Trio Plans Hostile Campaign
Staff editorial

A city election plan hatched by Council Members Trish Kelley, Frank Ury and Lance MacLean emerged a couple months ago. Although the three have been unable to work together to benefit residents, they are in complete harmony about removing Councilwoman Gail Reavis from office in the November city election. Both Reavis and Ury are up for reelection, and both have pulled papers to run.

This isn’t Ury’s first attempt at a hostile takeover of the city council. In 2006, he carried the ball for the so-called 1-2-3 slate of council challengers, Diane Greenwood, Bill Barker and Justin McCusker, in his attempt to unseat incumbents Kelley, MacLean and John Paul Ledesma. Greenwood, Barker and McCusker lost after mounting what some residents describe as the nastiest campaign in city history. The 1-2-3 candidates claimed to be conservative Republicans, and then Greenwood was endorsed a pro-abortion, far-left organization. Both Greenwood and Barker were endorsed by other liberals but no Republican groups. Ury should have lost his good-ol’-boy standing with the county Republican power clique after campaigning for Greenwood, a longtime liberal Democrat who changed her voter registration when she decided to run for office.

Information posted this week on another blog revealed that political consultant Paul Glaab recently submitted a request for public information from Mission Viejo city hall to get records on Reavis. Allegedly, Glaab will create a hit piece against Reavis. Glaab also represents ATS, Mission Viejo’s infamous cell-tower contractor whose business was pushed on the city by Ury.

Isn’t it time for voters to say “no” to all of the above? It would be easy to do if intelligent, ethical candidates were lining up to run for office. In fact, such challengers are rare. Neil Lonsinger, a retired businessman, has pulled papers and appears to be in the race. Despite two other challengers pulling papers, only Lonsinger has credentials and a reputation as an ethical community leader. Ury, Kelley and MacLean are backing Rich Atkinson, a challenger Kelley pulled into the contest. Atkinson has allegedly claimed a campaign budget of $67,000 dollars. What outsiders are willing to put that kind of money into Atkinson’s campaign besides ATS and friends of county lobbyist John Lewis?

Once again, Ury has bamboozled his foolish enemies, Kelley and MacLean. After Ury tried to dump them during their reelection campaigns in 2006, they would do the same to him if they had any sense. Instead, Ury leveraged their distaste for Reavis to protect his own campaign.

Voters hardly need the unholy trio to point out Reavis’ flaws. Her $10-million claim against the city in 2005 is enough to sink her boat without any “consultation” from Paul Glaab. Again, Ury deserves credit for outsmarting Kelley and MacLean and diverting their attention.

Contrary to an article about the city election in the July 25 Saddleback Valley News, all incumbents and challengers are running for two open seats. The winners will be the top two vote-getters without distinction about who is running against whom: they’re all running against each other. Residents should prepare for another bloodbath with candidates making complete fools of themselves on street corners. Anonymous hit pieces planned against Reavis are not-so-secretly connected to Kelley, Ury and MacLean.

Easelgate Update, July 26

On July 23, the city released public records requested on July 10 by community activist Lisa De Paul-Snyder. She went to city hall on July 25 to review files she requested regarding city contractor Jamey Clark, who apparently constructed 500 easels at $45 an hour. Clark’s contracts aren’t the only point of investigation, but the huge amounts he charged between January and May are among the few places a city administrator could have hidden costs of the city’s 20th anniversary photo display, now estimated at more than $90,000.

Activists have begun reviewing approximately 2,000 pages of Clark’s files. De Paul-Snyder earlier found discrepancies between claims made by city administrator Keith Rattay and Clark’s invoices that were included in her May 23 request for public records. Clark’s invoice amounts spiked during January, the same month “150 volunteers” allegedly donated 800 hours toward assembling easels. Clark billed suspiciously high amounts for several months, and his two-year maintenance contract (2007-2009) was revised on April 7, 2008, from $471,450.00 to $601,450.00 for the current year. The “need” for an extra $130,000 in 2008 isn’t explained anywhere in city documents, but readers of this blog are getting a piece of the puzzle each week in “Easelgate Update.”

Clark has two city contracts, one for park inspection ($9,800.49 per month) and another one for maintenance and repair of city property. Clark and/or his employees inspect 53 city parks and facilities each month, essentially writing work orders for themselves. Clark then fulfills his work orders as part of his second contract. As examples of his fees, he changes light bulbs and removes graffiti for $38.50/hr. By the way, a child’s chalk drawing on a sidewalk and chalk marks on playground equipment are called graffiti. Menial jobs such as cleaning out a refrigerator have a tab of $45/hr, and Clark charges $45/hr to build easels. He spent five hours cleaning a drinking fountain eight times in one month for $225. In February, he painted logos on 35 trash cans for $3,325.00. If this doesn’t sound insane, perhaps it’s because Mission Viejo taxpayers have grown numb to being fleeced.

Activists will need another week to sort out Clark’s records for Easelgate.

