Activists File Complaints
Staff editorial

This blog recently received copies of complaints to the Orange County District Attorney, Grand Jury and Fair Political Practices Commission. Community activists and other residents joined together in compiling information and providing evidence. The complaints allege the City of Mission Viejo, city employees and council members conspired to use taxpayer funds to interfere with an election to benefit a city council candidate, Richard Atkinson. Such interference is criminal.

As concurrent news, ex-Capistrano USD Supt. James Fleming appeared in court on Oct. 3, nearly two years after being indicted following complaints similar to those alleged by Mission Viejo residents against the city. According to the Oct. 3 Or. Co. Register, “Fleming has been charged with misappropriation of public funds, use of school funds to urge support or defeat of a ballot measure or candidate, and conspiracy to commit an act injurious to the public.” Another ex-CUSD employee, Susan McGill, is also charged with felonies – perjury and conspiracy to commit an act injurious to the public – for interfering with an election and lying to the Grand Jury about her participation in creating “Enemies Lists.” Fleming and McGill’s trials are set for Feb. 10, 2009.

According to information this blog received last week, Mission Viejo residents state that city employees misappropriated public funds and interfered with the Nov. 4, 2008, city election in which two council seats will be decided. The complaint alleges that city employees conspired with city council members to benefit council candidate Richard Atkinson. Residents cited several examples:

On Mon., Sept. 3, the Mission Viejo Heritage Committee (a city entity) held its monthly meeting, and Chairperson Nancy Cho invited Mission Viejo City Council candidate Richard Atkinson to the city meeting. Committee members who attended the meeting said Atkinson presented himself as a candidate and asked Heritage Committee members what the council could do for the committee’s benefit. He asked questions of the members and campaigned as if he would follow up on their wishes if elected to the council.

On Tues., Sept. 9, the Or. Co. Central Committee of the Republican Party interviewed council candidates, including Richard Atkinson, to consider endorsing them. During his interview, Atkinson said he has “the endorsement of the Mission Viejo city staff.” He made this remark to the committee with other witnesses in the room.

Last week, the nonprofit group Cell-Out called city hall to rent the city’s Saddleback Room for a community event to introduce council candidates who are running against Atkinson. A spokesperson for the city denied the group an opportunity to rent the room, stating it is city policy not to rent it to any political group or person who will use the facility to promote a political agenda or candidate. When questioned about the so-called policy, the employee also stated, “It is not against the law for the city to involve itself on behalf of political candidates.” The employee is wrong on both counts. First, previous use of the room has included political uses, including events for political candidates. Second, the city’s misappropriation of public funds in promoting or opposing political candidates can result in felony charges. Renting the room for a political event would not comprise interference with an election, particularly when other political groups (Citizens for Integrity in Government and the Saddleback Republican Assembly) have rented the room in the past. However, denying the group supporting candidates other than Atkinson an opportunity to use the room is interference.

Ex-CUSD administrators Fleming and McGill, who were indicted for felonies after similar lawbreaking, may have had the same attitude as Mission Viejo’s city staff and council members. Either they were ignorant of the law or they didn’t acknowledge the seriousness of the offense. More likely in the case of CUSD’s ex-officials, they merely thought they wouldn’t get caught.

City Campaign Update
Editorial staff

Two council challengers – Cathy Schlicht and Neil Lonsinger – anticipate that council majority members MacLean, Ury and Kelley (M.U.K.) are in back of negative mailers that will be released to damage their campaigns. The MUK-rakers intend to get Ury reelected, and they’re promoting their own newcomer, Rich Atkinson, to fill the seat of Councilwoman Gail Reavis, who isn’t running for reelection.

MUK efforts behind the scenes are benefiting Atkinson. In August, MacLean pushed the city clerk into suing Schlicht and Lonsinger over their ballot statements, causing them to hire attorneys and appear in court. Ury persuaded his lobbyist buddies at the GOP Central Committee to give Atkinson the county’s endorsement. Kelley used her influence with the Orange Co. Fire Authority to get OCFA’s endorsement and financial support for Atkinson. Except for MacLean’s exceptionally dirty trick, it was politics as usual.

The big surprise came during the Oct. 1 taping of the Cox forum. Two candidates – Ury and Atkinson – were remarkably well prepared with polished, thought-out remarks for each question. Did both men know the questions beforehand? Other candidates may have been stunned with Ury and Atkinson’s performance, including ready answers to obscure questions about such things as water district issues and other topics not usually addressed by the city council. Schlicht is well versed on real city issues, and she’s attended more council meetings than some of the council members. She didn’t have to cram for the test – she’s lived it.

