CUSD Update, Oct. 28

During a special board meeting last week, Fleming-era trustees voted 4-0-3 to accept the D.A.’s findings of numerous Brown Act violations in 2005 and 2006. The three recently elected trustees abstained, saying they weren’t in office when the violations occurred. The special meeting was to be held in closed session, but the three new trustees pressured the others to hold it publicly. At least two of the Fleming-era trustees, Marlene Draper and Mike Arnold, stated they’ll stay in office despite demands for them to step down.

Beyond the benefits Draper will receive by remaining in office until November 2008 (her 20th year, when pension benefits kick in), another consideration is the financial ties between Draper’s husband, who owns a drywall business, and those who contract with the district for construction projects. The financial rewards appear to outweigh any peace Draper might gain by resigning.

In the state’s Fourth District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana on Oct. 22, attorney Mark Rosen represented a group of parents who gathered signatures to recall all seven Fleming-era CUSD trustees in 2005. The group claims Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley unfairly disqualified a high number of valid signatures to thwart the recall effort. Rosen argued that ROV employees went beyond standard procedures of matching a valid signature with the address by trying to determine if voters filled in their own addresses on petitions or if the petition circulators filled in the addresses. Having no standard for comparison and no statute by which to disqualify the signature on such a basis, ROV employees appeared to use subjective means for disqualifying valid signatures. Rosen argued the ROV prevented voters from participating by arbitrarily applying nonexistent standards. The three justices who heard the appeal will have 90 days to make a decision on whether or not the ROV unfairly disqualified signatures.

An activist who attended the court proceedings said, “One of the justices was asking good questions about why the Registrar disqualified so many signatures. An important matter – that signature-gatherers were repeatedly given incorrect information by the Registrar of Voters – isn’t being considered. During an earlier court case, we realized by talking among ourselves that at least 20 of the signature gatherers had called the Registrar of Voters to ask the same question. Each person was told there was nothing in the Election Code to address who must or who may fill in the address information.”

One of the parents added, “I never filled in an address unless the voter asked me to help. First of all, I called the Registrar of Voters and was told there was no law, statute or code that defines who can fill in the address. Beyond that, some people trying to fill in their own information were handicapped or elderly, and some of their writing was impossible to read. Of the 177,000 signatures collected, the Registrar threw out only 300 because the signature didn’t match. It was very clear people wanted to sign the petition, and the signatures were valid. The Registrar decided to throw out 60,000 of the 177,000 signatures for a variety of other reasons, and some of the reasons were blatantly transparent excuses for interfering with an election process.”

Another parent said, “Neal Kelley made it clear the recall effort would not prevail. He indicated it would have been thrown out for other reasons if he couldn’t stop it on the basis of disqualifying signatures. For example, he said the petitions weren’t available in other languages.” The political machinery was lined up against the recall even before the signature count began.

And how did the county board of supervisors react to the performance of “their” employee, Neal Kelley, after his bias, incompetence and/or buffoonery came to light? They decided the taxpayers should pay for a sham investigation of his office, which centered on asking him whether or not he was guilty of wrongdoing. He responded that any mistake was made because he was unfamiliar with election code and unaware of the law. Additionally, he said his employees never made comments about who could or couldn’t fill in addresses – as if they were never asked. The board of supervisors responded to the investigation by promoting Kelley from interim registrar to permanent registrar. At about the same time, Newport Beach residents gathering signatures for an initiative made similar complaints against the ROV, with an additional discovery that up to 10 percent of registered voters didn’t show up in their copies of the ROV database.

Some of the political deal-making and ties have been revealed, and more information is emerging. Additionally, former CUSD administrators James Fleming and Susan McGill are facing felony charges. They have the choice of telling what they know – real estate deals, financial payoffs and abuse of power – or they can remain quiet and ride their high horse into jail.