Exchange Continues Regarding Electronic Sign

Editor-in-Chief Carl Schulthess responds to Councilman Lance MacLean’s message to residents who emailed the council in opposition to the electronic sign. The council received no emails in support of the sign. Carl’s comments are in red, MacLean’s letter is in black text.

To the council: I realize that you have already spent this money in spite of overwhelming opposition, but you might find my comments interesting. – Carl Schulthess

From: Lance MacLean [mailto:LMacLean@cityofmissionviejo.org]
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 1:24 PM
To: carl.s@cox.net
Subject: MV Electronic Sign Monument

Dear Carl,

The Mission Viejo community electronic message board has been mischaracterized through a deceptive and erroneous email blog campaign by the MV Watchdogs.  

CS: This is patently false. It has been characterized by the Watchdogs as costing $143,000 AND that there has been virtually no serious debate about its usefulness.

Please take the time to look at the attached PDF or JPG of the electronic sign monument design.  Also, I have taken this opportunity to set the record straight as to what this project really is and what it means for Mission Viejo.  

CS: I have, and it is pretty much what I imagined.

First, the City Council and staff respect the historical architectural features that define the Mission Viejo community and have incorporated those features in the sign monument and corner improvements.  Further, the electronically controlled sign is not a large Las Vegas style sign; rather, the message text will change by simply rolling or fading. 

CS: This will ensure that drivers will get to read the entire text as they whip by at 45 MPH?

The ability to quickly change messages electronically from city hall has many benefits of informing residents not withstanding community services and emergency messages to notify the public. 

CS: If there is an emergency, this sign will not inform more than a few percent of MV residents. With few exceptions, the same people pass the sign every day on the way to work. The huge majority of residents will never see this “Emergency” message, and you will think that you have done your duty.

Finally, our city has a vibrant work force of organizations and volunteers that sponsor events that enhance the community by improving our quality of life. A tasteful electronic sign will help these service, social, educational and entertainment programs get the word out to the community through free announcements.  While some in the community feel this is an unnecessary expense,  the ability for the city and these community groups to quickly, clearly and efficiently communicate with the public far outweighs the cost.  

CS: The current sign does this for peanuts. The new sign will not increase any resident’s knowledge of what is happening in MV. The current sign can be updated within hours if needed.

If you really care to communicate with residents, you should spend the money creating a data base of residents’ email addresses and a means to send them. It can be used to:

• 1.Inform ALL the connected residents of Emergency issues. (Far larger number than will ever read ANY sign)
• 2.Eliminate the printing and mailing costs of the City Outlook.
• 3.Permit ALL the candidates for Council to present their positions to the electorate for far less money than is now spent on mailers and signs.
• 4.Ease the need for candidates’ fund-raising.
• 5.Enhance residents’ interest in the political process.
• 6.Notify residents of the agenda for each council meeting, thereby increasing attendance.

I do appreciate your comments about the electronic message board and I have not taken them lightly.  I invite you to communicate with me at anytime on other issues of interest to you and the community.

Respectfully,
Lance MacLean
Council Member

Police update - The Best or Worst of Times?

One city, two tales: press releases from city hall indicate Mission Viejo is practically the safest city in the universe. According to comments from blog readers, police aren’t effectively responding to calls for help.

The blog invited residents to report specifics. Here’s an example, documented with police reports from the O.C. Sheriff’s Blotter.

On July 4, a resident called police at 9:12 p.m., reporting approximately 40 young people had broken into the vacant house next door to have a marijuana and beer party. The resident’s description included teens as young as 15 and 16. A police report shows officers arrived at 9:20 p.m. on a complaint of trespassing on vacant property. The resident said two policemen entered the house, seeming to befriend rather than question the teens. Some teens left but returned as soon as the police were gone. Policemen said to the complainant, “We saw empty beer cans, but we didn’t see anyone drinking.” They added they had no proof the empty house had been broken into.

The party continued, and the resident again called police at 11:26 p.m. The police blotter shows officers responded at 11:33 to a complaint of a loud party next door. The resident said a police car drove by but didn’t stop. The resident also said, “The operator told me not to call 911 unless it’s an emergency.” Are complaints of breaking and entering, marijuana smoking, underage drinking and disturbing the peace administrative matters?

Meanwhile, the resident also spoke on the phone with a police sergeant, who said nothing could be done regarding the complaint.

