VUI – Voting Under the Influence
Editorial Staff

Do the Orange County supervisors not have a lot to do? They sometimes tear themselves away from the important work of redecorating their offices to vote on something.

The process of appointing a permanent Orange County sheriff ended June 10 in the usual way. Two lobbyists groups had been vying, each wanting to get at least three of five supervisors’ votes for a candidate. John Lewis (former Asssemblyman turned lobbyist) was pushing Paul Walters (police chief of Santa Ana). California Women’s Leadership Association was pushing Sandra Hutchens (L.A. Sheriff’s Dept. retiree). CWLA is a group that promotes Republican women for political office.

Under the influence of Lewis, Supervisors Chris Norby and Bill Campbell dutifully stuck with Walters. When the BOS met on June 3, Norby pushed hard to clinch the position for Walters. Norby could count on Campbell’s vote, and he may have thought he could sway Supervisor Pat Bates. Bates also has ties to Lewis, but her political roots go further back with CWLA.

At the June 10 BOS meeting, Norby made a motion to appoint Walters, but only Campbell voted with him. Hutchens got the job with the votes of Supervisors John Moorlach, Janet Nguyen and Bates. Orange County residents might have started celebrating prematurely in noticing the Republican Party good ol’ boys lost. However, the cheering should have stopped if anyone noticed the victory by the Republican Party good ol’ girls.

Bill Hunt, a failed Carona challenger in the 2006 election, openly said he preferred Hutchens over Walters. Hunt could run again in 2010, facing off with Hutchens as a presumed weak incumbent. Some Orange County residents who depend on the OC Sheriff’s Department to guard their cities didn’t find anything to cheer about.

Many Mission Viejo residents said the best candidate, Jack Anderson, was bypassed in the political process. Anderson had no lobbyists backing him. He had no big-money supporters, no one throwing mud at the other candidates and no supervisor politically tied to him. With a superior background and an impeccable record with the OCSD, he didn’t get any closer than being one of nine semifinalists. In a preliminary round a week ago, he got only one vote from a supervisor. Bates included him when she voted for four candidates. Her other votes predictably included one for John Lewis’ candidate and another for the CWLA candidate. Her fourth vote went to Ralph Martin.

OC columnist Frank Mickadeit indicated that the John Lewis entourage was in the audience as the supervisors voted. Lewis filed past him when leaving, and Walters wasn’t far behind. By staying close together, the strings aren’t as likely to become tangled.

Easelgate Update – Truth Slips Out Again
Editorial staff

Memos from city hall emerged last week, revealing an ongoing attempt to minimize Easelgate. As reported a week ago, an activist requested all records from the city relating to costs of the city’s 20th anniversary photo display. The city responded with a letter indicating more time was needed to provide information. Additionally, a city administrator (Assistant mis-Manager Keith Rattay) circulated an inner-office memo instructing employees to let their supervisors know immediately of any conversations with council members. Despite his efforts to contain it, the truth would slip out again.

City Manager Dennis Wilberg wrote an email to Lindsey Baguio, the reporter for Saddleback Valley News. Wilberg’s email found its way into the hands of a Mission Viejo resident, who published it June 12 on a county blog. It appears that Baguio may have asked Wilberg about the large pile of broken easels being moved from the city yard to a county dump. Wilberg emailed Baguio, suggesting she include in her stories the opinions of his 30 hand-picked residents, implying they would provide a more “broad-based representation” of community views.

Wilberg asks Baguio to give “a fair and accurate representation of both sides of an issue.” Isn’t that exactly what Baguio has tried to do? The city has had more than a month to answer questions. Instead of providing the “fair and accurate representation” of what the city did, Rattay appears to have lied twice in response to direct questions: how did broken easels end up on a hillside and how much did they cost?

Letters to the editor – likely from Wilberg’s list of 30 shills – were published in SVN on May 30 (Evelyn Olson) and June 6 (Margo Kutner). Both letters praised the city staff. Olson made a strange claim that vandals broke the easels, and Kutner thanked Keith Rattay for the “wonderful” city anniversary event. Does anyone have any question about the origin of the letters? As a hint of authorship, Olson’s letter sounds similar to a June 12 county blog post appearing to come from a city employee. What’s “fair and accurate” about a city administrator instigating letters to compliment himself and passing them off as a “broad-based community view”? In addition to planting letters in SVN, consider the fortune the city has spent on large-scale propaganda, including contracts with P.R. agencies and the one-sided fluff in the City Outlook magazine.

