Tradition in Mission Viejo
by Dale Tyler

Every city, even one as young as Mission Viejo, should have traditions. They serve to bind the citizens together and make the place a home, not just a place to live.

Unfortunately, the City Council, city staff and the Mission Viejo Activities Committee (MAC) don't seem to care about tradition. Instead, the City Council and city staff foist useless and expensive exercises, like the Rose Parade float and the “rebranding” of the city upon the people and tell us “Like it or Not, It’s Going to Happen.” Sadly, the MAC seems to be joining in the dismantling of city traditions.

The latest example of this is the MAC's decision to move the Santa's Workshop display from its longstanding traditional location at La Paz and Chrisanta to City Hall. The intersection, just east of I-5, has been known as the “Four Corners” for as long as Mission Viejo has existed. When the Mission Viejo Co. was starting the development, this was the main entrance to the city. It was decorated for holidays and literally was the gateway to Mission Viejo. Sometime later, Santa's Workshop was set up, and then displays from various religious groups were placed on the other corners of the intersection to add to the holiday festivities. The mixture of religious and secular displays was very successful, and a lottery is held every year to select which religious groups can place their displays at the Four Corners to provide balance and fairness. Overall, this system is a great example of compromise and cooperation.

This is one of our few traditions in Mission Viejo, and it’s a wildly successful one at that. So, why do the Council and MAC feel the need to make this change? More importantly, why make this change without announcing to the citizens that a change was being considered? After all, we have the expensive and slickly produced City Outlook that is sent to all residents – could there not have been an announcement back in July? The answer may be quite simple. The City Council put themselves above the people they should be serving and make these “Like it of Not” decisions in secret because they don't even conceive that others have a stake in their decision. The MAC seems to be following the the City Council's lead with their decision to move Santa's Workshop.

There may also be a narcissistic aspect to moving the display to City Hall. By doing so, city staff and the City Council can look at the display and congratulate themselves on “really caring.” Maybe Council Members Trish Kelly and Lance MacLean will sit in Santa's chair and give autographs to the kiddies.

There is also the issue of what happens to the religious displays that were located on the other three corners at the Four Corners. Will they be forced to relocate? Will they be banned because there is no longer a mixture of secular and religious displays? No who knows seems to be talking.

Some have spoken of one possible reason for moving Santa's workshop and that is the concern about the children being near a busy intersection while waiting to see Santa. However, in the more than 20-year history of Santa's Workshop, there has never been a serious injury to a child during the display. The MAC may be playing “nanny” to the people of Mission Viejo a little too much.

The MAC is a community-based organization that receives grants from the City to put on the Santa's Workshop and 4th of July Fireworks/Street Faire as well as other community events. Until now, I would have said they were helping to support and create the traditions of Mission Viejo. Now, I wonder what they are thinking with this change.

Finally, the display at Four Corners serves as a way to advertise the City of Mission Viejo in a far more genuine and cost-effective manner than the excessively expensive, glitzy Rose Parade float. People come from all over the area to see the displays. Sadly, if Santa’s Workshop is moved to the out-of-sight City Hall area, it will become just another symbol of the arrogance of the elite in Mission Viejo.

What’s the Reward for Failure?
by Bo Klein

On Nov. 11, a local television program, “Real Orange,” reported on the Crown Valley Parkway widening project. The point of the reporters’ investigation was the question of why this project has taken record time to complete. My interpretation of the report was that this project has been mishandled by Mission Viejo’s city staff and that the project delays cost businesses to suffer and commuters to waste valuable time sitting in unrelenting traffic for the past many years.

I think it’s time the news media did, in fact, launch an inquiry into why this project has been such an embarrassment to the City. On camera during the Nov. 11 program, city employee Mark Chagnon offered ridiculous excuses, such as the need to move traffic signals, install sewers, etc., which are not reasons for delay but within the actual scope of work. Why would Chagnon claim these were the issues causing delays? The relocation of street infrastructure is exactly what was expected to be involved and completed when he first got the contract to perform those construction tasks.

For many years, Chagnon worked as an outside consultant for Mission Viejo and other cities on projects such as this one. But the news media headlined him now as the Director of Public Works for Mission Viejo. Is this true? The title was previously held by the current City Manager, a man whose former boss, deposed City Manager Dan Joseph, blamed for being the responsible party of the debacle over massive expenditures on a secret project at lower Curtis Park a few years ago. The City Council at that time dismissed Dan Joseph and awarded his job to the very guy who may have acted completely on his own, spending taxpayers’ money without City Council approval.

