The Case Against MacLean

News reporters called several Mission Viejo bloggers last week to ask if Councilman Lance MacLean will face a recall. The bloggers said yes.

Recall papers haven’t been released, and no one has discussed specifics. One activist told an OC Weekly reporter that the grounds are limited to indisputable points documented with public records.

If anyone had asked how long ago the talk of a recall began, it was shortly after day one. MacLean was first elected in 2002, running as a conservative Republican promoting open government and fiscal responsibility. His former supporters say they were shocked at how quickly he abandoned his platform – mere days after his election. One of his campaign battle cries had been to sell the city manager’s $6,000 desk on eBay. After the election, he said it was a joke. Instead of firing then-City Manager Dan Joseph, who had become the center of controversy, MacLean became his protector. When Joseph was terminated in October 2003 amid his threats to sue the city, MacLean fought to give him an excessively generous severance package and other parting gifts.

Early in 2003, MacLean announced from the dais that he didn’t intend to listen to residents. During a council meeting he said, “This might not make some people happy, but I’ll be using my own ideas.” It was an understatement. When redevelopment came along, he championed corporate welfare. When affordable housing became an issue, he called Mission Viejo residents elitists and racists because they objected to more housing of any kind in a built-out city. The L.A. Times published his remarks.

Since this blog’s 2005 inception it has documented MacLean’s insults, arrogant behavior and serious mistakes, including his October 2007 arrest for assault and battery on a UCI co-worker.

MacLean has offended entire neighborhoods and made groups of residents angry. He’s been at odds with homeowners over powerlines, cell antennas, school-related parking and cut-through traffic, school district issues, special interest issues, sweetheart-deal contracts, allegations of Brown Act violations, dismantling of the city’s best-ever planning commission, throwing away the city’s affordable housing plan (which led to huge problems and enormous costs), bringing in more housing and traffic, favoring housing on the Casta golf course, favoring apartments on top of stores at La Paz and Marguerite, and the list goes on.

MacLean championed a Rose Parade float, pushing it to a vote when the city was already facing financial decline. He voted to liquidate cell-antenna leases at fire-sale prices, and the city sold off two bonds in October to pay bills, just when the float was gearing up

MacLean’s personal attacks against former Councilwoman Gail Reavis became widely known, and he bragged to out-of-towners a year ago that the MUK majority (Council Members MacLean, Ury and Kelley) would force Reavis out of office. When Reavis announced in August that she wouldn’t seek reelection, MacLean on his own began challenging the ballot statements of two council candidates, Neil Lonsinger and Cathy Schlicht. Instead of allowing them to revise wording in their statements, he pushed the city toward suing both of them. Lonsinger and Schlicht used funds they needed for campaigning to hire attorneys and settle lawsuits.

In October, the council majority members voted to double their council stipend at a time when many residents were losing their jobs. The cost of the Rose Parade float reached $362,000, and the city rented two RVs from a limo business for a week as “staging areas” in Pasadena. The MUKsters then bestowed upon themselves lifetime medical benefits at the end of 12 years of part-time council service – an estimated value of more than $250,000 per person. In December, the city added new employees to its bloated ranks while more residents lost their jobs. Crown Valley Parkway is still unfinished, the community center expansion ran three times over budget, and Oso Parkway will become Oso ParkingLot as the next mismanaged project. The MUKsters regularly approve no-bid contracts, and they spent nearly $12 million more than the city took in last year.

If Ury and Kelley were equal partners, why not recall all three? Replacing MacLean with a responsible adult would have the same effect when most votes are split 3-2. As another aspect, MacLean is unpopular and has virtually no supporters.

MacLean has committed serious offenses on his own, and they’ll become the centerpiece of the case to remove him from office. His sole argument against being recalled will likely be the expense of a special election. If that gets traction with voters, a Vote-By-Mail election could reduce the cost. With Mayor Frank Ury proclaiming at each council meeting that the city is awash in cash, someone should ask him on camera if the cost of an election would even be noticed. Otherwise, those supporting the recall will have to convince voters that keeping MacLean would be far more expensive than getting rid of him.