Wilberg is Wrong Again

On March 30, this blog published an article, “Councilwoman Interferes in Recall.” Here’s the opening paragraph:

“Councilwoman Trish Kelley has been working behind the scenes to thwart the recall of Councilman Lance MacLean. On March 27, recall supporters learned that Kelley had called a store manager near the area where residents were signing the recall petition. Kelley identified herself to the manager as the former mayor of Mission Viejo and directed him to tell signature gatherers to leave.”

The article was picked up by OrangeJuiceBlog.com, a widely read county blog.

After the incident was publicized, Ms. Kelley should have admitted she was wrong. She should have apologized to the store for harassing its manager and to the activists for attempting to deprive them of their First Amendment rights. Instead, City Manager Dennis Wilberg jumped in with an email to the county blogger, impugning him for not verifying the information. Kelley wrote of the blog story in her email, “It’s a blatant lie.” Ms. Kelley has never said she didn’t call the store.

Wilberg erred in assuming the blogger hadn’t verified the information, and he was wrong to believe Kelley’s denial of the incident. Five witnesses have confirmed the information presented on both blogs, and all testimony reaffirms that: 1) Ms. Kelley was the caller. 2) She called the store to complain about recall supporters. 3) She directed the manager to tell the signature gatherers to leave the storefront. 4) The manager came out of the store and spoke with the signature gatherers but didn’t ask them to leave. 5) He came out a second time hours later and talked with the signature gatherers. 6) In both conversations, the manager spoke of his distress. 7) Two days after the incident, on March 27, the manager told an activist that he had received a call from a councilwoman who said she was a former mayor. 8) The manager described the call, including the councilwoman’s comments and his responses.

The manager reiterated the same information three weeks later on April 18. When asked if he personally knew the caller, Ms. Kelley, he said he didn’t personally know her. That’s not the entire story, which grows worse for Ms. Kelley.

For three weeks following the initial publication, Wilberg has continued emailing the county blogger and making accusations the story is false.

This isn’t the first time Ms. Kelley has used her clout as a councilwoman against residents. As another example, she was campaigning several years ago on a school campus (which the district prohibits) when she spotted two parents with a child handing out flyers for Kelley’s archrival, then-councilwoman Gail Reavis. Kelley went into the school building and, within minutes, school officials came out riding a golf cart and chased the family down. They threatened the parents with arrest and frightened their daughter. Meanwhile, Kelley and her king of character, Bill Klimek, continued distributing political flyers for Kelley’s candidates on school property.

With regard to the incident at the storefront, does the city manager’s job include defending council members who use their official titles to harass store managers and attempt to deprive citizens of their First Amendment rights? When Ms. Kelley identified herself to the manager as a current council member and former mayor, she wasn’t acting as a private citizen.

Councilman Lance MacLean isn’t the only council member who is unfit to serve. As the only one who’s being recalled, he’s simply the worst.

Mission Viejo Draws 600 TEA Partiers
Press Release

Mission Viejo, CA, April 17, 2009 – Organizers of the Mission Viejo Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party estimate 600 people attended the April 15 tax protest. The rally took place on the corners of La Paz and Marguerite from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. as part of the nationwide tax protest.

Saddleback Republican Assembly members organizing the event say it drew residents from Mission Viejo as well as neighboring communities. Participants of all ages lined the sidewalks along La Paz and Marguerite. During the rally, organizers circulated two letters of protest that were each signed by more than 500 people.

The first protest letter was addressed to Gov. Schwarzenegger and California Legislators. Following is the message, which was signed by 513 people:

“When you plugged California’s $42-billion budget hole in February, the increases in the personal income tax and the vehicle license fee fell squarely on the shoulders of working-class Californians. You had your say, and we’ll have ours in the May 19 Special Election. It’s time to say NO to more taxes, and we expect you to decrease state spending! The tea bag [pictured on the document] is a symbol of our protest."

The second letter, addressed to President Obama and Members of Congress, was signed by 523 people:

“We do not believe it is patriotic to pay more taxes. We do not approve of $1.4 billion in new taxes, $636 billion in higher energy taxes, the staggering redistribution of wealth and wasteful spending as a cure for the economic crisis. We, the undersigned, are sending you this symbolic tea bag [pictured on the document] to protest raising taxes on every American.”

“Diamond Tom” Speiss provided music during the rally from a microphone on one of the corners. Mark Dobrilovic emceed the event and introduced speakers, including Mission Viejo Councilmembers Cathy Schlicht and John Paul Ledesma. State Assemblyman Jeff Miller’s office sent Brian Anders, who addressed the crowd, and Steve Thornton, chief of staff for Congressman Gary Miller, was in attendance. Tina Neukirch joined Dobrilovic at the microphone to read her original poem, “Tea Party Anthem.”

Members of SRA say their next effort will be the defeat of Propositions 1-A through 1-F in the May 19 statewide Special Election.

Other reports about the rally can be found on MissionViejoDispatch.com and the county’s premier news blog, OrangeJuiceBlog.com. A TEA Party participant, Rick Moore, posted a story with photos on http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2009/04/mission-viejo-tax-day-tea-party.html

Craig’s Picks for May 19
by Craig Alexander

The May 19 Special Election is just around the corner. Many of you will soon receive absentee ballots in the mail. While this is an off-year Special Election, your vote is important. The six Propositions are all related to the budget deal reached in Sacramento in February. I am no fan of that deal. It is the largest tax increase in California history; it did not result in any real reductions in the state government; and it is an all-around bad deal for taxpayers. One of these propositions (Prop. 1A) actually extends the "temporary" taxes for one to two extra years.

