Picture Courtesy of the Mission Viejo Dispatch
Happy New Year everyone, including those members of our city council who feel compelled to add this waste of taxpayer funds on tonight’s Council agenda.
Folks. By now you surely have heard that we are holding a “special election” on February 2nd to remove Mayor Lance MacLean. On the basis of one resident’s Public Comments the city attorney has prepared a three page supplement of “educational material” that they wish to have sent to every voter.
Let me share some demographics on Mission Viejo as found on multiple web sites:
Our population is just at 100,000 of which 62,298 were registered voters at the Nov 2008 General election.
One web site says that we have a huge number of residents that have less than a ninth grade education. Oh, that number is 1309.
50,000 of our residents have some college, associate, bachelor or graduate degrees.
Another site reports that 93.8% of our residents have high school degrees.
Household income in Mission Viejo is around $100,000.
So with that background we feel compelled to provide even more information on how to say either YES or NO on question #1 which reads:
“Shall Lance MacLean be recalled (removed) from the office of City Council Member?”
And now for the tougher second Ballot question which reads:
“Candidates to succeed Lance MacLean if he is recalled, for the duration of his term ending 12/06/10.”
Vote for one.
Dale Tyler
David “Dave” Leckness
In our Sample Ballot it explains that “A “Yes” vote means the voter wants the incumbent City Council Member recalled (removed) from office.”
“A “No” vote means that the voter wants the incumbent City Council member to remain in office.”
On the second question it reads:
“The second question on the ballot considers those candidates who are campaigning to replace the incumbent City Council Member if he is recalled. A voter may vote for one of these candidates who are listed on the ballot or may write-in the name of a qualified write-in candidate.”
Yes, you do need to be a brain surgeon to understand these tough questions. So to waste more taxpayer money the city attorney has drafted the following supplemental data that the city council will vote on tonight:
“THE RECALL BALLOT
I. The Recall Ballot in general:
California State law specifically describes how a recall ballot is physically structured. A recall ballot presents a voter with two questions. The first question asks if a specific person should be recalled (meaning removed from elected office). If fifty percent (50%) or more say “No”, the current elected official stays in office and nothing more is done. However, if a majority vote “Yes, the elected official should be removed from office” then the person the majority of voters specified as their replacement official takes office. The ballot will list the names of those people who filed as candidates to replace the elected official in the event the elected official is in fact removed from office due to the recall vote.
A voter may lawfully vote on both or either of the two questions. It is always good practice to vote on all the questions on the ballot to ensure the voter’s voice is heard. The two questions a voter is presented with on a recall ballot are discussed in the following.
The first question, which deals only with the recall (removal) of the incumbent elected official, provides you with the following two choices for you to vote upon:
“No”. Voting “No” means that you want the current elected official to stay in
office. If 50% or more of the people vote “No” then the current elected official
stays in office. Even if you vote No you may then vote for a replacement as you
will not know if a majority of the people will vote to keep the incumbent.
“Yes”. Voting “Yes” means you want the incumbent elected official removed
from office.
You will want to consider if you then want to vote for a candidate to replace the official if he is removed due to the recall vote.
The second question on the ballot considers those candidates who hope to replace the incumbent elected official if he is recalled.
A voter may vote for one of those candidates who are listed on the ballot or may write in their own candidate’s name.
A voter should seriously consider voting on both questions (recall and replacement candidate) because until the votes are counted no one knows if the incumbent elected official will remain in office. If you only cast a “No” on recall alone you will not be exercising the full voting opportunity that the law provides to you to select who will represent your interests.
2
11088-0001\1190008v1.doc
II. Questions and Answers:
A. Where does State law specify that a recall ballot will have two questions?
California Elections Code Sections 11320 and 11322 read:
“11320. Contents
“The following shall appear on the ballots at every recall election, except in the
case of a landowner voting district, with respect to each officer sought to be
recalled:
“(a) The question “Shall [name of officer sought to be recalled] be recalled
(removed) from the office of [title of office]?
“(b) To the right of the foregoing question, the words ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ on separate
lines with an enclosed voting space to the right of each.”
“11322. Ballots for city recall elections; additional material
“In addition to the material contained in Section 11320, the following shall appear on ballots at all recall elections, except at a landowner voting district recall election:
“(a) The names of the candidates nominated to succeed the officer sought to be
recalled shall appear under each recall question.
“(b) Following each list of candidates, the ballot shall provide one blank line with a voting space to the right of it for the voter to write in a name not printed on the ballot.”
B. What should a voter do regarding the recall proposal question?
California Elections Code Section 11323 says a voter should place a mark opposite either the yes or no question:
“11323. Marking
“A voter shall indicate, by using the stamp or other marking device to place a
mark in the voting space opposite either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, his vote for or against the
recall proposal, respectively.”
C. What are the possible results of the vote on the “should the incumbent be
recalled” question?
California Elections Code 11383 states that a majority of “No” votes means the
incumbent stays in office:
3
11088-0001\1190008v1.doc
“11383. Negative votes necessary for retention of office
“If one-half or more of the votes at a recall election are ‘No’, the officer sought to be recalled shall continue in office.”
and California Elections Code Section 11384 says that if the majority of votes are “Yes” then that incumbent will be removed from office:
“11384. Removal from office if majority vote for recall
“If a majority of the votes on a recall proposal are ‘Yes’, the officer sought to be
recalled shall be removed from office upon the qualification of his successor.”
D. What happens if the incumbent elected official is removed from office by the
recall vote?
