Letter Writer Tangles Rattay’s Web
Editorial staff

A letter to the editor in the May 30 Saddleback Valley News put a new spin on Easelgate. Letter writer Evelyn Olson claims she saw vandals on bikes damaging custom-built easels in the city’s photo display. Conflicting with Olson’s statement, residents reported to this blog that they walked the entire length of the photo display shortly before it closed, and they saw no vandalized easels. One of the residents said, “Evelyn Olson’s letter was strange. If she witnessed crimes, why didn’t she call the police?”

As another matter, Olson’s letter compromises the city’s official story. A city staff member indicated a month ago that all 500 easels could be seen stacked in rows or lined up in a staging area at the city yard. Olson’s accusation that vandals damaged the easels undermines Keith Rattay’s May 2 statement that 250 easels were stored and 250 were destined to be donated to schools and churches. He mentioned no vandalism – implying all 500 easels were going to be reused. By the time his quote hit Saddleback Valley News, up to 200 easels had already been spotted at a county dump. If Olson’s story and Rattay’s story aren’t both false, they are at least incompatible.

Should Ms. Olson have first identified herself as a friend of someone in city hall? Such a relationship would explain a lot of things, including Olson’s flowery compliments to the city council. A Mission Viejo resident who knows Olson commented after seeing the letter, “I think she didn’t know what she was getting into.”

Here are a few problems for Ms. Olson. Many residents saw the easels, and no one else claimed that up to 200 easels were vandalized while the display was still standing. Did anyone ever contact the police? Several city officials had numerous opportunities to tell activists and a newspaper reporter about vandalism. Until Olson wrote her letter, why did no one mention that all the easels taken to the dump were damaged by vandals?

Activists are already following up to determine if Ms. Olson, a city employee or a council member ever called the police about vandalism. Did Ms. Olson have no sense of duty when she allegedly saw vandals breaking easels and tearing photographs – thousands of dollars in damage? Her May 30 letter demonstrated her clear sense of duty in defending the city staff and complimenting the council for their contributions of general wonderfulness.

The city staff created another problem for itself in the May 23 SVN. City administrator Keith Rattay claimed the cost of the easels was “about $15 each.” Residents who estimated the price based on materials and labor guessed a minimum of $50 per easel.

An activist said, “After pointing to steeply rising construction costs of the community center, how did Rattay roll back prices to the 1970s?” The city recently claimed that the cost of expanding the community center – which tripled to $15 million before it was finished – was largely due to the rising cost of materials.

Perhaps Ms. Olson intended to help Rattay by trying to create an excuse for city employees to take approximately 200 easels to a county dump. Instead, she kept the city’s snafu in the spotlight and tangled Rattay’s web.

Queen of the Court
by Dale Tyler

It seems our nanny government Mayor Trish Kelly is at it again. She has been pushing two measures that, while they claim to try and solve serious problems of loud parties and teenage drinking, they are really just an attempt to expand government further into our lives and homes. Neither of these proposed ordinances is needed, as there are plenty of laws on the books to handle these matters as well as the possibility of civil lawsuits for truly difficult neighbors. They do, however, increase the role of the City Council and let council members pass judgment over individual taxpayers by creating a kangaroo court.

The first measure, REGARDING MULTIPLE RESPONSES TO LOUD OR DISRUPTIVE PARTIES, GATHERINGS OR EVENTS (see text of proposed law), tries to make people holding events responsible for the costs of sending a police officer to an event that someone designates as “too loud” or “disruptive.” There are no objective standards in the proposal, so a neighbor who calls the police repeatedly to “get even” with another neighbor could trigger this law. Once triggered, the persons holding the event would be held responsible for all costs incurred by the police in their response, including any crashes the police get into coming to or leaving the event (Section 11.23.10 (2) and (3). If you don't feel the charges are fair, you must appeal to the City Manager, whose decision is final, according to the law. Where is the due process? The city will get the money, so how can the City Manager be considered a neutral party in this proceeding? Finally, the measure only applies to gatherings of five or more, so the neighbor and his brother who get loud and drunk won't even be covered (nor should they).