I did not understand then, nor do I now, why that City Council did not do a real, complete search in 2003 for a replacement City Manager who was not involved in the very issues that caused a clean sweep in 2002 of council members who dropped the ball on overseeing city staff. They promoted the very guy I would have fired. And, now, after many years of record failures to complete a basic street improvement project under his control, why is this City Manager still on the job? Clearly, to me, if he was a competent Director of Public Works before, he would have known how to manage the Crown Valley project during the many years it has dragged on and on and on. Apparently not.
A year or two ago, I read a newspaper report about this project’s delays, and when Mark Chagnon was listed as a consultant, he was quoted as saying the delay was caused by the gas company. That is a ridiculous remark, as the entire street improvement project did not rely on a single gas connection – not then, not now. And, any good construction manager knows when a utility company can get its end of the work scheduled and completed. You don’t start a major project based on the whims of just one utility company unless you are lacking experience at getting things done as a project manager. So, has this guy now been employed by the City directly? Has the overall county construction industry dropped to the point that he landed a job because no one else was available? If so, I assume the person doing the hiring, the current City Manager, hired a person who is in many ways similar to himself.

Does anyone remember that after the City Hall was built, a consultant or two on that project latched onto staff jobs? Why? That was the question asked by city council challengers who prevailed in that election, and later, those new staffers were dismissed. Point being is, do paid consultants deserve a lifetime job with the city after the project they worked on is completed? This question is of particular importance when the job they were hired to oversee becomes such an embarrassment to the City.

Is everyone familiar with the “good old boy system”? Seems to me it is alive and well. The only thing I have seen the City Manager manage well is some city council members like Trish Kelley, Lance MacLame and Frank Ury.

Parents Advocate League Update
by Julie Collier

CUSD held a Budget Workshop on Nov. 12. It was an informal meeting with the trustees, Supt. Woodrow Carter and Ron Lebbs (Deputy Superintendent). The district had a PowerPoint presentation outlining the potential cuts for midyear (they think between $17 million and $34 million) and the 2009-2010 school year. Audience members were invited to present suggestions.  

Supt. Carter explained they have until Dec. 15 to figure out the cuts. They will make the final decisions by the Dec. 8 board meeting (mark your calendars). The budget is changing every day with the state. The following points were made: 85 percent of the budget at CUSD is in salaries and benefits; money from reserves can be used, but it has to be replenished the following year (the future looks just as bleak); enrollment is up at CUSD this year.

The following are the "Potential Reduction Estimates" for 2009-2010 by the district:

Discretionary Options

• Adding three students to grades 4-12 = $8.25M (a new number: previously adding one student to these grades was discussed)
• Eliminating CSR in 3rd grade = $1.4M
• Eliminating CSR in K-2 = $.945M
• Site- 25% Supply Reduction = $.335M
• Rent from the "C" Building at the district = $.650M

Negotiated Options (Union Negotiations)

• No Salary Increase 08/09 = $5.6M
• 1% Salary Roll-back = $3.0M
• Furlough Day = $1.37M
• Step Freeze = $3.66M
• Cut Elementary Music Block (4-5) = $2.00M

Politically Sensitive Options

• Close Elementary School = $.45M
• Cut Co-Curricular Athletics (includes salaries, stipends, transportation) = $2.08M
• Cut Co-Curricular Activities (includes above) = $1.195M

Mid-Year Cut presentation:

Mid-year cuts are certain

• Projected impact to CUSD based on state budget/Gov's proposal = $17M (08/09 school dist.)
• Reductions needed to maintain fiscal solvency and 2% reserve = $11M
• Cuts to expenditures = 2.7%

Sample of Expenditures:

Certificated Salaries $211.1M
Classified Salaries $59.5M
Admin. Salaries $20M
Benefits $75.6M
Books/supplies $18.4M
Utilities $9M
1% Salary Increase 3M

1 Day of School Operation $1.63M (It was discussed that if there are furlough days at the end of this school year, the school year would end June 5, 2009)

Current CUSD Response

• Scrutinize eightened spending
• Hiring freeze – all positions are reviewed at the cabinet level (although the district just hired two more directors at the district level)

CUSD Strategy

• All districts are facing similar challenges
• Cuts will impair district’s ability to deliver instructional program
• Scale back under hard times
• Shortened school year

Discussion with Trustees and Audience:

Trustee Bryson: "Things look very grim; prepare for a worse budget: everything is on the plate." She wants all consulting firms cut from CUSD. 