Two of the city’s whoppers about Easelgate became evident weeks ago: 1) Despite Rattay’s claim of widespread community participation, the interest level was extremely low. Only 33 of 500 “free” disposable cameras were returned for the photo gallery, and quite a few of the 33 people returning the cameras are either staff members and/or they live outside Mission Viejo. Rattay claimed “10,000 people enjoyed the photo gallery,” a number fabricated from thin air. 2) Rattay first stated the cost of easels was $15 each (May 23 SVN). Figures provided by the city show the easels cost at least $40 each, and activists estimate the cost at more than $150 per easel ($75,000 for 500). Other costs of the photo display push estimates above $90,000.

What’s the big deal over a little lie here or there? The issue doesn’t end with the city destroying its own credibility. The city manager gave a list of 30 residents to SVN reporter Lindsey Baguio, allegedly for her to call for “balanced” reaction against unfavorable news about city hall. Why would self-respecting residents want their names associated with city-promoted lies?

Blog staff members appreciate the tips from community members who have contributed to the unraveling of Easelgate. The city has perpetuated lies and spin, which take time and investigation to disprove. Residents’ awareness is growing that the city is wasting tax dollars and doing its best to fool the public.

Just Wondering
by Lisa De Paul-Snyder

Mission Viejo Director of Public Services Keith Rattay initially claimed that volunteers put in 800 hours of work for the MyMV Art Walk display during the 20th Anniversary observance in April 2008. Later, Rattay claimed that due to rain, some of the volunteer work parties had to be cancelled, and contract labor constructed, erected and removed the 500-easel display. If the volunteers were to spend 800 hours on this project, how much contract labor time did the city end up paying for to put on the display? 

Invoices prove the city paid Jamey Clark, Inc., $45.00 an hour for woodwork and $38.50 an hour for setting up and relocating the easels. Each easel required numerous pieces of wood. Each piece required measuring, cutting and sanding as well as painting and assembly. Under ideal circumstances, a highly efficient woodshop would take 2.5 to 3 hours to build an easel from raw materials. That would come to $112.50 to $135.00 per easel in labor costs alone. And, due to a basic design flaw, sandbags had to be placed at the base of each easel to prevent it from tipping over. 

I'm just wondering how Keith Rattay was able to:

• Initially claim to OC Register reporter Lindsey Baguio that each easel cost only $15.00;
• Later clarify in a memo to City Manager Dennis Wilberg that the cost of materials was $12.00 per easel;
• File public documents estimating the total cost at $40.00 per easel, including labor costs;
• Assert that although kids destroyed 93 easels, not one of the 500 to 1,000 people who allegedly walked the trail daily reported anything to the city;
• Convince a few gullible community members, weeks after the Easelgate story broke, to submit letters to SVN stating that they witnessed the vandalism and did nothing at all about it; but they think the city administration is absolutely superb.

The most charitable explanation for these facts is that Keith Rattay has a disability which prevents him from understanding the value of a dollar or he is a compulsive liar. Those less inclined to become disoriented by the spin might perceive Rattay as a less-than-gifted embezzler.

Is Keith Rattay an individual who should have the authority to spend even a nickel of city funds? While every individual is entitled to his own opinion, each is not entitled to his own facts. The city must examine the factual evidence and take appropriate action.

Is Toll Road Hearing On or Off?
Editorial staff

As reported a week ago, UCI pulled out as host of the July 25 Foothill South toll road hearing that had been scheduled at the Bren Center. Officials believed that attendance could have reached 10,000, and the facility’s capacity is less than 5,000. Those interested in the hearing are awaiting an announcement to learn if the event will be rescheduled.

The Coastal Commission in February ruled against the toll road extension, and the Irvine-based Transportation Corridor Agencies filed an appeal with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the commission. The U.S. Commerce Secretary could overrule the commission’s decision if the appeal is successful.

Robin Everett of Friends of the Foothills sent out an email criticizing unethical tactics being used by the toll-road promoters: “The Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) have been up to their old tricks lately, releasing two advertisements in local San Clemente papers and one mailer that inaccurately labels San Onofre State Beach supporters as those who want to keep people away from the beach.

“In a recent mailer, the TCA states, ‘The organizers of the so-called Save Trestles campaign want to limit beach access. They want to keep a public beach available only for the privileged few at the expense of working families who use freeways.’

“Since when is a state park a private beach?  Why is it that they claim only a privileged few can access the beach?  It is the toll road that is only available for the privileged few who can afford it, while San Onofre State Beach offers inexpensive recreational and camping opportunities for working families.”

In addition to environmentalists and those who want to protect the park and beach, other opponents of the toll-road completion include South County residents who believe the proposed route won’t alleviate traffic congestion as TCA claims. Additionally, because of a non-compete clause, completion of the proposed toll-road route would prevent needed work on the I-5.

CUSD Update, July 25

The Capo school board meeting on July 21 demonstrated that having a 5-2 reform-minded majority will change a lot of things. The biggest problems, however, won’t go away soon. Among the most serious are the district’s financial shortfall and major issues at the new high school, San Juan Hills (SJHHS) in San Juan Capistrano.