The Multiple Responses measure is completely unnecessary. Today, if someone is causing a nuisance, a neighbor is free to have a friendly chat with them and ask them to be a little quieter. If this fails or the neighbor is unwilling to confront the problem directly, the police can be called and a report made. If anyone is breaking any one of a number of existing laws, such as public intoxication, assault or the noise ordinances of the city, then that person can be cited or arrested. All the police need to do is enforce existing laws. No new laws are needed. There is also a right to “quiet enjoyment” that can be enforced in civil courts. In California, a public nuisance is one that affects an entire community or neighborhood at the same time (although the harm may be spread out unequally). A person may pursue an action for public nuisance if it is sufficiently injurious to her. No new laws are needed.

The second measure, SOCIAL HOST UNDERAGE DRINKING AND CONSUMPTION ACCOUNTABILITY (see text of proposed law), attempts to make parents and others responsible for what happens in their home. On the surface, it sounds pretty good. However, it places the city in the role of deciding what happens on private property, even if it is just a quiet gathering of family members. For example, it would be illegal for a father and grandfather to have a beer with their 20-year-old son before he goes off to fight for his country (Sec. 11.22.20). The father could be thrown in jail for six months under this law. A Christmas or New Year's party where the older teenagers are given a few drops of wine to toast the family would also be illegal. One might say “The city would never poke its nose into these private parties,” but that is exactly what this law demands. One wonders if we are going to see the Sheriff's deputies going door to on New Year's Eve to check the identification of all partygoers.

Social Host laws are just more overbearing nanny government. Claims that we should “think of the children” aside, there are plenty of existing ways this problem can be handled. If there is a problem with a large party with a number of underage drinkers, there are existing laws to handle the matter nicely. In addition to the public intoxication laws, there are special laws covering underage drinkers that will cause them to lose their driver’s license, a very stiff punishment for a teenager. All the police need to do is enforce existing laws. No new laws are needed. Further, this will do nothing to curb underage drinking. The parties will simply become more covert or move to other cities, from which the teenagers will have to drive back home, possibly increasing drunk driving. We also see the same foolish attempt to “recover” the costs of police responding to the event, similar to the Multiple Responses measure, with the same set of problems and more (see below).

Then there is the issue of due process and legal proof. In the text of both of these proposed laws (Sec. 11.22.40 and 11.23.40), the City Manager has to pass on the merits of these so-called offenses. Dennis Wilberg may be very wise, but he is not a judge, familiar with the niceties of the Evidence Code and other legal procedural matters. I cannot imagine Dennis wanting to be judge and jury for these trials. There is also the matter of forcing a trial within 15 days. It seems unlikely that such a speedy trial would allow for much discovery of the true facts in such a case.

I have saved the best part for last. In her capacity as mayor, Trish Kelley would now get to preside over trials of persons who feel that the City Manager's judgment of their guilt is unfair. The City Council (Sec 11.22.70) will become a judicial body to pass on the guilt of any who come before it. Talk about a “power trip.” I wonder if Kelley will have the taxpayers buy custom-made black robes for these solemn occasions. There are the questions of judicial training and due process here as well. I bet if any council member or political contributor threw a party and a teenager had a beer, they would be found innocent of all charges, while political opponents would go to jail for six months.

I urge you to call (949) 470-3050 and email cityadmin@cityofmissionviejo.org to let the City Council know what you think. We also need to remember who proposed and voted for this law when we vote for City Council elections in the fall. All of the council members claim to be conservative Republicans who believe in limited government, but proposals like this make it clear who are nanny state liberals and who really believe in the principles of limited government.

Vote for Your Beliefs
by Councilman John Paul Ledesma

Several people have asked me about the 71st Assembly District and the 33rd Senate District races. Regarding the 71st Assembly District, there is a stark difference between the two candidates. Jeff Miller is superior to his competitor on every single key policy issue – and I mean every. Jeff Miller is a person who is ideologically grounded and actually has a history of actions that back up his claims.

