Budgeting and Spending Sprees
by Dale Tyler

On the agenda for the final City Council meeting of 2009, item No. 7 on the consent calendar calls for the expenditure of at least $150,000 for “shade covers” as follows:

On October 18, 2009, the City Council asked staff to seek bids for the installation of shade covers over the bleachers of 8 little league fields. The fields proposed are 4 fields at Youth Athletic Park, 2 fields at Gilleran Park, 1 field at Bebee Park, and 1 field at Curtis Park. Staff has prepared a set of specifications to seek bids for purchase and installation of the bleacher covers. The covers being proposed are approximately 18’ x26’. The nature of the construction is to dig holes in the current hardscape, install rebar cages filled with concrete and bolts, and then bolt the covers to the footings. The preliminary estimate for this effort is in the range of $140,000 - $150,000 for all 16 covers. Staff has attached a schedule for advertising, award, and installation. Once the bids are received, staff will recommend a resolution be processed to fund this effort based on Council approval.

There are a number of interesting things about this expenditure. Among these are the approval process, the lack of public input, the use of the consent calendar to stifle debate and the fact the city has almost no money in unallocated reserves.

Most interesting is that it did not go through any kind of budget process. Normally, projects like this are considered by the Community Services Commission and the city staff, placed on a list of priorities and then, if there are sufficient funds and they are the highest priority item, the expenditure is scheduled to be made in the next budget cycle.

In this case, the item came up from a single council person, Frank Ury, and did not follow any of the usual procedures. He claims that there were “a number” of letters from citizens requesting this improvement. Even if there were citizens wanting shade covers, there is no reason to make them the highest priority expenditure in the city. By spending this money on shade covers, instead of restoring full funding for the library or resuming deferred maintenance on our decaying slopes, Ury and staff are sending a message that the budget process means nothing and that any expenditure that strikes the fancy of a city councilperson will be considered above all others. Ury, always the bully, is trying to curry favor, perhaps to gain some campaign contributions.

Then there is the lack of public input. Although the item has been discussed during one other city council meeting, it has not been up for discussion at the Community Services Commission. The lack of public process means that Ury and the staff are fairly sure there would be an outcry and many problems with getting this project approved. Like the ill-fated Oso Viejo dog park, failing to involve the community just adds to the resentment people feel about the autocratic way the City Council and staff run our city.

Using the consent calendar to prevent public input is a time-honored tradition that goes back to Susan Withrow and Sherri Butterfield. During their tenure, before they were thrown out in 2002 by a tremendous voter backlash, they often used so-called agenda management to try and prevent the public from learning what is going on at City Hall. Ury, Kelly and MacLean voted to make it impossible for the public to force items off the consent calendar for discussion. Of course, another councilperson like Cathy Schlicht or J.P. Ledesma can pull an item for discussion, but why try and hide it among the routine city business?

Finally, there is the question of the city's current financial condition and whether we should be spending what little reserves we have remaining on luxuries like shade covers. Children have been playing Little League and other sports in the city since before it became a city. During that time, parents and others who came to watch them play provided their own shade, mostly in the form of hats. This has worked fine for many years. Covered bleachers are an extravagance that we can ill afford. It has been reported that we have less than $400K in unallocated reserves. We have cut millions from city slope maintenance programs and library support due to the city's decreased tax collections. Yet, Ury thinks the most important expenditure in the city is shade covers. He needs to wake up and read the financial reports. Given the usual cost overruns on almost every city project, the proposed $150K will grow and likely exceed our current unallocated reserves by the time the project is completed.

The citizens of Mission Viejo are not being served by the current council majority of MacLean, Ury and Kelly. Hopefully, they will get the message that we are tired of the out-of-control spending, the waste of taxpayer dollars on luxury projects and the general decline of city infrastructure maintenance. MacLean, Ury and Kelly, along with city staff, are spendthrifts who won't stop until they run out of checks in the city checkbook.

Old Forces are Reemerging
Letter to the Editor

In the Dec. 5 Mission Viejo Dispatch, Allan Pilger does a great job of summarizing the present political situation in Mission Viejo. I would highly suggest reading it at
http://missionviejodispatch.com/?p=13023&cpage=1#comment-4323jk Mr Pilger again has summarized the issues at hand. 

I can never forget the first time I got involved with city politics. It was over the extended and very costly installation of The Lake Promenade. 

Getting answers about costs, schedules and objectives of this costly project from either then-councilwomen Sherri Butterfield or Susan Withrow (both of these folks were convicted violators of the Brown Act ) was impossible, and they were in charge.  Effectively, I was told to mind my business and just go away and be a good boy. They didn't care to answer a citizen’s questions.

Once again, these same old forces for deceit and deception are reemerging and using one of the candidates and his Web site to debase and besmirch certain Mission Viejo citizens.  They don't answer issues at hand; they would rather castigate the concerned.

This coming recall election of Lance MacLean in February is again a crossroads for the city of Mission Viejo. The very issue of open and honest government is at stake. Do we again return to the arrogance of a selected few folks who mislead and exploit the citizens, or do we choose to move forward and promote open and honest government?

I choose transparency and honesty!

Joe Holtzman
Mission Viejo

Recall Update

Numerous incidents have been reported under the heading “Recall Update” because that’s an accurate description. The recall of Councilman Lance MacLean began in March, and his antics are the outcome of trying to save his council seat. His latest desperate move will be aired during the Dec. 6 council meeting. He apparently will offer to give up his entitlement to the lifetime healthcare benefits that he voted for more than a year ago.

Ever since the council majority of Lance MacLean, Frank Ury and Trish Kelley (MUK) approved lifetime healthcare benefits for three terms of service, community members have been ready to vote them out of office. The MUKsters added the benefits immediately after the November 2008 election when they thought the outrage would die down before the next election in November 2010.

