Lance MacLean is gone, but the corruption and waste continue in Mission Viejo, thanks to Trish Kelley
This is a follow up post to a Writ of Mandate regarding Mission Viejo’s Measure D (Right to Vote) RTV ballot argument. This Initiative Ordinance was crafted to empower citizens to have an input in major planning and zoning decisions such as converting part of a golf course into some form of housing.
The RTV was fashioned after a similar, successful initiative in Yorba Linda. In our City attorney’s impartial analysis of Measure D he found no legal objections to its text.
Instead of appearing in Superior Court on March 29th, where Judge Luis A. Rodriguez listened to almost 6 hours of testimony, this entire fight could have been averted. In city attorney Curley’s Feb 15th Power Point presentation he even stated that the proposed Initiative Ordinance removes barriers with regard to State Law and that it is “spot on.”
In his impartial analysis of Measure D attorney Curley writes: “The Ordinance will NOT be applied to preclude City compliance with housing regulations under State law. This means all housing laws, including affordable and market rate housing, as subject to State laws, will not be controlled or subject to this ordinance.”
At the April 5th council meeting I questioned Mayor Kelley as follows: “Did you challenge councilman Ury’s argument against the RTV initiative before he submitted it to our City Clerk?” She did not respond. I than said “his lies just cost us around $15,000 at a time when you are proposing library services cuts tonight.”
Again no response.
For starters. The Ordinance proponents gave notice to the council that they were going to circulate petitions which they did. Those signatures were certified by the ROV. Last night the city clerk estimated that cost at around $38,000.
At that time we could have mitigated the total cost by simply approving an Ordinance as requested by Council Member Schlicht. However, she was unable to get a second to her Motion. At that point the only taxpayer cost was signature verifications.
Later in last night’s meeting the City Attorney was asked by Mayor Kelley for an estimate of his firms legal charges for the Measure D ballot argument trial. Mr. Curley said that while he does not have the final RW&G tab, it is around $40,000. This almost knocked Trish out of her chair. This waste of funds could all have been avoided if she had taken the council suggestion of Cathy Schlicht to work together with Frank in drafting the opposing text. Trish should have challenged him, prior to the Writ of Mandate, as to his back up support for his text regarding the Casta Del Sol Golf Course where he wrote: “Under State Law, it CAN NEVER be developed with housing. EVER!”
In her closing remarks last night Cathy Schlicht said that she tried to avoid filing the Writ but her challenge to Frank’s text was denied by our City Clerk.
Our city clerk quoted an estimated election cost from the County at $147,516.
Let me advise the mayor and Mr. Ury that “respondent has a duty under California Election Code to assure that material which is false, misleading or inconsistent with the requirements of the Election Code be removed before official election materials are mailed to voters.”
Did council member Trish Kelley ever question Frank? I don’t think so.
Mayor Trish Kelley’s failure to show leadership in this costly case should not be swept under a rug. In watching her reaction last evening she was placing the blame on Cathy Schlicht rather than looking in the mirror and accepting responsibility for giving Frank Ury carte blanche.
Note: You can now watch and listen to the April 5th city council meeting which is now on line at our Mission Viejo city website.
While I have not been there, I am told that the editor of the www.missionviejodispatch.com just posted their latest account of this ballot fight.
First of all when Council member Leckness read what Judge Rodriguez approved it put this all into context for those of us who stayed at the council meeting to hear the discussion on this matter and to those who watched at home. Words like “conned,” “lied to,” “sloppily written,” “irresponsible radical activists,” were approved by the Judge as having merit. Council member Schlicht discussed how the judge went through the statement word by word. We all know now that context didn’t change. That a sitting council person has the arrogance to sue the city is completely disgusting. You can yell as loudly as you want Mr. Gilbert, but no one with a brain believes you. They heard the truth come from Council member Leckness’s mouth. Plain and simple.
You really ought to stay around after you blow your hot air. You and that Mr. Holtzman both. A gentleman spoke after you who in two sentences destroyed both of your credibility. And in defense of Mayor Kelly, your question was purely rhetorical and for dramatic effect. The tradition, which only council member Schlicht breaks, is to listen to the citizens without responding. You know that very well.
