City Activist Rolls Out Voter Initiative
Staff editorial

The process of getting the Mission Viejo Right To Vote on the ballot began several years ago. Approximately 30 city activists met monthly during 2005-2006 to discuss ways to stop such developers as Steadfast and UDR Pacific from building high-density residential housing on property zoned for commercial use in the city’s Master Plan. Community activist Dale Tyler, who moderated the activist meetings, introduced his idea about a land-use voter initiative to the group. If the measure is approved in the November election this year, voters – not the city council – would decide the final outcome of zone changes.

The matter of rezoning properties was additionally compromised for several years by a city council that refused to address the state’s requirement of having a plan for affordable housing. After the council majority deliberately threw away the city’s only plan in 2006, the state stepped in and demanded a remedy. The council responded by rezoning three properties to high-density residential to provide for the state’s affordable housing goals. The council claimed, “Look what the state MADE us do!” The state merely reacted to the council’s blatantly irresponsible act of throwing away the plan. The council was either incompetent or deliberately wanting the state to look responsible for what the council wanted in the first place – more housing in a built-out city and more developer dollars in campaign treasuries.

The most controversial new rezoning proposal isn’t related to affordable housing. The developer, Sunrise Senior Living, is currently hoping the council will rezone the Casta del Sol golf course from recreation to high-density senior housing. Despite the developer’s implication that most of the golf course could be preserved, those who see what’s coming expect the entire property to be divided into housing projects. Prime real estate in the heart of the community would not be given away or otherwise set aside when the developer could make a fortune by selling it to others in the homebuilding business.

Sunrise met individually with all five council members, and at least two councilmen – Lance MacLean and Frank Ury – appear to support the developer. On Feb. 18, the council addressed Sunrise’s proposal with a moratorium on zone changes. By extending the moratorium until after the November election, the council contended it would hear no proposal until the moratorium runs out. Despite any appearance to protect the residents, the council could end the moratorium at any time with three votes. As another matter, the moratorium contains a loophole that wouldn’t stop a developer from proceeding at any time.

Beyond the troubling aspect of MacLean and Ury siding with the developer, Councilwoman Trish Kelley falsely states the moratorium protects residents from unwanted rezoning. It does not, and she probably knows better. The problem is and always has been council members siding with developers and failing to represent their constituents. This council never met a developer it didn’t like. Residents should realistically expect at least four of the five current council members to rezone the entire golf course if a voter initiative doesn’t stop them.

Fortunately, the Mission Viejo Right To Vote will soon be available for residents to sign. Tyler received the city attorney’s title and summary on June 2, and signature gathering could begin as early as Friday, June 13. Petition circulators will have six months to qualify it for the ballot. If 10 percent of the city’s voters (61,347 Mission Viejo residents were registered to vote as of May 6, 2008) sign the petition, it could be on the November ballot. If it’s not on the November ballot, gathering 15 percent of voters’ signatures (approximately 9,200) would qualify the initiative for a special election.

Easelgate Update
Editorial Staff

Reaction continues after a controversial letter to the editor appeared in the May 30 Saddleback Valley News. Mission Viejo resident Evelyn Olson claimed she saw someone vandalize the city’s photo display while 500 easels were still standing. Readers doubting her story are unanimously asking why she didn’t call the police. The letter from Allan Pilger in the June 6 Saddleback Valley News suggests more dialogue is warranted.

After reading Olson’s letter, city activists called the Sheriff’s Dept. to ask if anyone reported vandalism. An OCSD representative answered on May 31 that no one reported any vandalism. Additionally, Mission Viejo Chief of Police Lt. Steve Bernardi told a blog staffer on June 1 that he hadn’t heard anything about vandalism. He added that the easels may have been damaged when the display was taken down. In the May 23 SVN, city administrator Keith Rattay acknowledged “some of the easels broke.”

Two weeks ago, an activist requested information from city hall for the complete costs of the photo display. This would include disposable cameras, photo development and enlargement, lamination and mounting, signage and all costs for easels – materials, cutting the wood, sanding, assembling, painting, transport and other labor. Activists already have some of the costs, but it will be interesting to see what city hall provides.

City hall responded to the request for public records by stating extra time would be needed to compile the information. The costs are for one project, and the information should be readily available as such. Otherwise, how does the city know it stayed below the $30,000 threshold – the city manager’s ceiling for spending without council approval?