During public comments on July 21, several Fleming loyalists indicated they weren’t happy with the outcome of the June 24 recall election. One woman demanded to know what the new majority had accomplished in the three weeks since election winners Sue Palazzo and Ken Maddox were sworn into office on July 1. Another public speaker answered her, saying that the old Fleming regime had taken 17 years to create the problems, and it would take more than three weeks to solve them.

The board voted 4-3 to reject findings of civil engineer Cathleen Fitzgerald, who analyzed risks of the 16-inch aviation-fuel pipeline that runs 1,018 feet from the SJHHS campus. Four board members indicated they weren’t satisfied that the campus is safe. Old-guard trustees Mike Darnold and Duane Stiff, along with Anna Bryson, voted in the minority to approve the report, and Supt. Woodrow Carter showed disappointment that the board didn’t follow his recommendation for approval. However, had the new majority accepted the findings, it would have been viewed by some as sweeping problems under the rug, just as the old board had a reputation for doing. Fitzgerald had used the words “explosion,” “fire” and “emergency” enough times to create doubt, although she said the risks were within acceptable limits.

The board voted 5-2 to approve a forensic audit of SJHHS, going back to its 2002 inception. Topics of controversy over the years have included the site acquisition, purchase price, construction costs, design fees, site grading, furnishings, agency fees, unsafe conditions, property disputes, disagreement on how to finish the school and the failure to mention the fuel pipeline.

Carter appeared displeased with the new majority several times. He also disagreed with the decision to continue having two meetings per month for the next six months. A constituent said, “Carter supported the old majority, and he’s made serious mistakes by lying to the media and the public. He seems unwilling to accept that the direction on the board of trustees changed with the recall.”

The D.A. is currently investigating Carter for adding a $410,000 golden parachute clause to his contract without the full board’s approval. Carter bears responsibility in cutting bus services without preparing and approving an EIR. He was warned about the legal impacts, which he chose to ignore. For the salary he is paid, he should know better, and with all the legal advice the district gets, the law-breaking should stop.

While the district’s problems were caused by the old guard, the new majority now has the power to come up with remedies. It should not delay.

The Buzz, July 26

OC Weekly writer R. Scott Moxley doesn’t mince words. While nearly every other news reporter was still enthralled with then-Sheriff Mike Carona, Moxley was questioning his character and judgment. On July 24, Moxley wrote an interesting story about kingmaker Ron Cedillos, who appeared to be the first person to congratulate Sandra Hutchens after she got the appointment as OC sheriff. Moxley’s account describes Cedillos as “a man once deeply immersed in Carona’s inner cesspool.” To read the article, go to
http://www.ocweekly.com/news/moxley-confidential/moxley-confidential-ron-cedillos-hasnt-told-the-whole-story-of-his-falling-out-with-mike-carona/29038.

***

The Mission Viejo City Council is looking into filing a lawsuit against Capo and Saddleback Valley school districts over reduced bus routes. To have taxpayers of the city fund a lawsuit against themselves as school-district constituents is ridiculous. Neither the districts nor the city can afford such a lawsuit, and it tends to demonstrate a deficit of responsible leadership. Additionally, through the “genius” of Councilman Lance MacLean, the city will attempt to order that both school districts convert buses to alternative fuel. All of this could not come at a worse time for the districts, while the city is talking about dipping into reserves to fund projects. The council long ago allowed school traffic and parking issues to reach a crisis level, particularly for residents who live near schools.

***

For years, Mission Viejo residents have wondered about the city’s creative accounting methods. Particularly before elections, the amount in reserves shows the city to be awash with cash. With revenue currently down (despite city claims of “flatness”), some council members went into panic mode and started talking about selling the city’s cell-antenna contracts. What’s the real story about the city’s financial picture?

***

Whatever happened to the city’s economic development plan that involved hiring a consultant to bring in businesses? Hasn’t it been more than a year since the Housewives of Mission Viejo (Councilwomen Reavis and Kelley) proudly announced they had accomplished such a great feat? Can anyone cite an example of a business coming to Mission Viejo as a result of the contract?

***

Activists taking a preliminary look at financial records on Jamey Clark, the city contractor who inspects parks and performs odd jobs around town, are stunned with the leeway Clark has to create work for himself. Clearly, the council is not minding the store. According to Clark’s reports, city property incurs a tremendous amount of vandalism each month, which Clark discovers and repairs. The amount of “damage” Clark is addressing is beyond explanation. For being the safest city in the universe, Mission Viejo parks and other public property are apparently being destroyed by the same “vandals” who destroyed all the easels.

***

Activists turned up the heat on blogs, and Councilman Frank Ury adjusted his profile on the city Website to drop any mention of employment. The Orange County Republican Website is a different matter, where the good old boys give Ury a pass. Ury was fired more than a year ago from Intel, but that’s still his “current” source of income according to the county Website. It’s impossible to assess any conflict of interest if no one knows what he does for a living, and that’s probably the point. Is it sheer coincidence that only one Mission Viejo council member, John Paul Ledesma, has a job?