poles. If SCE truly added the new lines and bigger poles to meet consumer demand – not just to make people mad – maybe increased EMF is the result of more electricity going through the wires at peak periods on the hottest days of the year. As a thought about alternatives, if SCE added no lines in the area, EMF readings would be zero during a power failure. Between the city staff and possibly the FBI, CIA and the black helicopters, perhaps additional data will explain what’s up.

***

Councilwoman Trish Kelley has a brand-new policy. She’s telling people she wants a “clean” city council campaign this year. This would be in sharp contrast to the mud-slinging and slash-and-burn personal attacks she participated in two years ago when Councilwoman Gail Reavis was up for reelection. Kelley would now like everyone to play nice since her own reputation, image and reelection are at stake.

***

Sierra neighborhood residents noticed the potholes on a street near Kelley’s home have been repaired. Other streets in the vicinity didn’t get needed attention, but a road crew was apparently available to fix a couple of “special” spots.

***

Councilwoman Kelley doesn’t seem to be enjoying The Buzz as much as some other readers. “Lies!” she said. “It’s all lies!” In 10 months of publication, the Mission Viejo news blog has received no credible information contradicting any of its statements or reports. When the blog publishes information about awful behavior of council members, it’s the awful truth. All information in the blog is documented, either through public records, eyewitness reports or reliable sources. Opinion pieces are presented as opinion, and all letters are verified.

***

A resident suggested in a letter to SVN and from the public microphone at council meetings that the Mission Viejo Community Foundation should be shut down by the city for lack of fundraising. However, the foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization that doesn’t answer to the city. A more reasonable alternative would be the resignation of the $9,000/month director, who might know a thing or two about setting up a foundation, but he can’t raise money.

***

With 18 weeks to go until the November election, the city council race may be narrowing with two potential candidates dropping out. Still in are the three incumbents (Ledesma, Kelley and MacLean), Jim Woodin, Michael Ferrall, Bill Barker and Justin McCusker. Another young man (about the same age as McCusker) has spoken twice at council meetings and appears to be testing the water. As an entirely new approach to running for city council, McCusker has yet to attend a meeting.