Somebody Stop Them

While the threat of losing the Casta golf course caused uproar among residents, top city employees didn’t seem to care one way or another. The golf course isn’t within view of city hall: out of sight, out of mind. When Sunrise hinted it might give a portion of the golf course to the city for a park, officials weren’t interested. The offer was probably a hoax anyway, but the city didn’t want a 70-acre lawn with water hazards. A municipal golf course may have appealed to residents but not the city staff.

City officials’ attention is instead focused on the vicinity of La Paz and Marguerite. At noon, city employees emerge from city hall in search of food. Several eateries are nearby, but wouldn’t it be nice if the employees had a pedestrian atmosphere, upscale shops and a wide variety of restaurants? And shouldn’t Mission Viejo residents accommodate them?

The very idea that top administrators might have to hoof by Big Lots could put them in a funk for the rest of the day. They might need to console themselves with a spending spree: 500 easels, 500 disposable cameras or a $362,000 Rose Parade float.

Very few residents agree with city officials’ plans for the retail center despite the come-on of upscale shops and alfresco dining. Informed residents realize they don’t get to pick and choose what appeals to them. A pedestrian atmosphere isn’t for the benefit of those who live nearby and need to shop; it’s for city hall employees who are walking and not buying. Real shoppers can’t carry bags of merchandise or groceries for a quarter-mile down a promenade. Mission Viejo residents don’t walk or ride bikes to shopping centers. And forget about open-air restaurants anywhere near the creek. The stench from the “water treatment facility” precludes outdoor activity of any kind, including breathing.

Residents also don’t get a say in how owners will upgrade their property. Councilman Frank Ury brought the Urban Land Institute to city hall, and its study found that the proposed upgrades would involve apartments on the top floor of stores. Otherwise, the upgrades aren’t financially feasible. The plan is to raze the buildings and rebuild with multiple stories, mixing shops with housing. The apartments alone are deal-breakers. In addition to too much traffic in the vicinity and no place to park, the site is in the Capo school district. Newhart Middle School doesn’t need more students, particularly economically disadvantaged ones. Students from the poorest high-density neighborhoods of San Juan Capistrano are already bused to Newhart and other Mission Viejo schools.

When the La Paz/Marguerite intersection was reworked more than 10 years ago, the area looked like a war zone. Completion of the intersection took so long that some businesses permanently closed because customers couldn’t get to stores and they wouldn’t tolerate the inconvenience. No one should invite the city to apply its incompetence to a major remodel of a retail center, particularly after the three-year-long mess along Crown Valley. The Right-To-Vote Initiative, if passed, would give voters the chance to stop such a project – which they should do.

City Hall, Master of Spin

Why does city hall make a practice of exaggerating and understating when the truth would do? Subscribers to the city’s email newsletters get a daily blast of bias.

As an example of spin, the city’s Jan. 28 eNewsletter description of qualifying the Right-To-Vote Initiative was incomplete. Dale Tyler delivered more than 11,000 signatures to the city clerk on Jan. 26. As the next step, the Orange County Registrar of Voters will count and sample the signatures for validity. If sampling finds that the total number exceeds requirements to qualify for the ballot, the verification process is complete. If the sample doesn’t find adequate numbers, the RoV can order a full count. Instead of explaining the process, the city’s eNewsletter jumped to the full count, stating the cost will be $31,000.

Is the amount the point? For a city with an $80-million annual budget, $31,000 isn’t an unreasonable cost to determine the will of the people. The council approved spending considerably more on two phony city surveys that allegedly polled 400 residents to find their “happiness index.” The point is jumping to conclusions two days after the signatures were delivered. The city appears to have begun its PR campaign against the initiative by coming up with highest-cost scenarios, including a potential special election at $226,800. Council members have the option of adopting the initiative as law at no cost.

Blog readers can compare the city’s press release with the Orange County Register’s “news article,” which appears online, http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-initiative-council-2292489-mission-viejo The same information is missing about the process of validating signatures. When a newspaper adopts the figures and language of a city’s press release, should it be called reporting?

Reader comments within the OCR link note that council members could have saved everyone both the effort and cost if they had represented residents instead of outside interests in prior rezoning decisions.

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.

Latest Poll Sinks 2010 Float

The city staff and council seem to place great value on OC Register polls. In an article posted Jan. 7 on OCR’s Website, readers were asked, “What do you think Mission Viejo got from its investment in a Tournament of Roses float?” With a total of 1,636 votes cast, here are results as of Jan. 31:

• Nothing except the bills: 44 percent
• A greater sense of community: 36 percent
• An improved image and a higher profile: 20 percent

While votes surged for a short while for a “sense of community,” readers called foul after a high number of votes were cast late one night. The surge gave an appearance of one person casting hundreds of automated votes for a “sense of community.” Throughout the next three weeks, votes continued mount until “Nothing except the bills” led with 44 percent.

The Register posted another poll on Jan. 19 to ask “Should Mission Viejo Council Members get a pay increase? With 1,078 votes cast, the results as of Jan. 31 are:

• Yes: 8 percent
• No: 92 percent

The Jan. 19 poll was within an online article published after Councilwoman Cathy Schlicht asked council members to rescind their October decision to double their monthly stipend. Councilman John Paul Ledesma seconded the motion but withdrew his second following discussion. No vote was taken.