The politicians in Sacramento have had their say by increasing your taxes. Now it’s your turn to have your say. You can vote NO on these propositions (that’s what I am doing), thus sending a message to the tax-and-spend crowd that you will not agree to more taxes and you expect your Legislature and Governor to decrease state spending!

Following are my recommendations on all six Propositions and why I am voting no on them: [Condensed descriptions]

Proposition 1A: NO. Titled the Budget Stabilization Act. If passed, it would establish a “spending cap,” and a percentage of the funds collected by the state would be deposited into a rainy day fund. The “temporary” tax add-ons passed in February to the sales tax, vehicle tax and income taxes would be extended for one to two more years. To vote “yes” would reward politicians for increasing the budget by more than 40 percent in five years.

Proposition 1B: NO. If passed, the first $9.3 billion going into the Prop 1A rainy day fund would go to public schools and colleges. I call Prop 1B the payoff or bribe for the California Teachers Association union so they will not oppose Prop 1A. A “no” vote will tell politicians to cut the size of government.

Proposition 1C: NO. This is called the Lottery Modernization Act, and it would authorize borrowing against future lottery proceeds to avoid cutting down on spending. This proposal would repeal the current requirement that lottery revenue be used only for education. This proposition would give politicians another cookie jar to steal from.

Proposition 1D: NO. Titled the Children and Families Trust Fund Act. It would authorize a fund shift of $268 million in tobacco tax revenue currently earmarked for early childhood development under the terms of California Prop 10 (1998). That money, plus other funds, would be used to pay for other state government health and human services programs for children. If those programs are important, the state should continue to fund them from the general fund, not rob Peter to pay Paul.

Proposition 1E: NO. This is very similar to Prop 1D except it picks the pocket of 2004’s Prop 63 (Mental Health Services Act of 2004) rather than Prop 10 from 1998. For the same reasons as Prop 1D, I recommend a NO vote on Prop 1E.

Proposition 1F: NO. If passed, it would prohibit the commission that sets salary levels of certain statewide elected officials and members of the Legislature from increasing their salaries if the state budget will end in a deficit that year. Of all the propositions, this is the only one that might not be objectionable. However, I am voting NO on it. It is part of a package of bad deals. The amount of increased salaries is very small compared with overall shortfalls, and it really does nothing to resolve the overall budget shortfalls.
 

The Buzz

Councilman Frank Ury announced in his campaign literature last August that the Crown Valley widening project was finished. With a whopper like that, Ury’s political career should have been finished. Instead, 16,928 residents voted to keep him in office in the November 2008 election. Last week, Saddleback Valley News gave an update on the Crown Valley PORKway project. Readers should conclude from the article that the city won’t meet its currently projected completion at the end of May. If a survey were taken, perhaps it would find that 16,928 residents still believe the road was finished last August.

***

The April 17 SVN update about Crown Valley states that project manager Mark Chagnon “estimates the cost of the project may be $1 million to $2 million over budget.” Isn’t it interesting that the project is allegedly almost finished, and no one knows when it will be done or how much it will cost? The article ends with “The city may ask the contractor to do corrective work after inspection, which could lead to more work on the roadway.” What really needs to happen is for voters to do corrective work in City Hall.

***

Supporters of the effort to Recall Councilman Lance MacLean report they’ve reached the one-third mark in the signature drive that began March 18. Approximately 9,300 valid signatures are needed by the Aug. 25 deadline to qualify for a recall election. Residents signing the petition often ask how a recall works. If the recall qualifies for the ballot, the election will have two parts. First, should MacLean be recalled (yes or no)? If the majority of those voting decide MacLean should be recalled, the second question on the same ballot determines his replacement. The second part is an open election for MacLean’s seat. Whoever gets the most votes wins, and MacLean cannot run as a candidate to replace himself.

***

Thanks to Saddleback Republican Assembly for quickly putting together the April 15 anti-tax rally. SRA members said they decided to sponsor the event when no one else was hosting a TEA Party in South County. During the rally, many who attended said they’d never been involved in a protest before. Rally participants brought their families, including parents, grandparents, young children and teenagers. A parent who brought his children told an SRA member, “The rally was a good experience for us. We talked about government, history and economics.”

***

City Manager Dennis Wilberg evidently couldn’t find much city biz to report in his April 17 weekly insider update, “The Week That Was.” Instead of covering City Hall, he reported on Lake Mission Viejo activities. The lake is privately owned and has its own directors. As usual, the city staff has a tough time distinguishing private ownership from public property, which would explain its meddling in shopping centers at La Paz and Marguerite. As a related matter, MUK majority members (MacLean, Ury and Kelley) are now making a big deal of saying “thanks but no thanks” to a study they commissioned recommending that the stores at La Paz and Marguerite be razed and rebuilt with apartments on top. The council never said “thanks but no thanks” to the study as they now claim. MUKsters made the statement only after the recall effort of MacLean picked up steam.

***

Wilberg’s insider newsletter also included a description about “public outreach” to civic organizations. His report told of city staff members making presentations about the city’s storm water management efforts to two organizations. Wilberg tells of diverting Public Works Department employees to public relations when they should be working on infrastructure, slope maintenance and road repair. He states, “The department will continue to actively seek opportunities to share information with our community organizations.” His confusion over the function of city employees sheds light on why an 18-month road widening project is now into its fourth year and millions of dollars over budget.