What Does ‘Misconduct’ Mean?

Two blogs broke the news that City Manager Dennis Wilberg wants to change his contract, literally on the eve of the recall election. He’s asking the council to approve amendments during the Feb. 1 meeting. For details, read articles on MissionViejoDispatch.com http://missionviejodispatch.com/?p=14443
and OrangeJuiceBlog.com http://orangejuiceblog.com/

Among other amendments, Wilberg wants to change the definition of “misconduct” that could be grounds for dismissing him. Here’s a key paragraph from the Dispatch:

“Wilberg wants to rewrite his clause on misconduct, which is now defined in his contract as ‘dishonesty, fraud, self-dealing or willful misconduct.’ His attorney wants all of those eliminated, so that misconduct is redefined to include only misappropriation of funds or conviction of a felony (involving ‘moral turpitude’). The matter could have significant cost implications to taxpayers, because Wilberg is entitled to nine months’ severance pay if released for reasons other than misconduct.”

Residents who reacted to blog posts said Wilberg is worried that Councilman Lance MacLean will be recalled on Feb. 2. The current council majority (Lance MacLean, Frank Ury and Trish Kelley – the MUKsters) might go along with such shenanigans from Wilberg about redefining misconduct, and losing MacLean on Feb. 2 could end the lockstep majority votes. As an aside, why would any council member vote to lower the established standards of conduct for highly compensated city administrators?

If Mission Viejo voters decide in the Feb. 2 recall election that they want to change the direction of city hall, Wilberg has an opportunity to change his direction as well. Not only has he been an advocate of wasteful spending (e.g., Rose Parade float, pillars on Crown Valley, “Easelgate” anniversary party), he has used his official position and taxpayer funds to oppose the recall, which is illegal. On July 8, Wilberg was videotaped stalking and harassing a signature gatherer in front of the library. Witnesses say he appeared to use his city-provided cell phone to call and text as he attempted to intimidate workers who were gathering signatures on the recall petition.

Beyond Wilberg’s political involvement, he may have other problems after the Feb. 2 Special Election if MacLean is removed from office. In addition to residents’ dissatisfaction over the way city government is run, Wilberg’s own staff may be dissatisfied with his performance. Information has quietly come from insiders who say shell games and “two sets of books” have been used to hide expenses and give an illusion the city is awash in cash. Wilberg has stated during council meetings that the city has $20-million-plus in “discretionary reserves.” Because nearly all monies are obligated, encumbered or already spent, less than $500,000 is available for discretionary use.

With many city streets in disrepair and slopes showing serious deterioration, the cost to restore infrastructure could be as high as $100 million. The MUK majority has painted a picture throughout the recall that everything is wonderful. Residents might not be keenly aware of such risks as slope deterioration, but potholes and cracks in streets are obvious. While Wilberg tries to keep his staff happy with “free” lunches, parties, festivals and a feel-good atmosphere, not all employees are comfortable upholding a code of silence when it comes to wrongdoing.

Residents want public services, decent roads, flowing traffic and other taxpayer-funded amenities they are entitled to receive. By contrast, they are getting glossy city magazines that tell them how happy they should be.

Instead of “lawyering up” to amend his contract by redefining misconduct, Wilberg should consider amending his ways.

Capo School Update

A group of parents residing primarily in San Juan Capistrano continues to make headlines by opposing the Capo school board. That’s not unusual in the politically charged district. Following the announcement the group would launch an effort to recall CUSD Trustees Mike Winsten and Ken Lopez-Maddox, an attorney for the two trustees said on Jan. 26 that the proponents will be sued if they don’t drop their effort.

The attorney for Winsten and Lopez-Maddox wrote in a 10-page letter that proponents will be liable for payment of attorney fees and other costs. As the basis for the lawsuit, the attorney states that proponents made false and misleading statements with regard to grounds for recalling Winsten and Lopez-Maddox, and proponents also failed to serve notice properly. According to the letter, the recall notice was handed to the board’s recording secretary instead of Winsten and Lopez-Maddox. The letter demands a response from proponents by Feb. 3.

 Mission Viejo resident who attends board meetings reacted by distributing an email message. From the email: “I go to board meetings because I support education. The San Juan Capistrano group of parents adopted the name ‘Children First.’ No one even pretends the current action is about children.”

The Capistrano Dispatch http://www.thecapistranodispatch.com/ posted an update on Jan. 25 about teachers picketing the Capo district office. The group has also marched on the homes of trustees. One trustee who is a target of the group has five young children. The news of a crowd of picketers showing up at someone’s home makes a bad impression on constituents who would otherwise be neutral on politics.

