Unlearned Lessons Are Perpetual

The council majority of Lance MacLean, Frank Ury and Trish Kelley may have mistaken the Nov. 4 city election as a mandate to continue running amok. However, Ury’s reelection alone doesn’t convey the voters’ message. With Cathy Schlicht, Neil Lonsinger, Judy Rackauckas and Michael Williamson all running against the status quo, the result should be viewed as a mandate to change the council’s direction.

With only 12,757 uncounted votes remaining for all of Orange County in the Nov. 4 election, the Registrar of Voters posted new totals on Nov. 21:

FRANK URY        16,877 24.9%
CATHY SCHLICHT   13,681 20.2%
NEIL LONSINGER   12,933 19.1%
RICH ATKINSON      9,884 14.6%
JUDY RACKAUCKAS    7,229 10.7%
MICHAEL WILLIAMSON 7,046 10.4%

The uncounted votes, spread countywide, are not likely to alter the outcome in Mission Viejo, as the percentage for each candidate has been stable throughout the count.

Reviewing Schlicht and Lonsinger’s respective totals should be a wakeup call for the current majority. Both Schlicht and Lonsinger exceeded the 2006 totals of Kelley (12,191), Ledesma (10,763) and MacLean (8,574), who campaigned like maniacs to retain their seats in the 2006 city race.

A message to future council candidates can also be found in the 2008 results. While any number of residents can run for a council seat, Rackauckas and Williamson demonstrated why most of them shouldn’t. Neither Rackauckas nor Williamson had grassroots backing, activist support, a network of volunteers or adequate funding, and neither demonstrated the ability to organize a campaign or attract workers. However, this pair’s combined 14,000-plus total may have thwarted the very reform voters wanted. Uninformed voters may have chosen Rackauckas and Williamson by accident, but informed ones likely made a deliberate choice to reject Ury and the council majority’s flunky, Richard Atkinson.

The unlearned lesson lives on. In the 2006 city election, seven challengers split the vote against three incumbents, which determined that no council member – regardless of unpopularity – would be unseated.

Some activists are looking ahead, wondering how to oust Kelley and MacLean in 2010 when Ledesma will term out. With three seats in play, numerous wannabe candidates, many with the same shortcomings of Rackauckas and Williamson, are already posturing. Fueled primarily by personal ambition, they’re designing future failed campaigns with easy wins for incumbents.

Santa’s Workshop Moves On

Several Mission Viejo Activities Committee members spoke during public comments at the Nov. 17 council meeting. They tried to smooth over the committee’s decision to move Santa’s Workshop from the Four Corners to the area between city hall and the library. Many residents have decried the move, saying the Workshop’s Four Corners location is part of the Christmas tradition.

Committee members attempted to focus on concern for safety but often went off point. They mentioned a car passing by in 2007 with someone yelling at Santa. They also indicated, as volunteers, they expect gratitude but not criticism.

To justify the relocation, one committee member gave an example in L.A. of a driver who lost control of a car and killed pedestrians. The speaker was likely referring to the 2006 tragedy in Santa Monica at a Farmer’s Market, which doesn’t reflect the situation at La Paz and Marguerite. The 2006 example more closely parallels the Workshop’s setting at city hall. The driver in Santa Monica drove through barricades into a pedestrian area.

After 38 years without a car jumping the curb and hitting people in line for Santa’s Workshop at La Paz and Marguerite, committee members claimed, “It’s just a matter of time” before it occurs. The parking lot at city hall isn’t a pedestrian-friendly place, particularly at night when it’s overflowing with too many cars, frustrated drivers annoyed by trees or planters in every parking space and pedestrians who can’t be seen in the dark. In 2001, the city made a similarly unpopular decision by relocating Santa and the displays from the Four Corners to Florence Joyner Park, where attendance dropped off sharply. The displays were back at Four Corners the following year.

This year, committee members said the public should have known the Workshop was moving because they gave flyers to those who attended last year. As mentioned in last week’s editorial on this blog, most residents didn’t hear about it. With the city’s elaborate spin machine – The City Outlook, the electronic message board, MVTV, a Website and city hall’s blog, why was the announcement limited to flyers given to those standing in line last year?

Residents can opine by visiting Brad Morton’s blog, MissionViejoDispatch.com, and participating in a survey (look at the upper right-hand box, “Santa Poll”) on whether or not they agree with the relocation of Santa’s Workshop.

Council Reinstates Lifetime Healthcare Benefits

Near the end of a long council meeting on Nov. 17, the council voted 3-1 to reinstate lifetime medical benefits for council members who complete their third term after reaching age 50 (voting in favor: MacLean, Ury, Kelley; against: Ledesma; absent: Reavis). Six months ago, the council voted 5-0 to end such benefits. The motion made by Ury in May appeared to be aimed at Reavis before she decided not to seek a third term.