The resident called 911 a third time at approximately 11:38, adding that a physical altercation was occurring in the street and front yard of the vacant house. The police arrived at 11:51 according to the Sheriff’s blotter. Policemen knocked on the front door of the vacant house. No one answered the door, and the officers left without noticing the teens had relocated from the front to the back yard of the vacant house.

The resident said, “I was made to feel as if I were the problem, so I stopped calling.”

A blog staffer asked the resident why other neighbors weren’t summoned to reinforce the need for police action. The resident’s response: “Renters of the house on the other side grow marijuana in their back yard. They’ve been busted for pot and numerous DUI’s. They’re not likely to complain about anything.”

Capo School District Update

Capistrano Unified School District news stories broke during the past week, and the timing isn’t entirely coincidental. A new recall effort began days before grand jury findings became public information. The grand jury compiled 1,300 pages in its investigation of wrongdoing at CUSD. Additionally, Orange County prosecutors have indicated they’ll file a civil suit against CUSD officials.

The community at large might not have anticipated another recall effort after the failed one in 2005. A Mission Viejo activist said, “Some parents have been talking about another recall. It isn’t a complete surprise, nor is the timing a coincidence.” Some recall proponents believe revelations in the grand jury documents will motivate voters to remove four remaining holdover trustees before the November 2008 General Election.

The four trustees loyal to former superintendent James Fleming – Sheila Benecke, Marlene Draper, Mike Darnold and Duane Stiff – were served with recall papers on July 2 while they were attending a district meeting. Only four Fleming-era trustees remain in office after the 2006 General Election, when three new ones were elected by running as reform candidates. To put the new recall effort on the ballot, petitioners have six months to gather 20,000 valid signatures for each of the four longtime trustees.

All four of the holdovers are up for reelection in November 2008. If the signature drive is successful, a recall election would be held approximately six months prior to the 2008 General Election. Winners of the recall election would have to run again in the General Election to keep their seats.

The Mission Viejo activist said, “There’s no question the holdovers deserve to be tossed out. The recall proponents evidently believe it’s worth their time to dump the old trustees before their terms end.”

Official reasons stated in the recall notice include the four trustees’ gross financial mismanagement and allowing “a culture of corruption” to infect the district. Recall proponents said the district's new budget, which cuts teachers and increases class sizes, was the last straw.

The public got its first glimpse of grand jury findings on Fri., July 6. It will take time for the media and others to digest 1,300 pages, including the testimony of current and former old-guard trustees, top CUSD employees and others close to former superintendent Fleming. Among the revelations, testimony of low-level CUSD employees about lists of enemies conflicted with stories offered by top dogs. One such conflict involved testimony from former assistant superintendent Susan McGill, who has been charged with perjury.

Orange County prosecutors’ comments in the grand jury findings indicate a civil suit will be filed against CUSD officials. Allegations include Brown Act violations when old-guard trustees discussed non-agendized items during a closed session. Those reviewing the grand jury report are finding multiple versions of testimony, including reversals as CUSD employees and former trustees answered questions.

On Fri., July 13, Fleming and McGill are scheduled to be arraigned on felony charges. Their arraignment was to be held in June, but their attorneys were given more time to study grand jury findings given to them a month ago..

Politics 101, Lessons Learned
Staff editorial

Before any council wannabe starts posturing for the November 2008 council race, consider a few of the lessons learned.

1)Buying a council seat hasn’t worked. Failed candidates Roger Faubel spent $80,000 in the 2000 race and Neil Lonsinger in 2006 spent more than $56,000 of his own cash.

2)Don’t count on voter amnesia. Lonsinger ran on a platform he would oppose mixed-use housing projects. Did Lonsinger, a planning commissioner in 2005-2006, forget he voted to approve all mixed-use projects that came before the commission? He not only voted for the affordable housing mess proposed for the former Kmart site on east Los Alisos, he pushed it by proclaiming the project had received 500 letters of support from residents. There were NO letters of support from residents.

3)The power line issue was fueled by political wind. Frank Ury was elected in 2004 after he jumped in front of an angry crowd opposing more overhead power lines on the city’s northeast side. In 2006, three candidates (Diane Greenwood, Bill Barker and Justin McCusker) tried to pile on, saying they would bury the lines. If voters didn’t know before, they found out in 2004 – shortly after Ury was safely in office – they’d been had. McCusker claimed in 2006 he knew of closed-session information that would force burial of the lines. He left town shortly after losing the race, taking his “secret plan” with him.