This blog’s survey of CUSD constituents in Mission Viejo who supported previous Capo district recalls found that they would not support another recall effort.

Recall Update

Recall supporters have no polling data to predict the outcome of the recall election, but the results are becoming clear. Some are guessing that Councilman Lance MacLean will be recalled by a margin of at least two to one. Others say it will be closer, but they agree MacLean’s political career will end with the election on Feb. 2.

While MacLean’s out-of-town financiers have paid for phone surveys, recall supporters have watched the MacLean camp’s behavior to gauge each one. Following the first survey in October, MacLean’s supporters hustled replacement candidate Dave Leckness into the race. Not only did the move reveal that MacLean was going to lose badly according to the poll, it was a strategic error as well. Leckness’ early stance was that everyone should vote “no” on the recall and then vote for him. Those who genuinely support him will vote for the recall as well, diminishing MacLean’s chance of surviving.

In the latest phone survey, conducted last week, voters were asked only one question: are you voting for the recall. When a community activist received the call, he asked the caller about results after saying he would vote to remove MacLean. The activist said the caller responded: “I’ve talked with seven people. Counting your answer, the total is six for the recall and one against.”

While it would be a mistake to take seriously any answer from someone paid by the opposition, the activist’s report about the survey was consistent with informal data. Recall supporters have been calling their precincts to get out the vote. They say voters generally support the recall, and they’re voting for Dale Tyler.

MacLean’s supporters have had an uphill battle from the beginning. They didn’t take the signature drive seriously, and their campaign against it was primarily to harass those gathering signatures. After the recall qualified for the ballot, MacLean said from the dais that the campaign would get ugly. Voters apparently haven’t been attracted to the hit pieces against the recall, including a picture of a toilet on a mailer. Such trash stuffed into mailboxes isn’t inspiring voters to join the union’s $100,000 anti-recall crusade.

The watchdogs supporting the recall are longtime residents who care about their city, and those launching the attack against them are lobbyists, special interest and developers who don’t live in Mission Viejo. The four MacLean supporters who have appeared on street corners and made virulent remarks during council meetings are seen for what they are: angry people who are waging personal attacks against fellow community members.

This blog received an email that was forwarded from a recall supporter who joined the Jan. 30 rally to wave a sign in favor of the recall. It conveys the spirit of the recall and those who have been attracted to join the effort to improve their city’s government:

“It was a privilege to be at the street-corner rally today, reminding voters to support the recall of Councilman Lance MacLean on Feb. 2. It was such a day that will mark a special milestone in the history of shaping a great city filled with extraordinary people! … Even through the tough times as we are all faced with, a common thread still exists here. Yes, some residents feel differently about the recall, but it's not because they don't care. They lack the knowledge and understanding to grasp what is essential to bring restoration to our great city. The ones who feel differently still have passion though, because it is their belief system. I believe we have already succeeded even though the election hasn't happened yet. Why? We are helping make changes in people. That changes cities and nations.”

Farewell to MacLean on Feb. 2
Letter to the Editor

This letter is a reminder for those still thinking about how they should vote in the Feb. 2 recall election of Councilman Lance MacLean. In recent weeks, there has been much information circulated by MacLean and his supporters. They state that a small group of citizens are running this recall based strictly on getting MacLean out of office for no good reason other than they don’t like him. Friends, there is good reason Voters United don’t like him, and some of those points are addressed in this communication.

RECALL COST: MacLean’s backers say it is a big waste to spend money on a needless recall. Yes, $270,000 is a lot of money. However, when you compare that with the millions of dollars needlessly spent during MacLean’s time on the city council, you begin to understand his true self. He has spent countless dollars in trying to convince the public how wonderful he is. The campaign against the recall has spent much money on television ads that cost a fortune. And how are the ads funded? Well, you might notice that much of the advertising is funded by various entities such as a deputies union and Firemen who may have been led to believe by MacLean that if he gets recalled their organizations will have funding reductions. No way would that happen. Those favoring the recall are only trying to stop unnecessary spending. The groups wanting city funding for their special wants are definitely worried. So they are trying to keep him in office.

Have you noticed that MacLean has been trying to justify his position at the regular City Council meetings for free? That, friends, should not be tolerated. Our public business meetings are where the elected members work on our city’s problems, and time is not available for justifying one’s worth to the constituents.

WHAT YOU DO DEFINES YOU!

ANGER PROBLEMS: MacLean’s anger problems! That’s enough to make this recall necessary. At the January 18, 2010, city council meeting, a gentleman gave a presentation during the Public Comments segment regarding the details of MacLean’s aggressiveness. What MacLean did and said to a fellow employee at UCI was shocking and unconscionable. Somehow he managed to stay out of jail. How we citizens of Mission Viejo would allow a person with MacLean’s disposition be an elected official representing us is equally unconscionable.

