Vote Early and Often

Last week’s blog revealed that some of those voting in an online poll stuffed the ballot box. On Jan. 7, an article about Mission Viejo’s Rose Parade float appeared on the Or. Co. Register’s Website. A poll within the article asked readers to vote on what Mission Viejo gained from the float. The choices were: 1) Nothing but the bills, 2) A greater sense of community, and 3) An improved image and a higher profile.

Early on Jan. 7, category No. 1 had an overwhelming lead. By midday, votes began to pour in – hundreds in a short time – for choice No. 2. A second surge for choice No. 2 came at approximately 11 p.m. on Jan. 7. Readers observing the jumping numbers suspected one person was adding hundreds of tallies with automated votes. Another surge with hundreds of votes came late at night on Jan. 8 for choice No. 3. After the heightened voting activity totaling 1,100 votes, the ranking was 1) just the bills – 21 percent; 2) sense of community – 51 percent; 3) image – 28 percent.

The surges as well as the times of day pointed to automated voting. A reader posting as Leoisin challenged the process in reader comments below the article. OCR editor Ron Gonzales responded on Jan. 9, “Leosin: We've referred the question of whether there's any kind of automated voting to our Web team. If there's anything to report, I'll let you know.”

As of Jan. 17, Gonzales had posted no further comment. A blog staffer followed up with a phone call to ask about the findings. Gonzales responded that the Web team had checked into the allegation, but he said he wasn’t obligated to reveal anything.

If no automated voting had been found, would Gonzales not have contradicted allegations that one person changed the outcome?

OCR readers who enjoy participating in polls might not be aware they can vote hundreds of times if they’re willing to sit at a computer for hours to vote manually. They can also create a macro – a set of step-by-step commands – whereby a computer votes hundreds of times. Without tricking the voting mechanism in the OCR polls, those who have voted see only the totals with no chance to vote again.

Disclaimers often appear alongside polls, “This poll is not scientific,” indicating the voting mechanism is either not secured or respondents can vote numerous times. Most folks understand that such polls are primarily for amusement.

A further issue grew from the Register’s poll. On page 10 of the Jan. 16 Saddleback Valley News, an article (without attribution) states, “In a poll at www.ocregister.com/missionviejo , a majority of more than 1,100 respondents thought the float provided a greater sense of community and a higher profile. As of Tuesday, about a fifth said it did nothing.”

Readers had already challenged the credibility of the poll by alleging that a single person may have added hundreds of automated votes. The surges alone totaled more than 700 votes for choices 2 and 3. At least three people told blog staffers that they voted multiple times. Despite the Register’s claim, 1,100 votes did not comprise 1,100 “respondents.” A computer churning out votes is not a respondent.

In order to level the playing field, this blog is publishing information on how to bypass the Or. Co. Register’s voting mechanism. To use the manual process to vote multiple times: 1) vote in the online poll; 2) go to your computer’s Control Panel; 3) select Internet Options; 4) under Browsing History, click Delete; this will open a smaller window; 5) click Delete Cookies; it will ask Are you sure? Click Yes; 6) return to vote screen; 7) Refresh the screen; 8) vote again. By using these steps, someone wishing to vote numerous times will always get a new screen with choices instead of just the totals.

Is publishing the step-by-step process enabling abuse of the polls? Blog staffers assert that the Register enabled the abuse by not having a secured voting mechanism. This blog is exposing the abuse. Additionally, the Saddleback Valley News staff implied it was a scientific poll instead of revealing that some readers know how to vote multiple times.

Top 10 Reasons to Dismiss Carter

CUSD constituents have asked what Superintendent Woodrow Carter has done to deserve being placed on administrative leave.  Here are some of the well-documented reasons forwarded by CUSD parents.

Top 10 reasons why Superintendent Carter must go

1)   Carter secretly signed a three-year contract providing him with a large salary increase at the same time he issued layoff notices to district teachers and classified personnel; then he lied about signing the contract in the press.

2)   Carter requested and was awarded by the former board majority a large salary increase for himself and his Deputy Superintendent Sherine Smith while asking parents to raise $1 million to fund teachers.

3)   Records indicate Carter altered a Board-approved contract to insert a clause awarding himself $410,000 (18 months’ salary) in the event he is fired for any reason, without board approval.

4)   Carter has failed to deliver a zero-based budget, departmental budgets or organizational/personnel summaries – all basic requirements of his job and firm commitments he made when hired.