But that’s not all. On June 12, the county blog also revealed Mission Viejo’s city staff spent $34,348.99 to improve property the city doesn’t own. As most residents know, Mission Viejo contracts with the Orange County Fire Authority, and its fire stations belong to the county. According to a June 9 city memo, Rattay indicated the city was “helping” OCFA by improving the appearance of Fire Station #24, located on Marguerite Parkway near Oso. It’s not up to Rattay to improve non-city properties with a gift of Mission Viejo tax dollars. Dubbed “Firegate” by the blogger, it’s another example of a stealth project wrongfully billed to Mission Viejo residents, and the council was excluded in the decision. The memo revealed city taxpayers would pay for ongoing maintenance of a landscaped area on county property at a cost of $8,000 annually.

The blogger’s post about Firegate also aired a citizen’s claim that the city has been conducting its “aesthetics” work on other non-city property, including maintenance of private-sector slopes.

Since Mission Viejo residents are paying for the City Outlook magazine, isn’t it about time activists got a few pages in each edition to give “a fair and accurate representation of both sides” of the city? A cartoon or two would also be a nice addition.

What Does Retirement Mean?
Letter to the editor

What does it mean when a person retires? Does it mean too old to work any more? Too tired to continue working? Disliked the job? Disliked the colleagues? Quit to take a pension and double-dipped by taking another job? Found the work beyond one’s ability? Needed to rest?

In which one of the above categories does Sandra Hutchens fit? Did she have greater appeal than the other candidate, who is in charge of the most unsafe city with gang problems in Orange County?

Why wasn’t Jack Anderson, who was NOT a Carona man, in the final two? He became acting sheriff running with his corrections to resolve the weaknesses of Carona.

Wasn’t Anderson chosen by fellow assistant and deputy sheriffs to be in charge of the Sheriff’s Department? That sounded more than good enough for me!

Beverly Cruse
Mission Viejo

CUSD Update
by Julie Collier

I just started attending the general board meetings this school year (Sept. 2007). I wanted to be more involved and knowledgeable in decisions being made for the students of CUSD. I did not know how the meetings worked or what to expect. Not only did I not know how to find the board agenda online, but I didn’t even know the names of the board members or what they looked like.

The board meetings were filled with emotion, a sense of chaos and at times loud and hostile. I remember my eyes filling with tears as I left the board room during the first board meeting of the new school year. I left thinking, where are the people who care about the children of this district? How can I trust some of these board members to care about my child’s education? Is what I am hearing from angry parents and concerned teachers really true?

It did not take long for me to research and understand who the players were and what the general feelings were towards the longtime board members of CUSD (the majority vote for years). I found out right way that many parents and teachers were incensed that the current majority vote of CUSD trustees would make choices that did not seem to be in the best interest of all the students.

I spoke at many board meetings this year asking the board to “make the right choices for all the students and teachers.” I asked the board to wait to complete the stadium, workout room and pool at San Juan Hills High School in San Juan Capistrano. One reason was due to the maintenance cost involved from the general fund. It passed 4-3 with the old board approval. I along with many other parents asked for help in alleviating the immense overcrowding at Newhart by making the five CUSD Mission Viejo schools K-6 during a boundary change. Many people throughout Mission Viejo came together to help make sure the board would vote in favor of our kids. We provided research, dollar amounts, petitions and some of us even took time to meet with a few board members to plead our case. One longtime board member even told us to not bother speaking at the board meetings and to send our husbands instead. In the end, the old majority voted (4-3) to “do nothing” to alleviate the most populated middle school in CUSD. According to them, natural attrition would bring the population down at Newhart by 400 in the year 2011 (They ignored the fact that the population would still be well above the district average.). Take some time to research this year’s board minutes at www.capousd.org.

When our school district had no other choice but to give pink slips to hundreds of teachers, classified workers and custodians, parents became involved. We watched and listened as the district and longtime board members blamed the state for its current financial problems, when we all knew it was due to the many years of mismanaged funds. Parents stepped in by attending rallies, carnivals and auctions. Parents wrote letters and sent in money to help maintain the current level of education for our children. We did all of this despite the knowledge that our district had been carelessly spending money long before Supt. Woodrow Carter arrived. Parents made the right choices for our students and teachers.

