Conspiracy – It’s Not Just a Theory
Staff editorial

City hall received negative exposure during the past week from newspapers and blogs. Readers learned that city reserves are dramatically down, and the council majority liquidated assets by selling off antenna leases that should have provided a revenue stream for many years. After majority council members failed to mind the store, they voted to double their salaries. Despite city hall’s spin cycle and happy talk about the Rose Parade float, things aren’t so rosy.

Along with two new complaints about Brown Act violations that haven’t yet hit the press, complaints were filed last week with the D.A., grand jury and Fair Political Practices Commission against city officials. Some of the actions began with a troubling statement by a city council candidate, Richard Atkinson. While trying on Sept. 9 to persuade the Orange County GOP to endorse his candidacy, Atkinson said he has “the endorsement of the city staff.”

To put Atkinson’s remark into perspective, readers should know that two former Capo school district officials – James Fleming and Susan McGill – will go on trial in February, facing felony indictments for doing what Atkinson claimed the Mission Viejo city staff did. Such government employees are prohibited from supporting or opposing a candidate or a ballot measure. Both Fleming and McGill were charged with misappropriating public funds when they interfered with the 2005 effort to recall seven school board trustees.

What led Atkinson to enter the council race in the first place? Early this year, the council majority of MacLean, Ury and Kelley (M.U.K.) developed a plan to oust Councilwoman Gail Reavis. The MUKsters bragged to politicians in other cities about orchestrating Reavis’ defeat, and Kelley recruited her planning commission appointee, Atkinson, to run against Reavis. Atkinson is a low-level code-enforcement bureaucrat for the city of San Clemente, and he’s lived in Mission Viejo for either five, seven or nine years, depending on which application form he’s filling out.

The MUKsters also bragged they would shut Reavis off from any campaign donations from city vendors, lobbyists and developers. For a list of donors they hustled, check Atkinson’s campaign financiers – trash haulers, apartment builders and city contractors. Atkinson, an unknown newcomer without political connections, suddenly had a dream team of financial backers, a formidable campaign war chest, support from Frank Ury’s friends on the GOP Central Committee and the help of a political consultant in Newport Beach. As a surprise to nearly everyone, Reavis decided not to run for reelection.

Without context, Atkinson’s claim that the Mission Viejo city staff endorsed him was merely nutty, and community watchdogs didn’t immediately react. His remark amused witnesses at the Sept. 9 meeting when he said it, but many things he said were odd, as he appears to be clueless about Mission Viejo. Within a short time, however, activists learned that Atkinson indeed had something going – likely illegal – with the city staff. As reported elsewhere, Atkinson was the sole council candidate to have an “in” with the Heritage Committee chairwoman and present his council campaign during the committee’s regular meeting in September.

Now that Atkinson knows that his campaigning at the meeting was in itself illegal and a violation of the Brown Act, how will he explain it? He could say the complaints are “just politics,” but that defense hasn’t worked well for Fleming and McGill. Atkinson’s biggest problem continues to be his Sept. 9 remark about having the city staff’s endorsement. His being invited to the Heritage Committee meeting underscores his claim. Heritage Chairwoman Nancy Cho’s husband is a city employee, and Nancy is known to be a friend of Trish Kelley’s.

As Atkinson’s primary supporter, Kelley is paving the way – going out on a limb and knocking herself out to get him elected. She likely leaned on city vendors and others to fund Atkinson’s campaign (which is not illegal), but what else has she done? Whether it was her suggestion to Nancy Cho directly or to a city staff member, Cho showcased Atkinson at the meeting. Without Atkinson’s illegal presentation, the connections weren’t obvious.

If Atkinson is called before the Grand Jury, he might be asked to name city staff members who endorsed him as he claimed on Sept. 9. The problem isn’t the word “endorsed.” City employees showing any kind of support (or opposition to) a candidate is illegal. Obviously, Atkinson thinks they support him, and he implicated his own team of backers with his Sept. 9 claim. Ties between the city staff’s “support” and Atkinson’s chief minister of finance, Trish Kelley, haven’t been clarified, but that’s coming.