During the Nov. 17 discussion, Ledesma pressed city administrator Irwin Bornstein to tell what the benefits would cost. Bornstein estimated $257,000 for each council member who qualified. Thus far, only former councilman Bill Craycraft has qualified.

By the time members of the audience made public comments, it was nearly 11 p.m. Only two people spoke; perhaps they were the only ones still in the audience. Both opposed the motion, saying council members don’t merit such benefits for part-time service.

Aside from Reavis not running for reelection, what changed the minds of MacLean, Ury and Kelley? Kelley on Nov. 17 couldn’t come up with a logical reason, but she pushed to restore the benefits. With Ury and MacLean reversing their earlier decisions, perhaps the tactic against Reavis was no longer needed. Kelley already has healthcare benefits paid by taxpayers (through her husband’s military service), and she receives a check each month for $825 from the city for opting out of its healthcare plan. If voters decide in 2010 to reelect Kelley, she would receive such checks for life.

In October, council members raised their pay from $500 to $1,000 a month (in favor: MacLean, Ury, Kelley and Ledesma; against: Reavis). Any objection from the public isn’t so much the amount of time they put into the job as how badly they do it.

MacLean told his unemployment tale of woe to the Or. Co. Register on Nov. 5, and the reporter referred to him as the county’s only unemployed council member. Several blog readers quickly responded, “What about Ury?” MacLean and Ury both appear to be unemployed. Prior to giving themselves a raise, these council members said the amount was inappropriate for what they did. Taxpayers should agree it’s now twice as inappropriate.

For Kelley, the part-time council job morphed into a full-time one. She mentioned during Monday’s meeting that she’d been at city hall Monday through Friday of the prior week. Why? Council members have little function in city hall except to attend meetings. When Kelley voted for herself as mayor in January, she explained she was uniquely qualified because she had nothing else to do. Parkinson’s Law finds that work expands to fill the time available. Incompetence apparently expands at the same rate.

The council members don’t deserve lifetime healthcare benefits for part-time work no matter how many years they serve, and their job performance doesn’t warrant a pay increase. They can continue to line up three votes for almost any gift they wish to give themselves because some residents on Nov. 4 decided to give Ury another four-year term.

By the end of the Nov. 17 meeting, both the city attorney and city manager stated that the healthcare item came back to the council because they were concerned Reavis would sue the city for not giving her lifetime healthcare benefits, regardless of her not qualifying. Residents who tune into the next council meeting just might hear a response from Reavis on that one.

Parent Advocate League Update
by Julie Collier

On. Nov. 18, CUSD held another Budget Workshop meeting regarding potential mid-year cuts and potential cuts for next year.

Supt. Woodrow Carter explained that the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) states the deficit might be $27.2 billion over the next 20 months, and more budget issues will continue through 2013. He outlined a Budget Guidance based on what parents and board members have suggested: change status quo; cut administration and stay away from classrooms; no overtime; zero-based budget; outside-the-box thinking (but that depends on Ed Codes and board policies, by-laws, CDE and collective bargaining); protect “core value” (maintain accelerated student achievement; keep CSR, do not increase class size).  Carter recommended: no layoffs and keep schools and district intact. Carter also stated it would be about a 12-month process to close a school.

Presentation by Ron Lebs – Goals by Dec. 15:

• Adopt 1st Interim Report
• Identify $12.5M in budget cuts
• Backup plan for AV property sale if it does not go through (buyers are having difficulty due to banking industry/bad economy)
• Certify that district can maintain solvency this fiscal year and the next two fiscal years

Total Expenditures and Percentages of Budget:
Certificated Salaries: $195,693,264 (48%)
Classified Salaries: $55,104,497 (13%)
Admin Salaries: $19,806,204 (5%)
Benefits: $75,206,109 (18%)
Books & Supplies: $18,424,956 (5%)
Services & Other: $28,716,596 (7%)
Capitol Outlay: $60,000 (0%)
Other Outgo: $8,967,939 (2%)
Interfund Support: $743,035 (0%)
Debt Service: $3,756,207 (1%)

Lebs made a chart of budget cuts that do NOT include: eliminating CSR; cutting teacher salaries by 1%; no salary increase for 09/10; adding students to 4-12; furlough days; step freeze; and block music. Below is how the district worked out the new numbers for the budget cuts.

Budget Cut Summary Inclusions:
Site - 25% Supply Reductions $.335M
C Building Rent $.650M
No Salary Increase 09/10 $5.60M
10/11 Step Increase on Above $0.090M
On-Line Agenda (paperless agenda) $.020M
Bus Rental $.010M (private school pays to rent CUSD buses)
No salary increase for 10/11 $4.325M
Draw Down Reserves $.500M                                                                    
Total                   $11.530M
Target Amount    $12.500M
Balance               $0.970M (still needs to be cut)

Mid-year cuts were briefly discussed: This Sunday the CA State Legislature will decide if more cuts are necessary. If the Legislature decides more cuts are needed (2/3 vote), then there will be mid-year cuts to education. Our district will have to make choices on what to cut.