LBM. Let’s be candid here and identfy yourself Mr. Bruckmann. Thank you.
Your remarks that:Words like “conned,” “lied to,” “sloppily written,” “irresponsible radical activists,” were approved by the Judge as having merit.” Wrong.
Including the judge there were only 11 of us in courtroom C-27 on the 29th of March and you, Mr. Planning Commissioner, were not one of us. Therefore anything you have to say regarding the trial is third party hearsay. The city attorney defended that language as “hyperbole”– you know–“exaggerated for effect, not meant to be taken literally.” Source. Webster’s New World Dictionary.
My question to the mayor was very specific. She was asked to co-author the ballot argument and refused. She did not look at Frank Ury’s text prior to it being submitted to the City clerk. She is happy to sit in the center seat and attend all kinds of functions, events, which in some cases, have nothing to do with her role as our 2010 selected mayor.
I was surprised that she was not in court on either of the two March dates so that she could report back as to exactly what transpired. Therefore, except for Cathy Schlicht, Mrs. Kelley is completely in the blind in that neither she, none of the other council members, the city attorney, nor a city staff representative made the trip to Santa Ana.
Mr. Bruckman. Dan Avery is no gentlemen. In fact he boasts of being a former member of the SDS.
Futhermore, he has been banned from commenting on this blog because of his previous personal attacks, something you engaged in regarding the local Republican Party twice last night.
But, you know what. Democracy is a great thing. That is why so long as you stay withing the guidelines of this blog, simply stated, no personal attacks, no profanity and stay on point, we will gladly debate you.
And while there was a parade of speakers in opposition to Measure D last night, that is not what this post was about. I was addresssing the court challenge that our city manager never shared with the local Register reporter.
And I will disagree with you. Mr. Avery did not destroy my credibility last night. It’s simple. All readers have to do is go to our city web site where the video has been uploaded to come to their own assessment. Thanks for joining the debate.
Ha ha! Hundreds of thousands of dollars you and your ilk have cost Mission Viejo tax dollars with your little political games. Now you sue the city and cry when it has to defend itself. YOU, sir, along with your friends cost the city $40,000 for this. Don’t pawn it off on anybody else. Accountability. Try it sometime.
Hey Wacko Watch.
I am celebrating, not crying. The mayor and or the city clerk could have avoided this court action by simply toning it down and deleting the “misinformation” from his royal highness Frank Ury.
Accountability rests on Trish’s shoulders. She was asked early on to be the co-author of the ballot argument by Cathy Schlicht. She passed. Furthermore, our city clerk refused Cathy’s challenge and allowed Frank to blast away. Cathy tried to avoid a court battle but the city refused to support her challenge. Judge Rodriguez is no pushover. He was very tough in his consideration of Election Law.
Little Big Boy:
I was there during all of the court proceedings.
I did not notice anyone else from Mission Viejo there but Gilbert, Schlicht, Morton, and I. So YOUR credability is zipo–nada–nothing–period. Nor is your suggogate that spoke much after the fact. The real issue is that no matter how much perfume you pour on Ury’s Bag of Dung–you can not make it smell good. Read the transcript–my BOY.
Joe. You overlooked Dale Tyler who was there for part of the AM session.
Larry,
Little big man got it right. Let me just add a few things. The Judges decision your so proud of threw out 23 of 25 of your so called lies. Let’s point out again the total cost of this wasteful challange belongs to Ms. Schicht and your watchdog group, not Mayor Kelly. You brought the suit against te city. Let me again point out that a councilperson suing thier own city is just plain stupid.
I try not to get personal with politics but you and your group have divided the city ( 19 votes difference in the recall) and are approaching costing us $500,000 by your abuse of the system. Since you think our wonderful city is so bad, why don’t you pack up your bag of crazies leave?
Dennis.
Let’s begin by setting you straight with some facts. I really don’t care who you are.
This is not my group. In fact, there is no group. Some of those who supported the recall of Lance MacLean are NOT the same taxpayers supporting the Right to Vote initiative.