MacLean has predicted from the beginning that he’ll be recalled, and he’s probably right. With each month, he’s become more desperate to survive. In October, he tried to capture anti-recall votes with his proposal to put a dog park in Oso Viejo Park. The motion passed on Oct. 5, and it made a handful of dog-park enthusiasts happy. Residents near the targeted site quickly mobilized and made the council overturn approval of the site. For MacLean’s campaign, it was a net loss.

In his latest drama, MacLean is offering to give up his entitlement to the healthcare benefits. Apparently, he reads this blog and knows that self-enrichment was the No. 1 reason voters signed the recall petition. Perhaps he thinks he can press the “undo” button and his voting record will disappear.

If Lance is still reading this blog, here’s another problem for him. Residents don’t want him on the council because they don’t trust him. Given a chance, they’ll list specific reasons and cite his record.

Larry Gilbert posted an article on the county’s premier blog that covers the “Mission Viejo healthcare debate.” http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/12/health-care-debate-mission-viejo-style The reaction to MacLean was negative at the beginning of the recall effort, and it has continued to worsen despite his attempts to improve his image.

Beyond Arrogance and Big Spending

Current council majority members (Lance MacLean, Frank Ury and Trish Kelley) each won by comfortable margins in their first council victories, but all three dropped in popularity the next time they ran. MacLean barely won his reelection bid in 2006, retaining his seat by less than 100 votes. When workers were gathering signatures last summer to put MacLean’s recall on the ballot, they often heard comments that other council members should be recalled as well.

Current council members aren’t the first in the city’s history to be at odds with residents. Prior to the city election of 2002, former council majority members Sherri Butterfield and Susan Withrow were similarly unpopular. Voters remember their wasteful spending as well as their arrogance. When the old majority put the names of sitting council members on public facilities, it may have been the last straw.

In an article on MissionViejoDispatch.com last week, Allan Pilger describes how both council majorities, in 2002 and 2009, turned against city watchdogs who exposed their bad decisions. Read Pilger’s article at http://missionviejodispatch.com/?p=13023

When council candidates are running for office, they often solicit city activists to campaign for them. After the election, activists are right to expect council members to remain consistent with their campaign platforms. Holding an elected official accountable isn’t mean-spirited or vindictive.

When Butterfield and Withrow were voted out of office in 2002, they never acknowledged that they were out of touch with residents. Instead, they said the activists had turned voters against them with relentless attacks. As an odd twist, Butterfield and Withrow are back in the picture, supporting MacLean as well as a candidate to replace him, Dave Leckness, as a weird Plan B. The rhetoric is the same as in 2002, with Butterfield and Withrow claiming the activists are nothing but troublemakers.

Who are the activists? Most of them work outside as well as inside the political arena. One of the distinctions of their community service is hard work without fanfare. For example, those organizing blood banks and food banks don’t often get their name in lights. The activists are typical of mainstream residents while council majority members, who should be typical of residents, are not.

MacLean’s voting record alone is in the face of residents, and his history of violence is a well-known liability. His acts have well surpassed the arrogance and big spending that voters reacted to when throwing Butterfield and Withrow out of office in 2002.

The Buzz

Mission Viejo residents are seeing Councilman Lance MacLean’s anti-recall signs on streets around town, and they’re not pleased. The signs began appearing on Nov. 25 – the day before Thanksgiving. The black and red messages were prominent near Marguerite Pkwy and Crown Valley when Christmas shoppers headed toward the mall during the weekend of Nov. 28-29. The only reaction has been offense at MacLean’s attempt to put his campaign into high gear during the Christmas season. The outcome has been to remind everyone why MacLean is being recalled.

***

While no one has seen MacLean posting anti-recall signs, he was observed in his 2006 reelection campaign as a one-person operation. No one stood on corners for him, and very few of his signs were in residents’ yards. Last week, some of MacLean’s anti-recall signs turned up in the yards of those at the forefront in support of the recall effort.

***

When the city council majority was forced to rescind its vote to put a dog park in Oso Viejo Park, Councilwoman Trish Kelley told the city staff to move the project forward elsewhere. With the recall election scheduled for Feb. 2, Kelley is running out of time to wedge a dog park into another neighborhood. The city staff is complying with her decree, and public meetings are scheduled this month. A dog park project that has been on ice for 10 years has become a top priority.

***

How should the matter of a dog park be decided? The concept has had a following for years, but no progress was made until MacLean saw an opportunity to capitalize on the interest to save his seat on the council. Residents are suggesting that a dog park should be on the November 2010 ballot. Let the voters decide how much support the project has and what it should cost. With the two current possible sites being Lower Curtis Park and an undeveloped plot along Felipe near Fieldcrest, neither place is suitable without major cost, which would include resolving accessibility issues.

***

Records show that the city of San Juan Capistrano listened to its residents’ concerns about drop-off zones near schools. A recent SJC council decision reflects a recommendation from its Transportation Commission to prohibit stopping on a street near Ambuel School inside a neighborhood. The council said the area may not be used as a drop-off zone. Homeowners who live near Newhart Middle School, Capo Valley High School and other schools where such traffic and stopping are a problem should take note that something can be done, despite the lack of remedies in Mission Viejo.

***

Will homeowners in Mission Ridge (near Oso and Marguerite Parkway) get a Christmas present this year of Peace on La Paja Lane? Observers say probably not. The so-called home remodel that has been allowed to continue for more than nine years is unlikely to be completed in December. Those following the weekly updates from the contractor to the city say progress isn’t on schedule and completion dates for interior and exterior work have been missed all along the way.