The last Budget Workshop is Dec. 2 at 6 pm. This is the last opportunity parents will have to voice their opinions/suggestions to the superintendent and his administration before the Dec. 8 board meeting. The Dec. 8 meeting is when the board will vote to approve the budget cuts based on the cuts the district has provided them. The board can only vote to approve or deny what is presented to them. It is important that the CUSD community uses the last Budget Workshop opportunity to tell the district administration the expectations they have.

The district has done a fabulous job of offering three different workshops to listen to what the community has to say. Based on the budget changes, it is clear they have listened. There are still some vague areas as to what cuts will be made at the district level. Almost $1M still needs to be cut from the budget. If you have suggestions, please plan to attend the last Budget Workshop on Dec. 2. You can find more information at the district Website, www.capousd.org.

Here are some of my suggestions as well as suggestions from other PALs members:

• District vehicles should be sold. Administrators can get 58.5 cents per mile according to Federal tax laws. Money can be saved from paying for full tanks of gas, maintenance and insurance. Also, selling the cars will generate revenue for the district.
• Any leftover buses should be sold if not in the plans to be used anytime soon since many of them sit unused in a lot.
• Handwriting Without Tears should be cut.
• No new textbook adoptions until we get past the current crisis (this concept is what Saddleback is doing).
• Postpone the new math textbook adoptions, which include many teacher in-service days (training days for the teachers to learn how to use the new textbooks) that the district has to pay for.
• Postpone the new grading system (requires more in-service days).
• Cut staff development
• Go totally paperless including parent flyers, agendas, district newspaper, etc.
• District staff should all go into Building A in the district building. The district can rent out Building B for more revenue. (Another PALs member and I had a meeting at the district office, and we noticed many empty cubicles that can be used for this purpose).
• Offer/promote empty conference rooms for rent at the district office for business, church and community needs.
• Offer/promote school sites for rent for business, church and community needs.

Be sure to attend the workshop Dec. 2 at 6 pm to offer your great ideas as well. Supt. Carter and his staff are listening. If you can't attend the meeting, you can email the board and Supt. Carter. Their email addresses can be found at www.parentsadvocateleague.org

On a side note, thank you to those who forward my emails in parts or entirety and include my name. You are welcome and encouraged to do so. My goal is to keep people as informed as possible. I volunteer my time and do not get paid for it in any way. I do not condone taking my emails in parts or entirety, removing my name and adding your own name as if you wrote the email yourself. While it is flattering to have my work copied, it is also plagiarism, which most people would consider highly unethical. If you feel my emails have merit and information to pass along, great! Please do so with my name. Thank you!

The Buzz

A reader joked about Frank Ury’s false claims during his campaign, “The basis of Ury’s campaign was the phony city survey in which 125 percent of 400 residents said they were 775 percent happy with 999 percent of everything.”

***

Reader comment from L.C.: “The city administration seems to operate as a separate identity, with its own agenda and activities. The residents of Mission Viejo merely serve as a source of funding for all the dreams and schemes of the non-residents who occupy the building and conduct the carnival behind the Grand Facade of City Hall.”

***

Blog staffers started a betting pool on how far the float will travel along the Rose Parade route before something major goes wrong. Given the weight of the gigantic tub, some predict it will move downward (but not forward), sinking a foot or two into the ground as the road beneath it collapses. Given the slosh factor, some predict the water will reach the finish line at least an hour ahead of the float. Those who miss seeing the float on TV during the parade might be able to catch it later on news programs.

***

Orange County Republican Party Chairman Scott Baugh is taking the heat for his party’s decline. Among those not buying Baugh’s excuses for failure, Elliott Alhadeff has a post in OCR’s Total Buzz. Alhadeff credits Hugh Hewitt by saying, “He mentioned that the selection of candidates determines the vote. Since we don’t communicate any message, OCGOP voters have to depend only on a candidate’s party affiliation. Plain English – ‘Selection of candidates determines the vote’ means OCGOP needs a system to find, identify, endorse and support ideologically conservative candidates.” For the rest of Alhadeff’s post, go to http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2008/11/20/republican-frustration-with-local-gop/8848/#more-8848.

***

Unless Republicans throughout Orange County stand up and shout, their Central Committee will continue endorsing council incumbents like Trish Kelley and Frank Ury as the “Republicans” to vote for. Kelley and Ury have been consistent in their drive for bigger government, more spending and more giveaways while raising “fees” – a/k/a taxes.

***

Mission Viejo residents should demand to know why the Republican Central Committee endorsed Kelley’s handpicked candidate, Richard Atkinson. Atkinson gave his “record” of service to the Republican Party in his interview with the Central Committee. According to a witness, it seemed the only thing he could think of was to say he’d campaigned for either Nixon or Ford. Good grief! – Atkinson was born in 1960! Can somebody do the math? And what about the last 35 years? Prior to Atkinson’s failed council campaign, had anyone ever heard of this guy?