Revisionists Are At It Again
Editorial staff

The Mission Viejo blog has covered the Audi redevelopment fiasco of 2003 in previous issues. The information restated in this editorial is not directed at readers who get it but at those who insist on revising history until it matches their fantasies.

The 4-1 vote in favor of the $600,000 Audi redevelopment deal took place on July 7, 2003 (Trish Kelley, Lance MacLean, John Paul Ledesma and Bill Craycraft in favor; Gail Reavis opposed). Three council members who won in November 2002 (Kelley, Ledesma and MacLean) made statements during their campaigns renouncing redevelopment.

Prior to the July 7, 2003, meeting Trish Kelley had twice voted against the Audi deal. In June 2003, she wrote and distributed a two-page explanation of her position against corporate welfare – probably to smooth things over with her PTA friends in the Capo school district who supported the Audi deal. Reavis, Ledesma and Kelley had held their ground in the two previous votes, and redevelopment giveaways in Mission Viejo appeared to be history.

Those who worked toward Kelley’s 2002 victory the previous November were stunned when she brought back the redevelopment item for a third vote, placing it on the council agenda for the July 7 meeting. Here’s what happened.

When then-Mayor John Paul Ledesma learned Kelley intended to revive the item, he should have called her directly to bring her back into the fold. Instead, he called an activist who had served as Kelley’s campaign manager in 2002 saying, essentially, “Go find out why she’s doing this and call me back.” The activist he called had been an outspoken critic of redevelopment and should have been reliable in convincing Kelley not to bring it back.

What happened next is no small matter, as it significantly impacted the Committee for Integrity in Government. Instead of getting information and reporting back to Ledesma as directed, the activist called Kelley and fell in with her. Kelley later bragged that she and her husband used a spreadsheet to craft the revised version of corporate welfare. The activist failed to complete the mission as directed, and Kelley’s decision had been made before he called her.

What caused Kelley to abandon her campaign platform, particularly after she had written a two-page summary of why she didn’t support redevelopment? Here’s the answer: her buddies at Capo Unified School District. David Doomey was a key influence, and Kelley’s PTA friends later claimed they were the ones who changed her mind – they continue to this day to take credit for it. Kelley’s decision was made on behalf of CUSD, not the city and certainly not any activist group. Her first and foremost concern was the school district.

Back then, several activists who were members of Committee for Integrity in Government claimed that CIG had influenced Kelley’s flip by encouraging her to bring back the item. That makes no sense. Those making the claim either don’t know what happened or they’re in denial. Several such activists on July 7, 2003, spoke in favor of redevelopment at the council meeting, which stunned other members of CIG. The club came apart because the majority of the club’s members were appalled by those who not only abandoned the club’s stance against corporate welfare but couldn’t get their story straight.

Some CIG members attempted to keep the club together after “the fall,” but the resentment grew against those members who had abandoned the principles of small government on which the club was founded. A few former CIG members continue to misrepresent the facts in letters to Saddleback Valley News and from the public microphone at council meetings.

Astoundingly, several of the fallen CIG members in 2003 continued to follow Kelley around after she sold out. Her subsequent flips included rezoning commercial property and adding more high-density housing in a built-out city. Kelley abandoned principle and duped a few dim bulbs in the process. Only one former CIG member worked in Kelley’s 2006 reelection campaign, possibly because his views of supporting big government align better with Kelley’s than with those of his former peers.

At the Feb. 5, 2007, council meeting, a former CIG member again made reference to the Audi redevelopment deal, indicating CIG members were involved in the decision-making process. CIG members clearly had no influence in Kelley’s 2003 decision to bring back the Audi deal for a third vote. CIG as a group never supported redevelopment, and the handful of CIG members who fell off the reform wagon in 2003 are speaking for themselves, not the club.

Capo USD Update
School board meets Feb. 12

The Capistrano Unified School District board of trustees will meet Mon., Feb. 12, 7 p.m., in the administrative building, 33122 Valle Road, San Juan Capistrano.

Among items on the agenda, the board will discuss how to cut $9 million, its estimated budget deficit for 2007-2008. Interim Supt. Charles McCully is quoted in the Feb. 10 OC Register: “There’s a realization and an acceptance that the numbers are real and that we must make the cuts. … People are beginning to realize that this district has lived on growth and that growth has flattened. We’re going to have to do whatever’s necessary to keep our budget balanced.”