WHAT YOU DO DEFINES YOU!

QUALITY OF LIFE: MacLean brags in his voting write-ups as mandatory for quality of life the following: recreation center renovations; park renovations; Murray Center expansion; animal shelter expansion; Tennis center renovation; building a dog park. A few of these are completed, but the rest are unnecessary and requiring city money. In reality, quality of life is concerned with good health, which gives you the ability to do the things you need to do. Having the city provide unnecessary material items in response to some citizens’ desire for bigger and better things does not improve one’s quality of life. It only makes those citizens ask for more as long as the city is the enabler who pays for it. MacLean uses these enabled projects as a reason he should stay in office. We have an outstanding quality of life in Mission Viejo that makes it unjustifiable to add the additional wants with city money. These materialistic items of life can be financed in other ways if the want is serious enough. And guess what! When those new projects are completed, they have to be maintained indefinitely. And who pays for that? That means our quality of life will decline piece by piece as we build needless projects with taxpayers’ money.

WHAT YOU DO DEFINES YOU!

AND FINALLY
We can maintain our Public Safety and Fiscal Responsibility without Lance MacLean. With his idea of Trusted Leadership, we in the long run will be in the condition of the State of California's economic situation. Spending city money to satisfy the enabled groups can only degrade the future of our city.

WHAT YOU DO DEFINES YOU!

We have many citizens who are beginning to notice the direction in which Lance MacLean is leading us, and that is not what we want. Those citizens have noted that we cannot risk continuing our wants for the benefit of a few if we need to maintain our quality of life.

Thank you for supporting our future,
Voters United

The Buzz

What was the biggest news last week about the recall of Councilman Lance MacLean? According to residents who are even remotely paying attention, it’s a union surpassing $100,000 in donations to save MacLean. It’s been difficult to miss all the TV ads, a constant stream of mailers containing false threats about decreased police protection and union-posted campaign signs placed directly in front of recall signs. An article on OrangeJuiceBlog.com drew a comment from Niyaz Pirani, who allegedly covers Mission Viejo for Saddleback Valley News. Pirani says he didn’t report the $100,000 union donation in SVN because he was “busy” covering a story about Dr. Raghu Mathur’s early termination of his job at the South OC College District. Pirani also missed the union surpassing $64,000 two weeks ago and $70,000 a week ago.

***

Now is the time for mere residents to be part of redrawing districts for California. A commission is redrawing the district lines for the State Assembly, State Senate and Board of Equalization. Voters passed the Voters FIRST Act last November, and everyone now has a chance to participate. Go to www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov and fill out an application by Feb. 12.

***

ACT for America will hold its Feb. 8 meeting at the Temple Bat Yahm annex in Newport Beach, 1011 Camelback Street. The organization was unable to get a meeting room at the community center in Mission Viejo on Feb. 8, which was the only date available for the guest speaker. Doors open at 6:45 p.m., and the meeting starts at 7:30. Chapter Leader Bruce Mayall writes, “Guest speaker Ed Royce, U.S. Representative for the 40th Congressional District, is one of America's super-patriots. His priorities in Congress are protecting our homeland, supporting our troops and veterans, providing meaningful tax relief for workers, protecting the budget and cutting excessive government spending, fighting crime and supporting victims of crime, strengthening education for all students, and preserving Social Security and Medicare.”

***

Fun With Chalk will benefit from a performance by Side Street Strutters on Sun., March 14, beginning at 3:00 p.m. at the Community and Senior Center. The seven-piece band will present a concert of New Orleans blues, jazz, Dixieland and Zydeco music. Refreshments will be available for purchase, and tickets are tax-deductible. Ticket price is $25 for adults and $15 for children age 13 and younger. Call for tickets at (949) 470-3062.

***

The OC Watchdog posted its $100,000-plus pension club for Capo schools on Jan. 27 http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2010/01/27/50193/50193/ Here’s the list for Capistrano USD: Sundra Hartman ($194,015.64), James Fleming ($141,331.44), Stella Hubert ($129,571.68), Geraldine Gordon ($119,301.72), Richard Johnson ($117,128.40), Anthony Ferruzzo ($115,577.16), Elaine Hart ($113,209.08), Patrick Levens ($112,482.36), Susan MacConaghy ($111,425.88), Austin Buffum ($110,602.32), James Walshe ($110,255.04), Richard Campbell ($105,865.68), Lois Anderson ($105,126.60), Ronald Dempsey ($103,703.52), David Schlesinger ($101,996.52) and John Hopkins ($100,583.88).