Majority Members Fail To Convince

After Councilwoman Cathy Schlicht took the oath of office at the Dec. 1 meeting, she began her term by challenging majority members for wasting money and making bad decisions.

The item best showcasing Schlicht’s tenacity was her attempt to overturn the council majority’s Nov. 17 decision to restore their potential lifetime healthcare benefits. Those completing three terms by age 50 would be eligible. In May, Councilman Frank Ury placed an item on the agenda to rescind the benefit, and Councilwoman Trish Kelley was likely the one who pushed bringing it back on Nov. 17. Despite Schlicht’s effort to get the majority to rescind the benefit (again), the motion failed with only Schlicht and Ledesma supporting it. MacLean, Ury and Kelley voted no but lacked credible reasons.

What was behind the flip-flop that began in May? Councilwoman Gail Reavis and Ury were both up for reelection, and both indicated they were running. Reavis, had she been reelected and served another four years, would have been eligible to receive the lifetime healthcare benefit because she’s over 50. Reavis and Ury’s campaigns were gearing up in May at about the time MacLean, Ury and Kelley began working together to oust Reavis. Ury insisted then (and again on Dec. 1) that his motives weren’t political. To observers, his agenda item in May seemed more a prank than an altruistic gesture, vexing Reavis by removing the benefit. Reavis surprised almost everyone by announcing on Aug. 8 that she wouldn’t seek a third term.

If Ury’s move was aimed at Reavis as it appeared, it served no purpose after she left. Except for Ledesma (who will term out in 2010 before reaching age 50), those who voted in May to rescind the benefit had only hurt themselves. MacLean, Ury and Kelley would qualify if they served 12 years, as all three would meet the only other requirement of being at least 50 years of age. Behind the scenes, Kelley sought to bring the item back. Contrary to statements from the dais on Dec. 1, it didn’t grow from the city attorney or city manager’s nonsensical concern Reavis would file suit against the city.

Kelley, as if to distance herself from looking greedy, made statements during the Dec. 1 meeting that she’s covered by her husband’s insurance. However, she currently opts to receive $825 a month by not using the city’s healthcare coverage. With the benefit back in place as of Nov. 17, the taxpayer-funded stipend would be hers for life – an amount that would likely increase with time. If she truly had no interest in taking taxpayers’ money in the future (because she “doesn’t need the benefit),” she should stop taking it now.

The more MacLean, Ury and Kelley tried to blame it all on Reavis, the more guilty they looked in defending their contrived benefit. Kelley said it would take “a lot of conditions” before the three could get the benefit, and that’s not true. The only unmet condition is that they serve 12 years, as they’ll all meet the age requirement. Schlicht discredited the excuse that it was “Gail’s fault” by summarizing, “If you’re afraid of being sued, you three are the only ones who would bring the lawsuits.” Reavis didn’t meet the requirement of serving three terms and has no basis for a lawsuit.

Update, Right-To-Vote Initiative

Signature gatherers continue to work toward qualifying the Mission Viejo Right-To-Vote Initiative for the ballot. Volunteers have begun verifying signatures with the aid of a CD of Registrar of Voters data, reporting a validity rate of 85 percent to 90 percent. The largest category for disqualification is signatures of non-Mission Viejo residents. In order to count toward the requirement of 6,100, those signing the petition must be registered to vote in Mission Viejo. To qualify for a special election (including the statewide election on either March 3 or more likely June 3), the initiative must have 9,150 valid signatures. The deadline to turn in signatures is Jan. 25, 2009.

Volunteers working at storefronts say that they qualify each person wanting to sign, making sure they are Mission Viejo residents who are registered to vote. A volunteer said, “People sometimes start signing before we get a chance to ask. Residents of nearby communities want to help protect the Casta del Sol Golf Course. We like their moral support, but non-residents’ signatures don’t get us closer to the required number.”