Trustee Palazzo wants a zero-based budget; believes this is a time of crisis; expect difficult and new experiences.

Trustee Christensen worries cuts are worse than we expect; the worst place to take from is the classroom; suggested district runs like a corporation that cuts administration; teachers are the production staff and students are the product-do not mess with the product; he would not approve a salary cut for the teachers unless the union (CUEA) brings it to the table.

Trustee Addonizio strongly opposes furloughs; wants cuts to be far from students; reduction in salaries-do not want to lay-off teachers; wants dist. to review vacation policy; opposes cuts to maintenance

Kim Anderson PTA Leg. Chairperson: PTA approved advocacy agenda that wants small class sizes for grades K-12. (Different than last year when PTA advocated for small class sizes for 4-12).

Parent at Tesoro: Stated that the district administration should take an 11% cut in salary and asked to sell the district building.

Incoming Trustee Mike Winsten wants all dept. heads to show and account for a 10% cut in their departments; wants all ideas to be on the district website with a blog so parents can offer ideas and debate them.

Trustee Candidate who ran in the Nov. 4 race, Andrea Kooiman, offered ideas from parents in MV (use categorical funding, CUSD Foundation look for donors; use a central copy center at the dist.; parents have efficient Booster clubs; freeze overtime pay; temperature regulators; rebates from utility companies).

The next Budget Workshop is Tues., Nov. 18, at 6 p.m. They will be discussing more administration cuts and special education. I would encourage you to attend and voice your opinion on what should be cut and what should not be cut.
 

As you may have noticed, missing in the budget discussion was heavy administration cuts. Many of the cuts mentioned will directly affect the classroom. CUSD is in the business of educating children. It is my opinion the cuts made at the school district must be far from the students and teachers who teach them. Cutting teachers’ salaries and increasing class sizes will negatively affect teachers and, therefore, negatively affect students.

Our district administration has the responsibility to our students and must work in their best interest. They need to think of new ideas outside of the classroom. The district administration can work without district cars, extra vacation days and some staff members. If our teachers and students have to clean lunch tables and desks, vacuum, and take out the trash, so can the district administration. It is time the parents step up and hold the district administration responsible for the choices for our students.

City Election Update

While the Registrar of Voters continues to count absentee and provisional ballots, the order remains unchanged in the city election. The RoV posted new totals on Nov. 15:

FRANK URY        16,537 25.0%
CATHY SCHLICHT   13,381 20.2%
NEIL LONSINGER   12,718 19.2%
RICH ATKINSON      9,703 14.6%
JUDY RACKAUCKAS    7,067 10.7%
MICHAEL WILLIAMSON 6,848 10.3%

Campaign participants and political pundits will have their own twists, but they might agree that general principles applied. Absent widespread outrage among the electorate, an incumbent has an edge. If challengers don’t go negative, they add to an incumbent’s advantage by appearing to support the status quo.

In the Nov. 4 city election, incumbent Councilman Frank Ury had little worry he’d get slammed by negative mailers. If his challengers had the will to send hit pieces, their limited campaign treasuries cut deeply into their wish list.

As other basics, campaigns need organization and time to develop. Insiders say that Cathy Schlicht made her decision to run in October 2007, but she didn’t consider herself a serious contender until several months ago. Lonsinger may have been thinking about running, but his campaign didn’t take shape until he filed papers on Aug. 8. By contrast, Ury had been raising funds and forming alliances for this year’s race since his 2004 election. Both Schlicht and Lonsinger relied on grassroots support and managed their own campaigns. Ury paid $10,000 for a professional consultant.

While campaign principles might apply, they don’t always add up. Challenger Richard Atkinson had all the slate mailers money could buy, a campaign treasury of $36,149, a professional consultant and plenty of time to prepare. Voters on Nov. 4 may have decided it was a professional campaign without a credible candidate.

Activists referred to Schlicht and Lonsinger’s totals as votes from residents who did their homework. An activist commented to this blog, “I was thankful so many people worked together for Cathy and Neil. It was an uphill battle to shut out Richard Atkinson as city hall’s anointed candidate, and it took all of us to do it.”