4)Splitting the vote doesn’t work. Former council members Sherri Butterfield, Susan Withrow and Bill Craycraft continued winning city elections long after they’d fallen out of favor. The vote against them was split until 2002 when Trish Kelley, Lance MacLean and John Paul Ledesma ran as a reform slate and blew away the competition. The slate of Greenwood, Barker and McCusker may have been trying the same tactic without offering reform. They lost. In 2006, seven challengers split the vote, enabling the incumbents to keep their seats. Incumbents in 2006 together totaled 31,528 votes while challengers totaled 42,855. Voters clearly tried to dump all three incumbents, but the vote was badly split.

5)A lobbyist and his cash are soon parted. In 2002, lobbyist John Lewis (former Assemblyman who resides in Orange) claimed he had “masterminded” the ouster of Butterfield and Withrow. He hadn’t masterminded anything. Lewis threw money into the race, but it didn’t change the outcome. In 2006, Lewis backed the losing slate of Greenwood, Barker and McCusker. When Lewis backed his longtime buddy, Frank Ury in 2004, the race involved two well-funded candidates with organized campaigns – Ury and incumbent Gail Reavis. Three challengers (Brad Morton, Dan Joseph and Nancy Howell) entered late and spent little money by comparison.

6)Disorganized, under-funded campaigns have gone awry. Examples are too numerous to mention.

7)Personal ambition, obnoxious behavior and lack of leadership qualities don’t attract supporters. Slick mailers don’t help.

The 2006 winners by default, Kelley, Ledesma and MacLean, shared another characteristic beyond their incumbency. They had almost no volunteer help. MacLean had only his immediate family. Ledesma had a few activists, and Kelley had a handful of senior citizens who formerly clustered around Butterfield and Withrow. To offset the lack of support, incumbents relied heavily on donations from city vendors. The pattern (campaigns awash with vendor cash and short on volunteers) is likely to continue in 2008 when incumbents Frank Ury and Gail Reavis will be up for reelection. To knock out this well-funded pair, challengers will have to do everything right.

Too bad, but Mission Viejo has never had a city council with its act together. Cities all around – new and old – manage to elect sane council members. Perhaps it’s time for a candidate to emerge on that basis alone – a verifiable record of sanity.

The Buzz, July 6

With a 3-2 decision, the council on July 2 voted to install an electronic message board at the corner of La Paz and Marguerite (Council Members MacLean, Kelley and Ury voted in favor). MacLean ignored overwhelming objections from residents and argued an electronic sign is advanced technology. Meanwhile, the city of San Clemente just launched an email system for relaying city news to its residents. Getting “news” by driving by a message board is about as high-tech as carbon paper.

***

Councilwoman Trish Kelley argued for the electronic sign, saying it would be “tasteful.” (By the way, did any residents go on the tour suggested in The Buzz last week – evaluating council members’ tasteful properties for need of updating and cleanup?) Kelley cited a city-sponsored push-poll in which residents said the message board is one of the primary ways they get city info. What are the other possibilities? The City Outlook is published quarterly and contains drivel and puff pieces. Saddleback Valley News is published weekly and has almost no Mission Viejo news.

***

Who says traffic doesn’t move quickly through Mission Viejo? According to a report in the OC Register, the son of a well-known politician was stopped on the freeway near Crown Valley going up to 105 mph. Albert Arnold Gore III was driving pretty fast in his Toyota Prius, but that’s not what caused some readers to remark. In a story about illegal drugs in the car, one news report gave the impression taking drugs is such a “common problem” everyone’s doing it. An email writer summarized, “That’s what happens when news about people on drugs is written by people on drugs.”

***

Blog-reader comment last week: “The front page of the City Outlook newsletter (Summer 2007) looked like a Target ad. In addition to three Target logos in a front-page picture, another of the logos was pasted between pictures. Target got another pitch on page 3. However, I found no mention Target is creating an eyesore at Jeronimo and Los Alisos. The steep slope and the wall visible from the streets below look terrible.” The opening of the new Target store is expected this fall.

***

Another reader commented about the housing project at Jeronimo and Los Alisos: “The developer built up the outer edge of the property to use every square inch of space. With the exaggerated buildup along the edge, three-story buildings are going to appear much taller.”

***

Councilwoman Diane Harkey of Dana Point recently received notice she’s being recalled. Harkey was quoted in an OC Register story, saying she thinks her constituents are happy as clams. She said the low attendance at council meetings is a sign of residents’ satisfaction. A Buzz reader reacted, “If Diane is correct about low attendance as an indicator, Mission Viejo residents must be ecstatic. Imagine that – I thought it meant no one can stand to watch.”