I am voting YES on the June 24 CUSD recall election because the current board majority has not proven to me that they put the students’ education first. It is time for a change in the current majority board. I want trustees who will vote in favor of my children and their teachers. I want trustees who will listen to me as a viable resource and not consider me a snake “slithering up to the podium.” I want trustees who believe the education of students is the most important component in our district. I want trustees to treat teachers as equally important because they are the caretakers of the most important part of our district: our children. The current majority on the CUSD Board of Trustees has proven to me throughout this year they are not the board in which I trust with the outcome of my children’s education. Why am I voting YES on the CUSD Recall Election?  I want a new majority vote. My children deserve better and they trust me to be their voice.

Please vote YES on the CUSD Recall Election June 24. Make the right choice for all our students and teachers. For more information, go to
http://www.parentsadvocateleague.org

The Buzz

Blog readers asked for a report on the June 3 Primary Election with regard to Central Committee members for the 71st Assembly District. Those winning on the Republican side were Todd Spitzer (16,743), Jack Anderson (10,996), Marcia Gilchrist (9,093), John S. Williams (8,945), Tony Beall (8,831) and Mark Bucher (7,268). The top six Democrats running for Central Committee were David R. Sonneborn (3,837), Toni J. Sullivan (3,828), Lori Vandermeir (3,217), Joe Kerr (2,915), Gary Kephart (2,583) and Henry Vandermeir (2,476). The 71st Assembly District includes all of Mission Viejo.

***

Other cities (or portions of cities) in the 71st Assembly District are Anaheim, Corona, Norco, Orange, Rancho Santa Margarita, Tustin and Santa Ana.

***

Two candidates for Mission Viejo City Council have officially declared their intent to run – incumbent Gail Reavis and challenger Robert Lenzini. Reavis and Councilman Frank Ury are up for reelection, and both are likely to run. At least four challengers (including Lenzini) appear to be serious about running. Among those who were posturing and now seem to be on the sidelines are Diane Greenwood and Brian Skalsky. Both Greenwood and Skalsky ran unsuccessfully in 2006.

***

Greenwood – if she’s not running – may have been pushed out by Ury’s decision to run with Rich Atkinson, who is Councilwoman Trish Kelley’s appointee to the planning commission. Although Ury campaigned for Greenwood in 2006, a Ury-Greenwood ticket would have been odd, given Ury’s claim to be a far-right Republican and Greenwood’s history as a longtime Democrat with far-left leanings. Greenwood reregistered as a Republican when she decided to run last time. The prospect of Ury and Kelley working together on anything defies logic after Ury tried to unseat her in 2006, but they have a common enemy in Reavis.

***

When Ury was first elected to the council in 2004, an activist joked that Ury counted on the “100 club” in Mission Viejo to carry him around on their shoulders. To belong to the club, members can’t have an IQ exceeding 100. This year, it will be the “80 club,” as those with IQs approaching 100 are way too smart to do it again. Ury needs a ground team to hold his banners on street corners and work in his campaign. Kelley could use another person to hold up the other end of the banner, and MacLean might be available. How low will these council members go to get revenge? Will Kelley again stalk her neighbors, snooping through packages on doorsteps and harassing everyone who puts a Reavis sign in their yard?

***

Greenwood posted remarks on another city blog, indicating she won’t support the Mission Viejo Right To Vote Initiative to stop Sunrise from destroying the Casta del Sol Golf Course. No surprise there. In her post, she said, “Imagine how nice it could be with coffee shops overlooking Oso Creek with some well planned re-vitalization, bringing revenue back into the city of Mission Viejo.” Either she’s confused or she wishes to confuse others. The voter initiative would have no impact on revitalization. If anything, the initiative should protect the city’s sales tax base by preventing commercial property from being rezoned to high-density residential. As for coffee shops overlooking Oso Creek, who would enjoy sipping coffee with the stench emanating from the sewage treatment plant on the other side of the creek? People hold their nose while walking that part of the trail.

***

A few residents contributed to misinformation about coyotes on another blog. Mission Viejo is coyote country, and it always has been. Those concerned about the issue should focus on education, not on trying to exterminate wildlife. Coyotes keep the rodent population down, and that’s important in a city overrun with rabbits and rats. The diet of coyotes consists of small rodent (42%), deer (22%), fruit (23%), rabbit (18%), bird (13%), raccoon (8%), grass (6%), invertebrate (4%), human associated – garbage and pet food (2%), muskrat (1%), cat (1%), unknown (1%). Percentages are based on scat contents, and multiple sources result in more than 100%. Read a representative sampling of research at http://ohioline.osu.edu/b929/pdf/b929.pdf

***

How high can a coyote jump? According to research, a coyote can get over a fence that’s at least six feet high – maybe higher. Pet owners who think they’ve coyote-proofed their back yards might be sadly mistaken.