Easelgate Update

Easelgate Update
Editorial staff

The controversy following the April 22 sighting of hundreds of easels piled on a hillside isn’t going to end soon. After the city took six weeks to release documents to community activist Lisa De Paul-Snyder, she and other residents reviewed data appearing to be phony or created after the fact. De Paul-Snyder’s May 23 request for information about costs of the city’s 20th anniversary photo display resulted in a 59-page file of invoices – generally one per page – with numerous blank divider pages. Activists reviewing the material say it calls into question the city’s honesty and the true cost of the project.

City employee Keith Rattay was quoted in the May 23 Saddleback Valley News saying the easels cost approximately $15 each. In the 59-page file, the city provides information that the cost was approximately $40 per easel. Information from other sources indicates the cost of materials plus labor (at $45 per hour) was more than $150 per easel – at least $75,000 for 500 custom-built easels. Rattay in a June 16 memo to City Manager Dennis Wilberg states that 150 volunteers donated 800 hours toward assembling the easels. The contractor’s invoices for building the easels – 500 or more, as documented in the 59-page file – don’t support the claim of volunteer help.

Rattay on June 30 made an appointment with Saddleback Valley News reporter Lindsey Baguio prior to releasing the documents on July 2 to De Paul-Snyder. The reporter was the first to receive data that De Paul-Snyder requested. When Baguio reported her meeting with Rattay in SVN, the headline was “Damage Control.” Activists agree, it’s too late for Rattay to spin the story in his favor. He’s made conflicting statements, including the cost of easels, the number damaged and why easels were trashed on city property.

To view a copy of the 59-page file the city gave to De Paul-Snyder, click here

On July 10, De Paul-Snyder sent another request to the city for public records. Her request narrows the focus to a single city contractor, Jamey Clark, who performs odd jobs for the city, generally at $45 an hour. Speaking of odd, is $45/hr the going rate for unskilled labor to assemble easels – work that volunteers allegedly could do?

Below is a partial list of comments from feedback by those reviewing the 59-page file. Because feedback has been extensive, and the list has been shortened to 10 representative items.

  1. Clark’s invoices don’t support Rattay’s statements. Numbers don’t match, and info is missing. Where are invoices for March? Explain invoice for $58,724.07.
  2. Why did the city order 500 cameras from an East Coast business and pay $210.30 for shipping instead of buying cameras from a Mission Viejo supplier?
  3. How many easels were damaged to the degree they couldn’t be reused? This number has changed from “a few” when Rattay was quoted in the paper to 93. Destruction of 93 easels isn’t “a few.” Why no police report? What evidence does the city have that the easels were “damaged by kids”?
  4. Need records pertaining to the materials and construction of large 8’ signboards (referred to in Item No. 5 page 2 as “20 large easels”), including the 75 (?) built for the Veterans Day event in November 2007 that seem to have disappeared. How many signboards were constructed, where are the signboards today and, if they were disposed of, why? Why is the city mixing these two costs and now referring to large signboards as easels?
  5. When the city realized the costs would exceed the ceiling for a no-bid contract, did the city issue requests for competitive bids? Why wasn’t cost of $31,575 presented to the council for a vote, as must legally happen?
  6. Ask for a list of volunteers and contact information for the memo’s claim of “150 volunteers” and an account of their “800 hours.” Provide copies of any communication with groups. If no list exists for the volunteers and the number of hours each volunteer worked, how were these numbers (150 volunteers and 800 hours) calculated? Where are photos of work sessions? Where did these alleged work sessions take place? Did volunteers sign a release or did they agree to work at their own risk? Did the organizations have to post bonds or provide evidence that their volunteers are covered by insurance?
  7. About the claim “10,000 people enjoyed” the photo display during a two- to three-week period. How was this number calculated?
  8. A later claim (page 2 of the documents) states the walking trail is used by “over 500-1,000 people per day.” Comparing this claim and No. 10 above, it would indicate up to 10,000 people use the trail during any two- to three-week period with no display in place. Thus, the display being there attracted no one.
  9. The “immediate” take-down following the ending date of the display has been emphasized in city documents. Did the city receive complaints about 1) the unsightly, junky look of easels and lawn furniture (Adirondack lawn chairs) on public property, 2) the illegality of freestanding and oversized signage or 3) the liability of people tripping on debris or having an 8-foot signboard fall on them?
  10. The 6-18-08 memo states 190 easels are to be used for many years to come, but item 5-C on page 2 states the easels are made from inexpensive wood. With easels currently outside on the ground, are these statements compatible with each other?

Not counting salaries of city staffers and potential temporary workers who may have been sucked into the project, the cost of the photo gallery was stated in Saddleback Valley News as $31,575.73. Activists who believe 500 custom-made easels cost $75,000 are now estimating the total cost of the photo gallery project was $90,000.