Jeff Miller is a lifelong Republican and, like most active republicans in Riverside County, he has Orange County roots. Jeff started the Riverside County Young Republicans; he became chairman by building up grassroots clubs and taking control of the Central Committee; he turned the Riverside County GOP into a functioning organization; he raised money for key partisan races and local volunteer clubs; he was co-chair of Jessica’s Law initiative and he raised money for Proposition 90. In other words, he actually had productive accomplishments before becoming a candidate.  

Neil Blais’ actions include endorsing some of our past council members (Susan Withrow, Sherri Butterfield and Roger Faubel) after some of their infamous decisions (Faubel was not involved in all of these). To go back in history, Neil made these endorsements after the old regime made Mission Viejo a leading city in the area of homosexual domestic partner benefits and opposed putting Internet filters on computers used by children in the Mission Viejo library; they were found guilty of violating open meeting laws … you get the idea. Then in a candidate forum this past October, Neil said he would never endorse someone who is Pro-Choice unless he did not know their position. So he cares so deeply about the issue that he claims to not bother to ask a person about the issue he feigns sincerity on. That is one reason I think that he is spewing bunk.

As for those of you that want to vote for the “Orange County guy,” you may not realize that Jeff Miller has actually lived in Orange County longer than Neil Blais. Jeff Miller is the candidate who has lived and worked in Mission Viejo. His parents had a business here in Mission Viejo, and they lived in Casta Del Sol for several years before they passed away.

I agree I want converts to the Republican Party too, but when the person’s claimed conversion is coincidental with probable political expediency, I am skeptical, especially when the Blais’ lack of actions (lack because no record exists of him doing ANYTHING before he ran for Assembly), and the few actions he has taken in the past have been on the wrong side. For example, remember Proposition 22 (definition of marriage being one man and one woman) which was struck down by the State Supreme court recently? Neil has no record of ever taking a position on it, yet Jeff Miller was active in getting the initiative passed. It is yet another issue where Neil is saying the words but has no track record of actions to back up what he says. That is the reason the widow of the sponsor of Proposition 22 has endorsed Jeff Miller.

Regarding one person’s Christian picks site supporting Neil, by its logic, geography must mean more than ideology. According to that site, being able to reinvent oneself for a Republican Primary must mean more than any stance the candidate has taken or failed to take in the past. With this kind of thinking, a candidate can legitimately call himself a conservative, even if he is a moderate socialist, because conservative means conserving what one has; therefore, a conservative socialist is still a conservative.

It appears from its flawed logic that one can believe that what a candidate has actually done and believes mean nothing if he tells people he is a Christian. When candidates get away with hiding behind professions of faith, they have no reason to get into a conversation about ideology because, as in this case, the candidate simply tells people about being a bad pro-abort Catholic before converting – no need to ask if many Catholics are Pro-Life.

Neil says he is a “real” Christian because he is very involved in a small church, so his pastor knows him; but he professes that someone who goes to “Saddleback Church” can’t really be a “committed Christian” because “they can hide,” as Neil says, in the masses. After all, at Saddleback Church they don’t read Scripture. [Note: Sarcasm aside, I heard Neil say this to a group of people, and I confirmed this with another member of Saddleback Church who was listening.] By the above-mentioned Website’s logic, a candidate is Pro-Life if he says he is Pro-Life, and his status has nothing to do with endorsing Pro-Abort candidates.  The message being sent is, if the candidate cares so much about the issue that he purposely does not even ask another candidate’s stance on the issue, then it is OK.  The candidate doesn’t forget to mention he is a Christian if someone questions his Pro-Life-Don’t-Ask-Just-Endorse stance.