What’s the real issue causing a delay? Does someone in city hall not want the information released? As another problem, Rattay was quoted in the May 23 issue of SVN saying the easels cost “approximately $15 each.” Residents estimating costs have guessed the figure is at least $50 each.

Given the city manager’s limit of $30,000 per project, does anyone on the city staff think it’s acceptable to string out a project’s costs to deceive the public? Will any city staffer argue that 500 disposable cameras, development and enlargement of photos and so on were separate “projects” and not components of the photo display? All the city manager had to do was tell the council he wanted $50,000 or $100,000 for an easel project.

The council majority has approved everything from a $300,000 Rose Parade float to a $15-million senior center expansion. These folks aren’t real concerned about spending someone else’s money.

Keep in mind that the city manager has had numerous opportunities to explain why a couple hundred broken easels were trashed on a hillside next to the city yard.

Let’s Focus on the Real Crime
Letter to the Editor

The May 30 letter to Saddleback Valley News from Evelyn Olson got my attention. According to her story, she witnessed a crime. Instead of calling the police, why did she wait a month and write a letter to the editor?

Has Ms. Olson been following the month-long coverage of Easelgate? After a city employee tried to create a display of record-breaking length, activists counted only 300-plus easels when officials claimed 500 were in the city yard. Activists estimated 200 easels were in the photo of debris on public property [May 2 Saddleback Valley News]. Residents next saw a high number of easels in the county dump on El Toro Road.

Olson says she saw the display being vandalized. This is a cover-up, thus the title: Easelgate. Does she realize the number of trashed easels was approximately 200? Isn’t it curious that no one – not the city, a citizen or council member – called the police about all the alleged vandalism? The police were never called because there was no "vandalism"; city employees trashed the easels while picking them up and wasted our tax money because they saw no further need for the easels. True, this is speculation on my part, but why hasn’t the city responded to question of what happened to the easels? 

All 500 of the easels could have been used again or donated to schools. I would have even taken one to help distribute them. The issue here is not really the easels but the WASTED taxpayers’ money! MY money, YOUR money, and taxpayers should be outraged about another waste of our tax dollars. The waste is similar to the money spent to produce the City Outlook magazine. Are we some large corporate entity that can afford to produce an expensive, slick magazine as if we were trying to sell our city to each other?

I believe there really was no crime of vandalism. The city should respond to the questions asked about the easels and stop the speculation.  The real crime here is, as always, our wasted tax dollars.

Kathy Miramontes, President
Aliso Villas Condominium Association

CUSD Update
Letter from a CUSD parent

After reading this, if you agree, please forward it to everyone you know who is concerned about this issue.

A link is provided at the end of this letter to a recent OC Register article about CUSD Superintendent Woodrow Carter's contract. Carter first claimed he "wouldn't sign his contract” because, he said, the salary increase of $28,000 was not acceptable at a time when teachers and staff were being laid off. Makes sense, right?

But Carter then altered the contract he claimed he refused to sign, not only keeping the salary increase intact, but adding a severance clause awarding himself $410,000 (a year-and-a-half's salary), even if he was "fired" (no matter the reason). 

Carter and Board President Mike Darnold then signed the altered contract (signed and dated Feb. 25 - before Carter claimed he didn't sign it) - WITHOUT the knowledge or approval of the full Board of Trustees.

When asked about having signed the contract, Carter stated he "never said" he "wouldn't sign the contract." But a look at the memo to the Board dated Feb. 29 states otherwise:

-----Original Message-----
  From: Carter, Woodrow
  Sent: Friday, February xx, 2008 xx:xx AM
  To: Wheeler, Heather; Anna Bryson; Duane Stiff; Ellen Addonizio; Larry Christensen; Marlene Draper; Mike Darnold; Sheilla Benecke
  Subject: New contract

I announced last night at the DHHS Town Hall meeting that I would not   sign the new contract and accept compensation at this time.  It is not the time to be receiving additional money.  Timing could not be worse.  That may change later in the year, but not right now.

A. Woodrow Carter

The four Fleming-era trustees "ratified" the altered contract at a "special Board meeting" on Monday, June 2. So, in essence, they just awarded Carter an extra $410,000 (in addition to awarding raises to two assistant superintendents who are now each making $175,000 per year). No wonder we have such financial problems. 