5)   Carter and his staff entered into a tentative agreement with the teachers union without board authority.

6)   Carter unilaterally cancelled a board-approved three-year boundary study contract without board authority. 

7)   Carter has failed to take any action after being notified nine months ago that CUSD was in violation of Title 5 setbacks and the improper use of public funds to improve and maintain private property at San Juan Hills High School (SJHHS).

8)   Carter has been negotiating with the developer/private property owner to purchase the SJHHS slope without the authorization or knowledge of the Board of Trustees.

9)   Carter has failed to take any action after being notified nine months ago that CUSD does not own the outfield portion of the ball field at SJHHS and has continued to use public monies to maintain it.

10)  Carter has failed to deliver the district-wide needs assessment, which is desperately needed to address problems with aging school facilities.

Following are details of these issues:

1-3. Documentation shows that Carter signed a three-year contract for just under a million dollars on Feb. 25, 2008; however, records indicate he altered the original Board-approved contract to insert a clause awarding himself $410,000 (18 months’ salary) in the event he is fired for any reason. The Board was unaware of the severance clause and never approved the version of the contract with the severance clause. Carter then stated publicly on Feb. 29, 2008, that he “refused” to sign the contract due to the hundreds of employee layoffs and budget cuts. The contract was signed and dated prior to this statement by Carter. Carter is now one of the highest-paid superintendents in the United States with the least amount of tenure in education.

4. Carter failed to deliver the zero-based budget and the departmental budgets he promised when first hired 14 months ago, despite having stated the obvious need for these budgets. Carter blames the entire deficit on the state cuts, but the fact is that CUSD had a $12-million deficit long before the state announced cuts were coming. Carter’s failure to resolve the previous deficit makes the state cuts hit CUSD even harder.

5. After the Board took no action on the Tentative Labor Agreement (TLA) with the teachers union (CUEA) at their Oct. 6, 2008, Board meeting, and despite the fact that the law requires the Superintendent and/or his staff to obtain Board approval before signing any labor agreements with the teachers union, Carter directed staff to sign a TLA with the teacher’s union, which was dated Oct. 15. The Board then reported that in Closed Session at the November meeting, they had voted the contract down, 4-3. A copy of the (illegally) signed TLA, dated Oct. 15, was then posted on the union’s Website along with the claim that the Board “reneged on their agreement after authorizing their district team to settle with CUEA” when no such authorization existed. At a time when Carter acknowledged he doesn’t know how they will fund classrooms, he and his staff illegally signed an agreement stating, “ ... any increased costs associated with [automatic raises] and health and benefits will be absorbed by the district.” 

6. One of Carter’s first actions upon being hired was to cancel the Board-approved contract awarded to an outside vendor to study demographics and school boundaries, yet Carter never received Board approval to cancel that contract. Carter then re-drew the boundaries himself, resulting in severe overcrowding at schools such as Truman Benedict in San Clemente where classes are now held in the library and the multipurpose room for lack of classroom space. Despite complaints from parents, Carter has taken no action to remediate the damage caused by his flawed boundary process.

7. Carter was notified nine months ago that CUSD was in violation of Title 5 setbacks and the improper use of public funds to improve and maintain private property at San Juan Hills High School (SJHHS), yet he has failed to take ANY action to resolve these issues.

8. CUSD spent $135,000 of public money to stabilize a privately owned slope adjacent to the football stadium at SJHHS. Carter has been negotiating with the developer/private property owner to purchase the slope without the authorization or knowledge of the Board of Trustees. Because Carter took it upon himself to do this, no one knows whether Carter has factored into the estimated $1-million purchase price the improvements made to that slope with our public monies. Carter has stated that he is doing this with the Board’s approval, yet NO such Board authorization exists.

9. Carter was notified nine months ago that CUSD does not own the outfield portion of the ball field at SJHHS and has continued to use public monies to maintain it, yet has failed to take ANY action to resolve this issue.

10. Carter stated a District-wide Needs Assessment would be completed in August. It’s now January, and he has failed to deliver the results he promised. In the meantime, older schools that would have been served by the Needs Assessment continue to deteriorate, a fact that Carter knows well through communications from concerned parents.  The board canceled the various Carter-created subcommittees as there were questions as to whether or not the committees complied with the Brown Act.  In addition, information was being presented to the Board members in pieces, thus when the item came before the full Board, the members of the public who were able to attend all subcommittee meetings had more information than the Board of Trustees. The committees caused confusion, and the information presented to the Trustees to enable them to make important decisions lacked continuity.