Two false rumors have been perpetuated by those who have – or should have – a vested interest in preserving the Casta golf course. At least one employee of the golf course told golfers that the danger of losing the course has passed, and he’s wrong. The course is still for sale, and no one knows whether Sunrise will return or another housing developer will make an offer. If the danger isn’t imminent, the decline of the housing market has merely delayed the threat. Incredibly, the other false rumor has been promoted by a Casta resident who groundlessly stated at a council candidate forum in October that the initiative either failed or it had been abandoned. From the public microphone at the Dec. 1 council meeting, she thanked council members for “saving the golf course” with their moratorium. The moratorium was a meaningless political gesture with a loophole to allow developers to proceed with rezoning the property from recreation to housing.

Volunteers will continue gathering signatures until the end of December to reach the 9,150 threshold. Despite the work to pre-verify signatures before petitions are submitted to the Registrar of Voters, those at the RoV could decide to throw out whatever they choose. The failed 2005 CUSD recall of seven trustees was a stunning surprise when nearly one-third of 177,000 signatures were deemed unqualified by Registrar Neal Kelley. Recall proponents decried Kelley’s actions, saying he threw out valid signatures to derail the recall when it should have gone on the ballot.

All initiative volunteers are encouraged to make a final push to get signatures during December. Proponents hope to give the RoV ample time to put the initiative on the March 3 or June 3 state ballot.

School Update

Parents and other Saddleback Valley constituents attended a district meeting last week to learn more about the district’s plans to close two elementary schools, O’Neill and La Tierra. Apart from the statewide budget crisis, the number of students in SVUSD has been declining for several years, impacting the amount of money, $5,530 per student, the district yearly receives. A committee addressing potential closures will continue to meet, but without public participation. Parents are questioning why they can’t attend the meetings.

A Mission Viejo resident reported to this blog that enrollment at private schools continues to increase despite declining financial markets, lack of homebuilding and rising unemployment.

The CUSD board of trustees will meet Dec. 8, beginning with the 6 p.m. oath of office for trustees elected on Nov. 4. Jack Brick and Mike Winsten are new trustees, and other winners were Ken Maddox and Sue Palazzo, who were first elected in June with the successful recall of Marlene Draper and Sheila Benecke. The open session will begin at 7 p.m.

Among Dec. 8 agenda items is reconsideration of restoring the trustee’s full $795 stipend, which Supt. Woodrow Carter is recommending. Trustees in February cut their stipend in half to save money for the nearly bankrupt district. It is unclear why the amount is being reconsidered. Other items include change orders at San Juan Hills High School and a discussion of performing arts theatres at Dana Hills High School and Capo High. Budget workshops have been held to find $12.5 million in cuts. The next budget report is due Dec. 15.

On last week’s blog, an update on legal action against CUSD should have included a distinction among plaintiffs. Members of the Lefner family didn't file suit against the district. Their actions are solely against the county and Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley. Two lawsuits against the district, county and Registrar of Voters grew from constituents’ efforts to recall CUSD trustees. In response to the recall, administrators formed a list of enemies from those who supported the recall and some of their children. Kelley illegally allowed CUSD administrators to review the recall petitions and note who had signed them.

Make Controversy Your Mission

Despite the Rose Parade float being panned by the community, the city’s spin goes on. During the Dec. 1 council meeting, Mayor Trish Kelley said thousands of residents have participated in float-making. She stretched the use of “thousands” by saying “nearly 4,000 time slots have been filled.” What does that mean? If a family of five from Rancho Santa Margarita stays for hours to do multiple “shifts” and then comes back repeatedly, do they rack up 50 time slots? Activists visiting the site and expecting to see “thousands” say the numbers are greatly exaggerated and so-called Mission Viejo residents are coming from other cities.

Given that more than 50 percent of cardholders for Mission Viejo’s library don’t live here, city taxpayers are funding a regional library. City taxpayers are apparently funding regional float parties as well.