For whatever reason, someone connected to Cox apparently thinks Ury and Atkinson can improve their chances of winning the election by coming across as skilled orators. Anyone who has attended a council meeting knows Ury for his arrogant remarks and disrespect for residents. Smooth talking won’t help him, and why would he need an unfair advantage to reapply for a council position he’s held since 2004? Atkinson, who’s been on the planning commission since 2006, rarely says a word during planning meetings. For two years, he’s apparently been hiding his command of issues and odd knowledge.

One aspect of Ury’s candidacy has become clear. Those who know him won’t vote for him. Voters should anticipate a steady stream of Ury’s mailers to start arriving any day. Look for glossy, full-color brochures that no ordinary candidate could afford. Ury is no ordinary candidate. His list of financiers includes developers, lobbyists, city contractors and some pretty strange players outside Orange County. This incumbent sold his soul to Steadfast, ATS, the P.R. agent (Roger Faubel) for Sunrise Assisted Living and every other business that wanted something from the city – and they got it.

When residents see all of Ury’s pricey brochures and slate mailers, they should also “get it.” No other incumbent in the history of the council has been a bigger sellout than Ury.

More Atkinson Shenanigans
by Joe Holtzman

Last week, I attended the monthly meeting of the Heritage Committee. Of concern to me was that when I had read the minutes (click here to read) of the September meeting, I saw that CANDIDATE FOR COUNCIL Rich Atkinson had attended the September meeting of the Heritage Committee.  I was fishing in Montana in early September, so I had not attended that meeting.

I had learned from several other members in private conversation that Heritage Committee Chairperson Nancy Cho had "squired Commissioner Atkinson" into the meeting. I also learned that Atkinson had asked what the city council could do for the Heritage Committee.

When the September minutes where reviewed at the Oct. 1 meeting, I expressed great concern that Rich Atkinson the candidate was there to curry favor with the Heritage Committee. I also made it very clear that the Heritage Committee, being part of the city of Mission Viejo government, was prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Commission from endorsing or involving itself with candidates. I also informed committee members that Rich Atkinson was rather naive or very bold in approaching the Committee, as he had been warned about his statement that the city of Mission Viejo staff endorsed him – which by law (FPPC) is illegal. Nancy Cho chose to defend her action, but it was plain to me that Trish Kelley had encouraged Nancy to take Mr. Atkinson to the meeting. 

Nancy was not too pleased with me after I addressed this issue in a firm way in the meeting.  Also note: I think Atkinson attempted to endear himself to the Heritage Committee by inquiring about buying 20 of our Mission Viejo History books.  That was rather phony, as he has not purchased any books to date.

In addition, it was revealed by city staff on Oct. 1 that the paltry Heritage Committee budget for The Heritage House had been eliminated. The prior budget had been $3,000.00, and now it is zero. I remarked to the committee that the money is apparently earmarked for the Rose Parade float, at which Nancy Cho bristled.

November 4 Ballot Recommendations – Connie Lee’s Picks

I’m a Republican who supports family values, a safe community and small government. Here are my recommendations for November 4, and I hope you will find them helpful.

Propositions – Recommendations are stated with the most concise summary possible

Proposition 1(A) – NO. This $9.95-billion bond toward a $50-billion rail system is flatly unaffordable.

Proposition 2 – NO. Primarily adds cage requirements for egg-laying chickens.

Proposition 3 – NO. This is a $980-million bond for children’s hospitals when $350-million remains from a similar bond we passed in 2004.

Proposition 4 – YES. Requires a physician to notify parents or guardians (with some exceptions) of an unemancipated minor 48 hours before an abortion; permission is not required.

Proposition 5 – NO. Replaces current drug programs with more costly ones, and it has loopholes for offenders.

Proposition 6 – NO. Creates mandatory spending for criminal justice – very costly and can’t be undone.

Proposition 7 – NO. Sets higher targets for renewable energy sources, raising our rates.

Proposition 8 – YES. Amends California constitution: marriage is between a man and a woman.

Proposition 9 – NO – a tough call. Expands the rights of victims to participate in each step of legal proceedings; contains some good provisions but may conflict with federal court decisions.

Proposition 10 – NO. Allows state to sell $5 billion in bonds for alternative fuels and renewable energy. T. Boone Pickens’ measure – a nearly bankrupt state gives the use of billions to investors.

Proposition 11 – YES. Draws new lines for Assembly, State Senate and Board of Equalization districts. Current ones (defining geographic areas) are ridiculous.