CUSD Update

On Jan. 12, the teacher’s union again rallied its members to attend the Capo school board meeting, which began at 7 p.m. It was the third consecutive meeting with standing room only.

Three people from the audience who spoke during public comments asked why Supt. Woodrow Carter is on administrative leave. While the trustees are prevented by law from discussing personnel matters, the Orange County Register has received documents about the controversy surrounding Carter. A copy of one of the documents appears on this week’s blog, “The Top 10 Reasons to Dismiss Carter.”

A parent revealed from the public microphone that Carter acted illegally with regard to the teacher’s union contract. Constituents throughout the district should question why newspapers haven’t published the full story. No information that was given to the Register or stated during public comments is confidential, and it should have come out at least a week ago.

A CUSD parent stated that Carter has had five jobs in 10 years, and he left each job amid controversy. Who at CUSD’s administration center is doing background checks?

Perhaps those who are providing Carter with cover believe they’ll be able to save his job. However, when his shenanigans with the teacher’s union contract become widely known, the furor over his departure should end abruptly.

The union has gone to great lengths to malign the board of trustees. Union bosses, CUSD administrators and some parents have crossed swords with anyone who would dare to criticize Carter or support the trustees. Prior to the Dec. 18 meeting, an email circulated by a Carter supporter instructed parents to attend the meeting and “throw shoes” at the trustees. A copy of the email was sent to this blog.

Publication of facts would go a long way in ending the union’s attack. Following all the comments at the Jan. 12 meeting, no parent’s remarks about the contract or Carter’s job history appeared in newspapers. Even with reporters sitting on the story, Carter’s days are numbered at CUSD.

Why Recall MacLean?

Those who follow city politics should come up with “The Top 10 Reasons to Recall Lance MacLean.”

When MacLean first won a council seat in 2002, voters swept him into office in their rush to sweep out former Councilwomen Susan Withrow and Sherri Butterfield. Withrow and Butterfield were arrogant, and they loved spending Other People’s Money. After six years of MacLean, some people might prefer to have the old gals back.

Most readers don’t want a history lesson; they merely want to know what he’s done to warrant a recall. It’s hard to limit the list to 10. Here’s a blog contributor’s list, which grew to the top 14 reasons:

1. MacLean recently voted lifetime medical benefits for himself, with a minimum estimated value of $250,000. The vote took place immediately after the Nov. 4 election – what a coincidence.
2. MacLean voted to double his council stipend and gave himself an additional $825 a month in deferred compensation, plus an extra several hundred dollars a year in stipends for the Redevelopment Agency’s closed-session meetings. Between the council compensation and the lifetime medical, he has now voted for himself a fourth pay raise.
3. Measure K: MacLean voted to push forward the first-ever tax increase in Mission Viejo and wrote the ballot argument in favor of the tax increase. During the summer of 2004, MacLean and Trish Kelley talked during a televised council meeting about all of the ideas they had for tax increases. Measure K failed.
4. MacLean negotiated a generous severance package for former city manager Dan Joseph and then donated to Joseph’s city council campaign a few months later.
5. Hothead embarrassment: MacLean was arrested at UCI for assault and battery on a co-worker at a concert. When a fellow employee didn’t immediately unlock a restroom as MacLean asked, he picked the guy up by the neck and pinned him against a wall. It took four police officers to control MacLean.
6. Why was UCI so eager to get rid of MacLean? Was it because he had threatened the university with a lawsuit if he wasn’t promoted? That’s not a reason to recall him – just a sidebar. MacLean also told a fellow council member to “shut the hell up” during a closed-session meeting, and he heckles the city’s newest council member, Cathy Schlicht. His anger issues make him unfit to serve.
7. MacLean in his 2002 campaign said his job at UCI involved supervising student assistants, which he diverted to working on his campaign. On the city council, he routinely approves the city check register, no questions asked about Easelgate, Firegate and Dumpgate. He initiated the city’s Rose Parade float. He moved the float forward during an economic crisis. In October 2008, the city sold off two bonds to pay bills while the city staff’s yearlong 20th anniversary party continued.
8. What about meetings Lance attended for the toll roads – was he taking vacation time from UCI when attending daylong meetings five or more times per month? Speaking of the toll roads, those who attended the 241 hearings said MacLean won the liar’s contest, and he got the most boos from the audience. On Jan. 5, he eluded to a potential lawsuit the TCA might file, suing the taxpayers.
9. Whenever MacLean wishes to slam residents in his relentless push for more high-density housing in Mission Viejo, he has run to the L.A. Times. He’s been quoted in the Times saying Mission Viejo residents are elitists and racists.
10. MacLean went on record in his failure to support keeping O’Neill school open. He voted against signing a letter of support for the school and parents who were fighting to save O’Neill.
11. MacLean is truth-challenged. As an example, he said he was opposed to using the city’s redevelopment tax money for corporate subsidies (stated on a questionnaire for the Saddleback Republican Assembly when seeking SRA’s endorsement).
12. Opposing open government – Lance opposed recording the closed sessions and letting the public address items on the consent calendar.
13. MacLean claims he’s a fiscal conservative, but he consistently votes in favor of bureaucracy and bureaucrats – putting the City Clerk under the City Manager, opposing an audit of CUSD and promoting government welfare housing projects in a built-out city.
14. MacLean has fought against residents who opposed cell towers in parks and near homes. He’s fought to bring in more housing, more high-density projects, more traffic and more overcrowding.