While Atkinson’s role in city government will likely end abruptly on Nov. 4, Trish Kelley and Lance MacLean have a lot of explaining to do, including MacLean’s emails in August to the city clerk to initiate lawsuits against council challengers Neil Lonsinger and Cathy Schlicht over their ballot statements. When viewed in isolation, Kelley’s actions or those of MacLean would merely be disgusting. When combined, however, Kelley, MacLean and city employees who “endorsed” Atkinson are walking the same short plank as Fleming and McGill.

City Election Update
Editorial staff

Can Mission Viejo anticipate another voter revolution on Nov. 4? Residents still talk about the stunning defeat of incumbents Susan Withrow and Sherri Butterfield in 2002. The two queens had alienated entire neighborhoods with bad decisions, and they annoyed nearly everyone by putting council members’ names on city facilities. The chance to dump another pompous incumbent, Frank Ury, on Nov. 4 is making this election interesting.

While voter outrage isn’t reaching the pitch of 2002, Ury is in trouble. Volunteers who have been gathering initiative signatures at storefronts for two months consistently hear that residents are fed up with the current council. Volunteers report that MacLean doesn’t have the highest negatives, even after being charged with assault and battery against a co-worker at UCI last year. Some residents might be disgusted with MacLean, but many more are mad at Ury. After two months of storefront surveys, volunteers haven’t heard one favorable comment about him. During the past week, activists began making phone calls to absentee voters with the same discovery: Ury has no support.

Recent council meetings have reaffirmed the council majority’s disconnect with the community. Examples include spending $300,000 on a Rose Parade float, liquidating assets while continuing to overspend and giving themselves a raise. Residents are asking why such strident and unpopular moves would be made with an election at hand. Could it be that other majority council members think Ury will lose on Nov. 4? If council challengers Cathy Schlicht and Neil Lonsinger win, they might persuade Councilman John Paul Ledesma to form a new majority with them against MacLean and Kelley. If that’s the case, the city’s spending spree and liberal agenda will end.

Campaign finance reports show that both Ury and Atkinson spent big bucks on slate mailers. Months ago, the two aggressively monopolized the slates to shut other candidates out. Perhaps it backfired, as such mailers are expensive, and Ury and Atkinson may have failed to raise all the cash they needed. Could it be they had no money left for other campaign collateral? It’s just as well they don’t have signs, as residents don’t want Ury or Atkinson’s signs in their yards. Supporters of Cathy Schlicht report that Ury lacks support in his own neighborhood. The only two signs for Ury in his gated HOA, Stoneridge, are on the same street – one in Ury’s yard and another one nearby, probably in the yard of his planning commissioner.

Councilwoman Trish Kelley’s candidate, Richard Atkinson, rarely gets a mention from anyone. Despite all her campaigning and trying to push him into office, it’s not working.

Rejected Letter Becomes the Cornerstone

Editor’s note: On Sept. 8, Liz Mimm sent a letter to this blog and the Saddleback Valley News. Her letter appeared on this blog, but SVN declined to print it. Blog staffers verified the content and published the letter. A public records request revealed that MacLean initiated lawsuits, and he did it at taxpayer expense. Also on record, MacLean and Ury supported every zone change requested by a developer regardless of overwhelming opposition from residents. The comparison of the council with CUSD’s indicted ex-officials – ahead of its time a month ago – has become a gonging bellwether

Letter to the editor
City’s lawsuits are dirty politics

City hall’s lawsuits against two council challengers highlighted our dysfunctional city council. Councilman Lance MacLean initiated lawsuits against two council candidates, Neil Lonsinger and Cathy Schlicht, and he used our tax money to do it. Doesn’t MacLean have anything better to do?

Isn’t former CUSD Supt. James Fleming facing felony charges for using tax dollars to interfere with an election? I see no difference between what Fleming did and MacLean’s blatant smear campaign against two candidates he doesn’t want on the council.

I’ve had enough of both MacLean and Councilman Frank Ury, who is running for reelection. Instead of representing us, they’ve used their council positions to favor developers who fund their reelection campaigns and add unwanted housing and traffic congestion. Both Ury and MacLean appear to want housing on the Casta golf course and apartments on top of stores at La Paz and Marguerite.