Proposition 12 – YES. Extends the veteran’s bond program for money to veterans to puchase farms, homes or mobile homes. Bonds are to be repaid from payments by veterans, although defaults can burden taxpayers.

J – County of Orange – YES. Gives voters authority to increase some retirement benefits for county workers.

President and Vice President – John McCain / Sarah Palin

United States Representative, 42nd District – Gary G. Miller

State Senator, 33rd District – Mimi Walters

State Assembly, 71st District – Jeff Miller

Judge of Superior Court, Office No. 12 – Kermit Marsh

So. Orange Co. Com. College Dist. Trustee Area 1 – David B. Lang
So. Orange Co. Com. College Dist. Trustee Area 3 – Arlene Greer
So. Orange Co. Com. College Dist. Trustee Area 6 – Thomas A. “Tom” Fuentes
So. Orange Co. Com. College Dist. Trustee Area 7 – John S. Williams

Capistrano Unified School Dist. Trustee Area 1 – Jack Brick
Capistrano Unified School Dist. Trustee Area 2 – Sue Palazzo
Capistrano Unified School Dist. Trustee Area 3 – Mike Winsten
Capistrano Unified School Dist. Trustee Area 5 – Ken Maddox

City of Mission Viejo City Council (vote for two): Cathy Schlicht and Neil Lonsinger

Santa Margarita Water District (vote for three): no recommendations

Municipal Water District of Orange Co., Director, Division 6 – no recommendation

The Buzz

City staffers held their much-heralded float-decorating kickoff meeting last week at the community center. With all the publicity, the city may have expected hundreds of residents to show up. Fifty organizations had been invited with the usual come-on: FREE FOOD! An attendee described the actual turnout: 20 staff members; 10 people associated with the city (council, commissions and city Foundation); 10 vendors or food providers; one council candidate trolling for votes (Rich Atkinson); the float contractor and a few others connected with businesses that the city pressed into participating. Grand total: 60 were in attendance, and only 15 of them were resident float-decorators.

***

Council Members Trish Kelley and Frank Ury think they’ve done such a bang-up job on the council that they want a raise. They don’t deserve one, but council members need the money. Councilman Lance MacLean has failed to get his dream P.R. job after being forced out of work at UCI for assaulting a co-worker. Ury keeps his employment or unemployment well hidden, but he’s real eager to provide his friend Tony Ingegneri with a $200,000 commission in the city’s sell-off of antenna leases. Councilman John Paul Ledesma got into the real estate business about 15 minutes before the housing market began its free fall. All council members who vote to enrich themselves should be voted out at the first opportunity. For Ury, that’s Nov. 4.

***

Isn’t the current pay of $500 a month a paltry amount for serving on the council? It would be if it were the only compensation. Council members can choose to receive health insurance or an additional $825/month, and they are paid handsomely for attending the Fire Authority, toll roads and other agency meetings. The total compensation for being appointed to agencies can be thousands or tens of thousands of dollars annually, and that’s no exaggeration. They also can get a free lunch or dinner each time they go to a city flop that attempts to “engage the community.”

***

An Oct. 2 emergency meeting of the city’s Financial Investment Advisory Commission revealed the city’s reserves are approximately $5 million, not $50 million as proclaimed by Ury in his campaign blather. In his campaign ballot statement for the Nov. 4 election, he claims his proudest moment includes “growing Mission Viejo’s budget reserves to record levels.” It should have said shrinking, not growing, as the record level apparently fell $45 million if both Ury and the city treasurer’s numbers are credible. The discrepancy of $45 million between the two claims is well beyond fuzzy math.

***

It’s a little too late to come up with a name for the city staff’s $300,000 Rose Parade float, but a thoughtful resident suggested “Mission Viejo Takes a Bath.”

***

How did two council candidates get advance notice of questions that would be asked during the Oct. 2 taping of the Cox forum? Incumbent Frank Ury and challenger Rich Atkinson’s answers indicate they had time to research and rehearse prior to the forum. Given that one of the obscure questions was about water districts and Roger Faubel is on a water district board of directors, was he the one who gave Ury and Atkinson an edge? In return for any favor from Faubel, would Ury and Atkinson like to pledge their support for Faubel’s client, Sunrise Assisted Living, in carving up the Casta del Sol Golf Course?

***

Atkinson’s ballot statement says he will “carefully consider the impact that future developments like the proposed changes to the Casa [sic] Del Sol Golf Course will have upon residents.” Casa means house. It may have been a Freudian slip, but residents can bet their unobstructed view that Atkinson will fall in with Ury and MacLean to build housing on the golf course. Atkinson’s statement, even without the slipup, is vague enough to send residents a warning not to vote for this guy.