CUSD Update

OC Register reporter Scott Martindale’s article on CUSD’s troubles was published Jan. 30. The article attempts to vindicate the position of Supt. Woodrow Carter. In January, this blog published a CUSD parent’s email outlining the top 10 reasons Carter should be dismissed. This blog stands by the list as on-point with facts.

Martindale tries but fails to discredit the list. Contrary to his statement that the Top 10 List “accused the superintendent of orchestrating an effort to get the union’s contract signed without the trustees’ knowledge,” that’s not true. The list states that Carter and his staff entered into a tentative agreement with the teachers union without board authority. The list states that Carter directed staff to sign a TLA with the teacher’s union, which was dated Oct. 15.

Martindale quotes CUSD administrator Suzette Lovely: “I called Mr. Carter from the meeting to get concurrence (on whether it was appropriate to sign the contract), which is protocol. There was concurrence. I signed the contract.” Therefore, Carter directed Lovely to sign the agreement.

The contract was signed on Oct. 15, 2008, and Martindale says the trustees weren’t notified until Fri., Oct. 17. Therefore, the trustees didn’t have knowledge until after the agreement was signed. Additionally, the document Carter provided to the trustees doesn’t state a dollar value of the concessions that were agreed upon. He sent it to the trustees on Friday – likely in the Friday packet.

On Mon., Oct. 20, the board met in closed session with Lovely and took no action on the TLA. Does that indicate they didn’t agree with what was presented? They met again on Nov. 3 and voted “no” on the agreement, confirming they didn’t agree with the TLA.

Has anyone seen any document that outlines the cost associated with the agreement? By checking the FCMT Website, one can find article after article about California school districts negotiating with the district unions to reduce benefits or wages to save jobs. It would be financially irresponsible to sign an agreement in CUSD providing employees of the district with Step and Column (automating increases) and absorption of all benefit increases, especially without knowing the costs associated with concessions and given the economic crisis.

Was it later revealed in a CUCPSTA meeting that the cost was around $4 million with an unknown cost of the benefits? For an HMO, 100 percent of the employees and all dependents’ benefits are paid by the district. What if all the employees switched to HMO? The financial outcome could be disastrous.

If Martindale is correct and Lovely (with Carter’s concurrence) can sign any agreement without the board’s authorization, and if the board doesn’t go along, it causes a “firestorm,” then no wonder CUSD has financial problems. Per Lovely, this is protocol.

Since the trustees by law can only authorize, as a board, by vote, where is the record of authorization for Lovely’s signing the agreement? And where did the board authorize the agreement before she acted on the board’s behalf?

The trustees by law must remain silent on Carter and the negotiations. Lately at school board meetings, employees in the audience yell, heckle and act like two-year-olds. This blog has suggested that community members attend a board meeting to observe the outrageous behavior of the CUSD employees who say it’s all about the kids. This blog concludes it’s not. It’s all about power, money and, now, administrators trying to delay the inevitable and warranted outcome – Carter’s dismissal.

The Buzz column, Jan. 30

Since The Buzz began publishing excerpts from City Manager Dennis Wilberg’s weekly reports, “The Week That Was,” his messages have been getting shorter. Last week, he wrote a paragraph about staff members who attended a seminar on green buildings and a paragraph about upgrading the city’s Website. That’s it – 40 hours of work, five workdays and 152.3 employees – two paragraphs. He should call his report “The Week That Wasn’t.”

***

A Mission Viejo watchdog doubts the city staff’s claim that “thousands” of Mission Viejo residents volunteered to work on the Rose Parade float. Observers who stopped by during the work sessions said the numbers were greatly inflated. Counting cars in the parking lot also pointed to low turnout unless volunteers were carpooling 20 to a car. The watchdog requested public records, asking the names and addresses of the “thousands,” and what did he get? Examples are Mary, Suzie, Sally, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. The list gives no last names or addresses. Perhaps it includes the same crew that constructed all those easels last spring: Happy, Grumpy, Dopey, Doc, Sneezy, Sleepy and Bashful, all with the same address, Fantasyland.

***

Six months ago when another activist asked for public records to get names of “hundreds of volunteers” who constructed easels, city administrator Keith Rattay responded that the list of names had been discarded. If there had actually been any volunteers building easels, the city would have rounded them up for a dog-and-phony awards presentation at a council meeting. Since a city contractor, Jamey Clark, built all the easels, no public ceremony occurred. Clark received his “award” in the form of checks spread over many months, and it would take a forensic audit to discover the amount of his award.

***

Ex-council member Joe Soto of San Juan Capistrano will have to answer for raising his prices. After Soto’s landscaping business performed work for the county, someone noticed that his fixed-amount fees were subject to change. For example, nearly all bills for one county park had been altered. SJC voters wisely removed Soto from office last November. However, he received the OC Republican Central Committee’s endorsement despite letters to Chairman Scott Baugh telling the county power club to stay out of city politics. According to Jan. 28 news reports, the Or. Co. D.A., backed up by Sheriff’s Dept. deputies, served search warrants on Soto’s home and office. Soto described the investigation as “an audit.”

***

The city staff admits the Rose Parade float cost Mission Viejo taxpayers at least $362,000, and the number is still rising. How will staffers distribute additional costs across various departments to keep them from public view? Will “park maintenance” expenses rise dramatically for the next several months as they did following the city staff’s 20th anniversary bash last spring?