A Mission Viejo resident reacted to the quote, saying, “McCully is relying on the district’s P.R. machine to make the situation sound palatable. He should have said people realize this district has lived on borrowed money – borrowing from the future to finance a bureaucracy that’s top-heavy with administrators, spending itself into bankruptcy. The district is in dire financial straits.”

As another matter, some parents are advocating the termination of payment of legal fees to defend former Supt. James Fleming. One of the parents wrote an email stating she was unable to find such an action item on the Feb. 12 agenda. She wrote to other parents and copied blog staffers: “… please address this issue during Oral Communications [during the board meeting]. When you fill out your request to address the board, check Oral Communications and write in ‘terminate payment of Fleming's legal fees’ in the subject line. Oral Communications are usually heard around 8:30 but may be earlier or later, depending on the rest of the agenda. Thanks for your support.”

A previous email stated: “Please ask the trustees to keep their word when they stated they would agree to pay for Fleming's legal defense fees (with our kids' education dollars) only until such time as they had evidence of his wrongdoing. Well, now we have, in black and white, evidence that Fleming targeted our children on a political list. The evidence is attached to Judge Waldrip's report (see previous email listed below with link to the report). It very clearly detaiIs Fleming's request to one of his assistant superintendents (Susan McGill) to collect the names of petition gatherers (which they did, illegally, at the ROV's office) and to make a list of our children, including CUSD schools they attend, their grade levels, etc. In other words, he targeted our children.” 

Waldrip's report on the CUSD allegations (about the enemies hit list, etc.) can be accessed at http://www.thecapistranodispatch.com/archives/CUSD%20Investigation.pdf.

The Buzz column, February 9

Residents of central Orange County voted Feb. 6 in a special election for First District Supervisor to replace Lou Correa, who won a State Senate seat in November. Trung Nguyen got seven more votes than Janet Nguyen, and a recount will follow. A Mission Viejo blog reader commented about seeing the county GOP lobbyists go down in flames … again … following their failed attempt to interfere in Mission Viejo’s city election last fall. The county’s good ol’ boys on Feb. 6 backed a candidate from Santa Ana who came in fourth.

***

Mission Viejo has many informal clusters of political activists and several recognized organizations. Political organizations in Mission Viejo include the Saddleback Republican Assembly and Casta del Sol’s Republican Club. Mission Viejo doesn’t have its own women’s political club, but residents belong to the Capistrano Valley Republican Women Federated and Aliso Viejo Republican Women Federated. Democrats have a club in Casta del Sol and a South Orange County organization. The largest group of approximately 100 Mission Viejo residents is at times more social than political, and it has no formal membership.

***

Following the blog’s suggestion that some disenchanted residents should fashion their own tinfoil hats and wait for the next city election, one of them showed up at the Feb. 5 council meeting. Incredibly, she wore a tinfoil hat – not a very good one – and professed her unwavering loyalty to Counilman Frank Ury. The blog can’t resist suggesting the tinfoil hatters should next fashion dunce caps to wear during public comments.

***

The Buzz received a reader’s comment following the council’s Jan. 29 budget workshop: “Councilman Lance MacLean made a point during the meeting that’s worth noting. He questioned why the council would continue involving itself in school district matters. He reminded everyone of CUSD’s refusal to provide information the council requested on how the district spent taxes collected in the city.” This information dovetails with comments made by Councilman John Paul Ledesma at the Feb. 5 council meeting when he noted CUSD officials had in the past appeared at council meetings to give false testimony and sent written comments that contained lies. At stake was a proposal for the city to pay for additional police presence on CUSD campuses.

***

In the ongoing budget crisis at CUSD, the district will next consider eliminating 22 administrative positions to offset a portion of its $9 million budget deficit for 2007-2008. If the district is admitting a $9 million shortfall, what’s the real number? The school board on Feb. 12 will consider recommendations by interim Supt. Charles McCully. At this time, administrative cuts are being mentioned, but classroom cuts are sure to follow. In CUSD, the inevitable order of progression is crisis, denial, spin and loss of education for children. Of course, the biggest underlying problem of siphoning off $50 million for an administration center isn’t discussed.