School Update

The Registrar of Voters continued counting votes over the weekend, posting new numbers on Saturday. While the number of votes grew for each candidate, percentages didn’t change in the Saddleback Valley USD race for three seats

SUZIE R. SWARTZ  50,913 31.2%
DON SEDGWICK     49,274 30.2%
GINNY FAY AITKENS 43,523 26.7%
JOEL QUISENBERRY 19,345 11.9%

Update for Capistrano USD in which reform candidates are winning all four races:

Trustee Area 1
JACK BRICK   61,767 51.4%
ERIN KUTNICK 58,433 48.6%

Trustee Area 2
SUE PALAZZO    69,990 58.8%
ANDREA KOOIMAN 49,105 41.2%

Trustee Area 3
MIKE WINSTEN 77,294 65.6%
DUANE STIFF  40,514 34.4%

Trustee Area 5
KEN MADDOX     64,473 56.0%
GARY V MILLER  50,636 44.0%

The percentages in CUSD contests are changing very little from day to day.

***

On March 24, 2007, the OC Registrar published an article describing an attempted audit of CUSD that had been requested by the Mission Viejo City Council in June 2006. Under scrutiny was CUSD’s use of funds from Mission Viejo sources: Community Facilities District No. 87-1, the Mission Viejo Community Development Agency and the 1999 voter-approved Measure A (Neighborhood School Overcrowding, Safety/Repair Measure). With Capo schools in Mission Viejo falling into disrepair, the council was trying to discover how the district had spent money collected in Mission Viejo. A CUSD parent forwarded information to this blog last week that shows just how difficult it was for an accounting firm (Vavrinek, Trine & Day) to extract financial records from CUSD. The parent added, “It is too bad [OCR reporter] Sam Miller did not have the attached document when he wrote the story.” With the names James Fleming and David Doomey popping up, readers shouldn’t be surprised that auditors were blocked by CUSD. Follow this link to view the documents (click here and here).

The Buzz

A reader lampooned the city for moving Santa’s Workshop from the Four Corners: “I think it is especially touching that the latest issue of the MV Leisure Time has a photo of Santa's Workshop at the Four Corners. I haven't looked yet, but I hope it has an announcement that Santa will be in a different locale this year. We MUST educate the children to COME TO THE GOVERNMENT for ANYTHING they want and to realize that ‘Christmas’ is not a Christian occasion; it is merely ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO GET STUFF. Maybe we can create an official ‘Praise Government Day’ so that EVERYONE recognizes and acknowledges our fabulous government, FROM WHICH ALL GOOD THINGS COME.”

***

Reader comment on banners in the parking lot near city hall: “The word ‘Tradition’ is written among red roses on banners. Is the city staff telling us that a Rose Parade float will become a yearly production? City employees don’t respect our real traditions, so the word has no reference to what we value. Traditions city employees are known for include wasting money on things like easels, mismanaging projects like Crown Valley and throwing constant parties for themselves with taxpayer-furnished food. I have never been inside city hall or at a city event when I didn’t see employees carrying plastic plates of food while walking around aimlessly. Following the city staff’s yearlong 20th anniversary, will they start celebrating their 21st anniversary with another yearlong party? It looks like they’re already paving the way for their next float.”

***

Countywide, the Registrar of Voters had 47,434 remaining ballots to count after the new totals were updated on Saturday. Among those uncounted, 2,165 are mail-in ballots and the other 44,587 are provisional ballots. In response to questions about whether or not all ballots will be counted, it looks as if they will.

***

What did Mission Viejo residents do during the Nov. 13 preparedness drill, the Great Southern California Shakeout? The Nov. 14 OC Register covered activities at Saddleback College, which can care for 1,000 people in an emergency. This blog has often stressed that city hall is ill-prepared for any kind of an emergency, and the city’s caretaking would be limited to city employees, not residents. The city’s Emergency Operations Center (Saddleback Room) could proudly relay emergency information to all 152.3 city employees while county agencies – Sheriff’s Dept., Fire Authority and the county EOC – deal with emergencies. The Sheriff’s Dept. some time ago warned in a memo (distributed at city hall) that residents should be prepared to fend for themselves in an emergency.

***

To head off misinterpretation, here’s the drift. City hall should bluntly state its emergency plan is for the benefit of city employees. It shouldn’t lead anyone to conclude it has emergency supplies for residents or other means to be helpful. It shouldn’t pretend that a top employee who makes more than $100,000 a year for being in charge of emergency preparedness is functional. City hall didn’t inform the city about the Shakeout drill, and residents are not wired into the reverse 9-1-1, www.AlertOC.com, or any other warning system. City hall lacks an emergency plan for residents.