MacLean, Ury and Councilwoman Trish Kelley have now joined together to keep Ury in office and bring in their own candidate, Rich Atkinson. What is Atkinson’s sudden interest in getting on the council?

My vote will go for Lonsinger and Schlicht on Nov. 4. I hope MacLean, Ury and Kelley’s effort backfires.

Elizabeth Mimm
Mission Viejo

Kathy’s Picks
November 4 Voter Recommendations

Longtime Mission Viejo resident Kathy Dittner’s voter recommendations have become a trusted guide for many community members looking for ethical candidates and moral choices. Kathy’s format differs from some others with her precise reasons that go beyond a yes or no vote. Click (here) to view her list.

This year, conservative community activists and blog writers are in remarkable agreement, even on local elections. In addition to general agreement with others on Propositions, Kathy is recommending Cathy Schlicht and Neil Lonsinger for Mission Viejo City Council. Follow the link to access her well-researched recommendations.

The Buzz

Residents can meet two city council candidates at the Casta del Sol Golf Course on Mon., Oct. 13, 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. Council candidates Neil Lonsinger and Cathy Schlicht will answer questions and talk about protecting the golf course at a meet-and-greet event in the clubhouse. The address is 27601 Casta Drive, off Marguerite Parkway near the Nadadores swim facility. Those arriving from Marguerite Parkway should turn onto Casta Drive and then turn left into the golf course parking lot near the Casta del Sol guarded gate. The golf course is just outside the gate. The free event is a chance to meet candidates, not a fundraiser, and everyone is welcome to attend. For more information, access the OC Register article, http://www.ocregister.com/articles/open-public-event-2185694-reavis-cathy.

***

At the Oct. 6 council meeting, the city unveiled another installment of its phony survey, announcing how happy residents are with the council and city staff’s incompetence. As a dead giveaway of fabricated results, the phone survey of 400 residents allegedly found that nearly everyone is thrilled with the Crown Valley Parkway widening project. Apparently, residents love the gridlock and inconvenience of a major arterial becoming a parking lot for more than two years. A resident of the Sierra neighborhood remarked recently about the non-progress on the widening project, “If you liked the Crown Valley Parkway fiasco, you’re going to love the Oso project.” The city will next assault Oso Parkway and bring it to a grinding halt.

***

Residents commented on Oct. 6 from the public microphone about the city survey’s dubious credibility. With reference to Crown Valley Parkway, one person said that those surveyed apparently do all their driving during the night, as “that’s the only time anyone can actually get down the street.” With Mission Viejo’s notorious traffic backups during the day, were the survey solicitors able to find 400 people who do their driving at odd hours? The primary drivers who are out during the night are newspaper deliverers going 60 mph down cul-de-sacs. No problem getting down Crown Valley in a hurry at 4 a.m.

***

A city activist had an eye-opening experience while spreading the word about a party honoring council candidates Neil Lonsinger and Cathy Schlicht. The activist entered a gated HOA next to the Casta golf course to give flyers to residents but encountered one who said flyer distribution wasn’t permitted. Instead of calling security (standard procedure), the resident summoned the HOA president who quickly arrived on the scene. The president’s message wasn’t so much about the need to stop soliciting. The strongest statement was with regard to the choice of candidates – politics over principles. Just for the record, Lonsinger and Schlicht are the only two candidates who have vowed to protect the golf course. By contrast, Councilman Frank Ury has accepted a campaign donation from a lobbyist for Sunrise, the developer wanting to dismantle the golf course.

***

Can HOAs prohibit their homeowners from posting signs for political candidates? A Mission Viejo HOA president says residents’ freedoms include the right to put up signs. From the HOA president’s email to activists, “Are you aware NO ONE can prevent a person from placing a political sign on their property if they want? No one – not even the president of an HOA – can keep a person from expressing political beliefs! It is your freedom of speech right to put up political signs! In 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that political "speech" is protected under the First Amendment. Your HOA cannot violate
the Constitutional rights of a homeowner, and a sign – as long as it is political – is protected speech. HOAs may ban advertising but not free speech.”