Values are what matter, so why would anyone support a candidate like Neil who has a track record of supporting candidates who oppose holiday displays on public property, support domestic partner benefits, support well known Pro-Aborts and support tax increases?  After all, this would mean supporting the guy (Neil) who never took a position on Proposition 22, not the guy (Jeff) who actually worked to get Proposition 22 passed. I think it has something to do with those “Pro-Family” values we believe in.

By that flawed logic, when it comes to living out values and promoting public policy, what a candidate actually does is not significant as long as he is telling people that he is a Christian, “a really real” Christian.  After all, if someone is a really real Christian, then there is no way he can have his actions questioned or be incorrect on a policy issue or fail to stand for our values, right?  In fact, words and catch phrases must mean more than actions and movement in a direction that is indicative of the values we espouse.   

As for the 33rd Senate District, I have endorsed Harry Sidhu. He is a good conservative who is self-made, a legal immigrant who is passionate about people coming here legally and being required to learn English.

CUSD Update
Editorial staff

The Capo school board called a special meeting on June 2. According to the Recall Committee, the board will admit during the meeting they violated the law regarding Supt. Woodrow Carter’s contract. The matter will be discussed under Item 5 of the agenda. From information posted by the Recall Committee:

“ … note that this agenda does not contain: 1) any explanation as to the fraud committed by Carter and Trustee Mike Darnold when they executed a contract containing a severance clause never even discussed by the board – they’ve tried to simply ignore this little problem; and 2) there is no agenda item calling for the public censure of Darnold and Carter.

”Interestingly, instead of saving class size reduction or rescinding any teacher layoffs, CUSD is proposing: A) Agenda Item No. 3, give a new $175,000-per-year contract to Sherine Smith; B) Agenda Item No. 6, give Carter a three-year million-dollar deal (while ignoring the fact he was just caught red-handed committing fraud); C) hold closed-session meetings to discuss hiring some new administrators … .”

The district is simultaneously facing a huge deficit ($20 million) and discussing salaries and pay increases for top officials.

CUSD’s plan for rehiring all laid-off teachers and preserving class size is based on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposal to borrow against future lottery sales. This kind of thinking is nothing new at CUSD, where borrowing against the future and spending money it doesn’t have are the norm. CUSD’s budgets have been based on assumed monies projected at highest levels of optimism. The district for the past five years has proceeded to spend more than 100 percent of what comes in.

OC Register’s Mark Landsbaum wrote in his June 1 column that only 35 percent of about 2,000 residents polled statewide last week said Schwarzenegger’s budget plan is satisfactory. Landsbaum commented, “We like it when folks recognize the obvious. And this budget is as obvious a mess as we’ve seen in a while. The governor’s lottery scheme (dare we say “scam”?) is such an obvious bad idea that we suspect it’s merely the excuse he will use for imposing a sales tax increase, which is precisely how he’s couched the plan.”

The plan hasn’t been addressed by legislators and, if approved, it could be this fall – after school resumes – before it takes effect. A CUSD parent posted on a discussion board that CUSD’s June 2 agenda, as written, asks trustees to approve the final budget for next year. At best, the financial picture at CUSD will look good for only a short while.

CUSD’s proposal is based on politics, not fiscal responsibility, in a district where two incumbents – Marlene Draper and Sheila Benecke – are targets in the recall election on June 24. If the district can spin itself into looking good for even three weeks, the old gals could survive. Some voters are apparently still deciding if they want to take a chance on something new or stick with proven lawbreaking, corruption and failure.

As another ongoing trouble spot – the new $150-million high school in San Juan Capistrano – a parent noted a recent discovery that some of the school’s sports fields aren’t owned by the district. Some of the fields, including those under power lines, are built on land still owned by the developer.

If the board majority changes with the June 24 recall election, the public could begin to get a glimpse of how the old guard operated.

Invasion from Rancho Santa Margarita
Editorial staff

Those who drove around Mission Viejo during the weekend saw oversize campaign signs popping up on public property all over town. The city’s carefully manicured medians and HOA slopes are now blighted with larger-than-life campaign signs posted by a candidate from Rancho Santa Margarita, Neil Blais.