MacLean is the third vote in the MacLean-Ury-Kelley majority. Recalling MacLean would not only take out an arrogant hothead, voters could change the majority to one that actually represents them.

The Buzz

According to OC Register business columnist Jan Norman’s Jan. 16 article, California Enterprise Zones “don’t create new jobs and may even reduce the number of businesses within their boundaries.” She adds, “The Franchise Tax Board estimates enterprise zone incentives and tax breaks allowed participating businesses to avoid $330 million in state taxes in 2005. Critics claim the businesses would have implemented the programs without any incentives.” Read on at http://jan.freedomblogging.com/2009/01/16/states-enterprise-zones-dont-work/7590 There’s a message in it for Mission Viejo’s city officials who think they should use taxpayer funds to meddle in private enterprise.

***

Those wrapping up Mission Viejo’s Right-To-Vote initiative are now collecting all petitions and verifying signatures. Everyone should get the petitions turned in as soon as possible. Those who still have petitions with signatures should call (949) 837-1997 to coordinate getting them in.

***

What’s the No. 1 topic among Mission Viejo residents regarding their city government? Volunteers working at storefronts gathering Right-To-Vote signatures say it’s still the Rose Parade float. A resident last week said, “The city might think it can persuade everyone to believe there’s no outcry. All the PR and newspaper articles aren’t changing anyone’s mind. I’m tired of the in-your-face barrage of stories, and they just make me angrier.”

***

Cause-Effect: Take a look at the stream of press releases emanating from city hall about the float. On Aug. 21, the Register printed an article, “Officials aim to raise city profile through Rose Parade entry.” City Manager Dennis Wilberg was quoted, and Lance MacLean was “credited” with initiating the float. On Jan. 7, the Register posted a poll asking readers to vote on what the city gained from the float. At the end of the first day, the choice of “An improve image and a higher profile” trailed badly. Whoa, not a good outcome for Wilberg, MacLean and crew who pushed the hoax on taxpayers. Which white knight came to the rescue and pumped in hundreds of votes for this choice on Jan. 8, bringing up the percentage from single digits to 28 percent?

***

Readers who saw the Register’s Jan. 7 online story about the float may have noticed a comment from someone posting anonymously as Shannistew on Jan. 8. The comment was in response to other readers who panned the float as an inappropriate use of tax funds. Shannistew began: “Oh puhleeeze. Criticizing a great city management team for finding a unique branding and marketing idea that also generated tremendous community spirit is just wrong.” City officials might as well put their names on their posts.

***

Wilberg’s weekly newsletter intended for city hall insiders is being widely circulated. In stark contrast to the city’s puff pieces for public consumption, Wilberg’s insider notes sometimes depart from happy talk. His Jan. 16 post describes the impact of the state’s cash crunch on the city’s receiving payments: “… starting February 1 the State may start issuing IOUs for many of our revenues that we receive from them … .” With city officials scurrying to liquidate assets in 2008 before the state’s problems came crashing down on them, what will they do next to make ends meet? Clearly, trimming costs and cutting back on the bloated city staff numbers are not considerations.