Unfortunately, to complicate matters further, if what I'm hearing is true, Trustees Marlene Draper and Sheila Benecke and Carter may have made a deal with Vicki Soderburg of the teachers union to "re-hire" all the teachers being laid off if the union voted to actively oppose the recall, which is what they're doing. The problem is, CUSD is still on the brink of bankruptcy with a $21-million deficit it was running even BEFORE the state cuts, and Carter has stated that CUSD's financial picture will get even worse (how that's possible, I don't know, but that's what he has stated repeatedly in public). 

So if this is true as I suspect, here's my prediction: after the teacher's union has served its purpose of opposing the recall, Carter will once again be forced to lay off (or not re-hire) teachers and staff - though not until AFTER the recall election, of course, because CUSD doesn't have the money. 

I hope I'm wrong, but CUSD administration has proven duplicitous in the past. And the lies the union is spreading about some of the recall candidates are pretty outrageous. For example, they are saying that some of the candidates running for Board seats are "puppets" of the Education Alliance and the recall group. Some of you know Sue Palazzo personally, as I do, and know that she has been actively involved in trying to foment positive change in CUSD for many years - LONG before she ever decided to run for Marlene Draper's seat. Sue is no one's puppet, most especially the Education Alliance.

I guess Marlene Draper and Sheila Benecke were unable to defend their record of mismanagement and violating the law, so they had to find something to try and scare the voters into keeping them in office. 

I don't know about you, but all of this is illustrative to me of why a change in leadership is so DESPERATELY needed; I urge you to vote "Yes" on the recall

Read the article about the contract:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/contract-board-carter-2059260-vote-superintendent

The Buzz

Reader reaction: “Parents are worried about how to preserve Class Size Reduction, but it could happen without fundraisers, especially in the Capistrano district. With the deterioration of school buildings and the decline in education, more students will be in private schools. The districts will see smaller classes if they can afford it or not. Beyond that, illegal immigration is a big cause of overcrowding in the schools, as well as impacting everything else. If everyone weren’t so busy being politically correct, we could be honest about solutions.”

***

A longtime community activist commented after seeing two letters in the Saddleback Valley News that were complimentary to the city staff and council members: “The letters from Evelyn Olson and Margo Kutner in the last two weeks reminded me of the days of Councilwomen Sherri Butterfield and Susan Withrow. Whenever the old queens did something outrageous, they’d have their friends write letters to the newspaper proclaiming their brilliance. The city staff must have done something pretty bad to solicit such transparent letters two weeks in a row.”

***

What misdeeds has the city staff committed lately? Here are 10 recent examples: 1) destroying 200 easels – a letter writer blames someone on a bike, 2) lying to Saddleback Valley News about the price of easels and why they were trashed, 3) constantly wasting money on pricey brochures that look like corporate-image pieces, 4) creating make-work projects for 140-plus city employees, including several Assistant City mis-Managers, 5) making a mess of Crown Valley Parkway with a botched road widening, 6) overpaying a city traffic mis-manager to say “nothing can be done” to improve traffic flow or coordinate lights, 7) stating that the only possible place for a dog park is near residents’ homes, 8) falsely stating the day-laborer issue near Los Alisos and Jeronimo is under control, 9) placing cheap-looking banners along Marguerite Parkway to uglify the city, and 10) spending an outrageous amount on a weeklong 20th anniversary party that was given good reviews only by city staffers, council members and their buddies.

***

Reader reaction: “As I drive by the corner of the hospital property on Crown Valley, I wonder what image the hospital is trying to project with a sculpture that’s so odd and cold. It has no appeal, and some of the colors (rust?) clash with everything. When I’m stopped in traffic, which is often, I notice the sculpture doesn’t relate to the building or its surroundings. The hospital is now overdoing it with landscaping, as if to distract from the mistake. The more they pile on that corner – buildings, sculpture, walls, rocks and plants – the worse it looks.”

***

City council candidates could learn something from the Primary Election last week. First, the winner wasn’t the person with the most signs. Second, the order of candidates’ names on the ballot wasn’t related to which ones won. This was especially true in the races with many candidates. Two years ago in the Mission Viejo council race, three candidates running together (Diane Greenwood, Bill Barker and Justin McCuster) had the first three positions on the ballot, and all three lost. As another point of comparison, in the recent Primary election as well as the 2006 city election, those with the biggest signs lost.

***

The Orange County Board of Supervisors threw Mission Viejo residents a curve in choosing finalists for the permanent sheriff. When narrowing the field to two on June 3, the choice of Sandra Hutchens and Paul Walters surprised almost everyone. Mission Viejo residents of all political stripes are disappointed that acting Sheriff Jack Anderson isn’t in the running.