If there are a majority of “Yes” votes on the recall question then California Election Code Section 11385 holds that the replacement candidate who has the highest number of votes will take over the seat for the remainder of the term:
“11385. Votes necessary to elect candidate after recall of officer
“If at a recall election an officer is recalled, the candidate receiving the highest
number of votes for the office shall be declared elected for the unexpired term of the recalled officer.”
E. Can I get additional information regarding the recall process?
Yes, there are many information sources that you may use to obtain information. These include, but are not limited to, the City’s Election’s Official (who is the City Clerk), the County of Orange’s Registrar of Voters, and the California Secretary of State.”
And now the big question. Did our City Clerk or the Registrar of Voters fail to provide adequate instruction in the sample ballot or would you agree that this uneducated third world city needs to have this vital election update on top of the current election costs?
Maybe they can do what “Tan” did in Santa Ana and send the education materal only to recent latino voters.
Larry:
Don’t you just love the attempt by MacLean, Ury, and Kelley to obfuscate a very simple issue. The city attorney, William Curley is perhaps the only person on earth that would outline “War and Peace” in 83,000 micro type pages. Of course Mr. Curley’s law firm has been plundering the city of Mission Viejo for years. Isn’t bureaucracy wonderful–takes your money and spend it on themselves.
President Polk. Welcome to 2010 Mission Viejo style where our city attorney tries to influence the voters by a simple card trick as told to me by a real poker player.
While the Sample Ballot starts asking should Lance be recalled vote YES which is first, or vote NO, he has revered the sequence placing the NO choice before YES. Sorry that it took one of my email recipients to catch this sneaky twist.
That’s a cheapjack trick alright. Only an idiot could be confused by the choices.
This is obviously meant to discourage “yes” voter, but it may also discourage “no” voters too.
Of course the Cirt Attorney wants to keep the same team in office.
David Zenger.
Sorry to report that we are not educated enough to read a simple YES or NO Ballot question.
After several of us spoke in opposition to this additional “voter education material,” including my reading part of this blog post which I sent to each of them, the council decided to add the city attorney version of War and Peace on the city web site plus send it out in the city newsletter rather than using the USPS.
The council meeting became a little ugly. After the mayor permitted his Chairman of the planning commission to discuss his opposition to the recall rather than staying on the topic I yelled out from the audience resulting in this commissioner coming to my seat and sitting next to me. I asked him to step out in the hall which led to the OCSD Deputy joining me in the hall.
One of our Juice blogger colleagues, Big Mark was asked to leave. Mayor MacLean had the deputy escourt Mark out of the council chambers.
Larry:
Let’s see Larry–how old are you ??
It sounds like you were being set up by the Bureaucrats. I can’t wait to see the council replay on TV.
Of course if the politicians can’t take the heat–they just have you removed !!
We tried watching the meeting via TV but apparently there were major technical difficulties and not much of it came through.
Erin. Some of us were informed before the meeting that we would be dark for the first hour of the meeting. I guess that’s called “transparency in government.” Some residents called me last night to say that they were able to watch the meeting while others sent emails saying they could not and wanted to know what happened.
It was a new record for one of our quiet meetings. The OCSD Deputy introduced himself to two of us last night as we took walks together. The funny part is that our chief of police services and I exchanged a friendly greeting in the council chambers prior to the meeting. Rick Sandzeimer, chairman of the planning commmission who was also a MacLean appointee, was arguing about his opposition to the recall which led me to call him out while he rambled on. This was not the Public Comment part of our meeting. It was a very specific Agendized topic area relating to the added voter educational material that the city attorney was promoting. I yelled out that he stay on the topic yet Lance permitted him to continue. Council member Cathy Schlicht asked Lance to cut him off but Rick kept on. What makes matters worse is that serving as a commissioner he understands that every speaker should obey the simple council policy of not engaging in topics that are not germain to the specific Agenda item. Lance said he gave Rick some leeway as former mayor Gail Reavis mentioned her support of the recall and continued to speak beyond her three minutes.
After walking away from the mike Rick came over, sat in the chair next to me and wanted to continue “having a discussion” while the meeting was ongoing. I asked him to meet me in the hall but he would not get out of the adjacent seat in this 90 percent vacant council chambers. At that point the deputy and I had a friendly exchange in the back hall. Sorry that when the program airs on the city web site you will not be able to hear my outbursts from the audience. The good news is that there will only be two additional council meetings before the Feb 2nd election.
Knute Rockne says; “Win or Lose, do it fairly”
Great response Knute . Thank you!
I just watched it and what really pisses me off personally are Trish and Curley’s comments afterwards about how it was so awful that a member of the public who got up to speak ended up getting heckled. What did they think was happenning to the poor Oso Viejo Park neighbors who dared to show up at the Oct 5th meeting? I did not get up and speak specifically because of the awful way the Dog Park people were treating us!! And yet the city council not only allowed it to happen, they applauded the whole thing as a victory for the people! Holy cow! I’m pissed!
Come on Larry you can’t be seriously suggesting that the average voter enters the booth with anything other than a shaky understanding of whatever they are supposed to vote on. Additional education never hurts especially when you are trying to nullify the decision of the people in the last election. If you truly believed in integrity in government you would be all for educated voters. I noticed you let this thread go completely off the rails in the comments so I’m just trying to get it back on track for you. And I’ll refrain from mentioning the behavior I witnessed from you last night here. I’ll save that for the national audience. P.S. tell Joe Holtzman he’s going to be fitted for a feeding tube soon. 🙂
Say Erin,
The mother ship is hovering and will pick you up soon. Hang tight.
Wow, let the name-calling continue I guess. Would that be Feb 2nd that the mothership will be here?
You wouldn’t be the one who paint-balled our house and car over the dog park, would you?