Another of Kelley’s Dec. 1 claims about the float caused some audience members to ask if they’d heard correctly. Did she say the Rose Parade float is a national ad for the city? The implication is that a 15- to 30-second spot on TV is equivalent to a Super Bowl ad and the city has something to sell.

Longtime community activist Don Wilder commented about Kelley’s remark: “I am wondering what it is that Mission Viejo has that is worthy of advertising. New homes? – uhhh, aren’t we built out? The shopping? – why here?  The Shops at Mission Viejo? – not likely with the Irvine Spectrum and South Coast Plaza so close. The boutique auto dealerships? – again, not likely worth any city investment (especially after the tax giveaway to get them here in the first place). Lake Mission Viejo? – nope again. Not really part of the city operation or revenue-generation infrastructure. The recreation centers and parks? – not unique to our town and certainly not worth the advertising ‘investment.’ So I ask the city council, just why do we need to advertise? And, I am wondering how much of the contracted expenditure for the Rose Parade float will find its way back into the city council members’ campaign coffers.”

Councilman Frank Ury added his spin to another subject at the Dec. 1 meeting following a report the city spent nearly $12 million more than it took in during the past year. The matter was correctly described as deficit spending – when spending exceeds income over a particular period of time. Ury insisted it wasn’t deficit spending because it was planned.

A city employee also said the bulk of the $12 million was for one-time expenditures, but that doesn’t explain what happened. A large portion of the deficit was caused by change orders on the community center expansion. The council approved so many changes that the one-time expenditure ran three times over budget. Nor is the widening of Crown Valley Parkway simply a one-time expenditure when the mismanaged project has become a career for some city staffers and contractors. The same mismanagement is applied to each new “one-time” endeavor, and Oso Parkway is next.

The Buzz, Dec. 6

Save the date: the Casta del Sol Republican Club will welcome John Ziegler as guest speaker for its Lincoln Day brunch on Sun., Feb. 15. Ziegler, a former radio talk-show host on KFI AM 640, has written two books and produced a documentary film. He appeared last week on Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes.

***

For followers of Mission Viejo politics, seeing Councilman Frank Ury become mayor for 2009 had an ironic twist. Two years ago, Ury openly worked against the reelection of Councilmembers Trish Kelley, John Paul Ledesma and Lance MacLean, and he tried to prevent all three from receiving political endorsements. He hasn’t been subtle about revealing publicly that he thinks Councilwoman Trish Kelley isn’t too bright. The MacLean-Ury-Kelley (M.U.K.) alliance developed from their shared obsession with removing Councilwoman Gail Reavis from office.

***

With Ury’s Nov. 4 reelection, a Mission Viejo resident on another blog noted that Kelley’s failed council candidate, Rich Atkinson, wasn’t needed for the council majority to continue MUKing up city business. Atkinson’s name was just another letter in running AMUK.

***

Both the OC Register and the LA Times have done a good job covering ex-OC Sheriff Mike Carona’s trial. Those who first caught on to Carona’s dark side included OC Weekly investigative reporter Scott Moxley and OC watchdog Shirley Grindle. Both took heat from the county’s good ol’ boys (including Scott Baugh and the crew at Red County) for questioning Carona’s behavior and ethics.

***

Cutbacks at the county level prompted the county’s largest union, O.C. Employees Associations, to recommend that all 18,000 county workers take a week of unpaid leave between Christmas and New Year’s Day. The county cut $30 million from its budget, and more cuts are coming. San Juan Capistrano’s 100 city employees will take unpaid leave in December to save $150,000. With a general fund budget of $22 million, SJC faces a $2 million shortfall. With others cutting back, will Mission Viejo continue adding employees?

***

Does everyone remember seeing large city-posted signs on slopes and other improvement areas that list council members’ names as if they deserve credit for taxpayer-funded work? Residents who live near Crown Valley Parkway report that such a sign crediting council members for the Crown Valley project was taken down some time ago. The road widening is a long way from completion, but perhaps council members no longer want their names associated with it.