Days before the RSM assault, a few other campaign signs appeared, mostly on corners or posted by owners on their private property. As the Blais signs went up, signs of his opponent, Jeff Miller, were mangled and torn down. By Sunday afternoon, almost every Miller sign had been damaged, including those posted by owners on private property.

Blais is apparently trying to win votes in Mission Viejo, which he hasn’t earned. See another article on this week’s blog for details, written by Mission Viejo Councilman John Paul Ledesma. A few residents became so confused by the RSM rhetoric they claimed Blais was a “leader in the Capo school district recall.” Blais doesn’t even live in the Capo district, and he has no record of leadership in the Republican Party.

Blais sent mailers claiming Jeff Miller has some kind of legal baggage over a power company issue, and the information is false. Check the dates of the “information” – 2004 or before. All such political smears were dismissed by the D.A. years ago, and Jeff Miller was the one who demanded an investigation to clear his name.

Writers and contributors at MissionViejoCA.org unanimously endorse Jeff Miller

The Buzz, May 31

A Mission Viejo resident sent State Sen. Dick Ackerman’s phone number, (714) 573-1853, to The Buzz. She said, “I call Ackerman’s office every time I get one of his Robocalls about a political candidate, and I tell his assistant he should stop it. If they don’t get any negative feedback, we can expect more calls.”

***

After the Bank of America inside Albertsons on Muirlands was robbed a week ago, a blog reader reacted, “Banks need more character posters placed at entrances and maybe a few in the parking lot. If the posters work so well, why is the city paying for deputies in the high schools when they already have character posters? Worst case, all they really need is a picture of a deputy next to a character poster.”

***

Remember the speculation that Councilman Frank Ury might team up with challenger Diane Greenwood for the November 2008 city council race? If they talked about working together, things have changed. Ury’s new running mate appears to be Rich Atkinson. Atkinson is Councilwoman Trish Kelley’s appointee to the planning commission. If the prospect of Kelley aligning with Ury seems odd, they do share a common goal. Kelley tried desperately to remove her arch-rival, Gail Reavis, from the council in 2004. Reavis is up for reelection again this fall, and Kelley will try, try again. Removing Reavis is the one thing Ury and Kelley seem to agree on.

***

With two incumbents up for reelection in November, Reavis and Ury, the number of candidates who are either running or talking about running stands at eight this week. Those confused residents who worked like maniacs four years ago to get Ury elected appear equally motivated to remove him from office this fall.

***

How could city hall stop the stir over easels? If there were one responsible adult among the 140-plus city employees, he or she should suggest the following announcement: Dear Mission Viejo Taxpayers, After the city staff spent a king’s ransom on a photo display, we hadn’t thought about how to dispose of it. People were complaining that it looked tacky, so we were in a hurry to get it off the street. We had way more easels than we wanted, so we dumped a couple hundred on a hillside. We got real unlucky, and an activist with a camera drove by before we had a chance to take the easels to a dump. Since our lies haven’t worked out, we’ve decided to tell the truth about this.

***

The city continues its non-progress of widening Crown Valley Parkway and now seems focused on building unsightly walls instead of finishing the road. A longtime resident emailed, “The street-widening projects aren’t keeping up with current needs, and they don’t begin to address the future. The traffic mess has been terrible for years in south Mission Viejo. All five council members ran on campaign promises to alleviate traffic congestion, and it is far worse than when they were elected.” While gazing at the yellowish-brown walls along Crown Valley, voters have time to contemplate the folly of electing council members who are housewives, low-level government bureaucrats and others without a record of success at accomplishing anything.

***

Info forwarded by a blog reader: Not one of the following taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had no national debt, we had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids. What happened? Can you spell “politicians”?

Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax , CDL License Tax , Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax , IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax), IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Liquor Tax, Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, service charge taxes, Social Security Tax, Road Usage Tax (Truckers), Sales Taxes, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and  Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Utility Tax, Vehicle  License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft  Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax and Workers Compensation Tax.