As to 19 votes or 1,000 votes, we removed Lance MacLean saving the taxpayers between $250,000-$270,000. Source. MV Treasurer Irwin Bornstein at a city council meeting.
Perhaps you can provide all of us the listing of 23 lies that you reference. You can’t even read. As someone who sat in the courtroom for the entire day, witnessing Brad Morton petition the court on 6 Causes of Action, I would like you to list every one of the so called lies. You can’t!
So stop reading the city propaganda machine and put up or shut up. Is that clear enough.
I will debate anyone at any time on what was said during this trial. Unless your name is Wendy, Mitchell or David you have zero to add to this conversation. I doubt you are one of the three court staff or the judge so that reduces you to a crumb.
Wilberg is imploding! As for whack-job Bruchmann, all he does is channel Wilberg’s lies.
The judge needs to crack down on the stream of crap coming from Wilberg’s spin machine.
Interesting photo, glowing with hot light. Is the emblem on the wall on fire? Maybe these three people are in hell. Note to self: avoid Mission Viejo.
Larry,
Unlike many posts on here, I’ll call you out for the acutal post – your headline, in my humble opinion, is misleading. Placing all of the blame for the lawsuit on Mayor Kelley is simply wrong. She is not an attorney (to my knowledge), and she, and the others on the Council, were relying on advice from the City Attorney regarding the validity of the ballot statement. The fact that it was determined to be erroneous, in some part, is more of the fault of the City Attorney’s analysis that the ballot statement was legal in its entirety. I trust that the City Attorney is truly non-partisan (call me an optimist), and that his analysis simply was not accurate (lawyers do make mistakes as one is always on the losing end of every case). It is disappointing that the City will have to pay $40,000 for a losing effort, but we vote for Council members to make these decisions. If we don’t like what they’re doing, we should vote them out, and not make false or misleading statements about them on here. Just my two cents.
Newbie,
That is a stretch. Kelley clearly was the one pushing for this ballot statement. Sure, the City Attorney goofed but she was the one driving the agenda and as such the wasted money is on her hands, not his.
Everyone knows that City Attorneys do what the Council majority tells them to.
Wow Art, I had no idea Mayor Kelley was a de facto dictator. And here I thought it took at least a 3-person majority to run the city. Thanks for the information.
And thank you for again making my point. No matter how strong any single Council member is, it takes a majority to make decisions. Again, that’s why we elect them. If we don’t like the decisions they’re making, we try to vote them out. If we don’t like the decisions, we are free to disagree. What we shouldn’t do is make false or misleading statements like Larry has done here.
I’m not Pollyannish enough to think that local government (or any government for that matter) is all candy and roses. But what I do prefer is that we keep it civil and honest. I’ll be the first to admit that both sides have a problem with honesty sometimes. That doesn’t mean that two wrongs make a right.
I would prefer if Larry would just say that the City as a whole (he can exempt Councilmember Schlict out in this instance since she was the one filing the lawsuit) made a poor decision to not amend the anti-Measure D lawsuit and that, as a taxpayer and resident of the City, he feels it’s a waste of money. But singling out Mayor Kelley is just really an unwarranted personal attack that, in my opinion, has no place in the arena of political debate.
Newbie,
Are you daft? Kelley controls the Council majority. She is the Mayor. Of course she is responsible!
Schlict filed the lawsuit because it was the right thing to do. And she prevailed. Kelley now will have to explain to the voters how she blew $40,000.
What’s the matter Mr. Gilbert did I hit a nerve or are you afraid of the truth?
Well Art, I’m glad you provide factual support to back up those statements, because I’d hate to think you make comments simply because you don’t like Mayor Kelley.
A judge found that 3 of the 23 statements Councilmember Schlict challenged had to be changed or stricken. And if Councilmember Schlict is really going to shoulder her burden of costs and fees, I applaud her for that. However, under the law, she did not prevail. Since she is not seeking costs, there will be no determination of the prevailing party. As for whether she prevailed in the forum of public opinion, fortunately that will be determined when she is next up for re-election.
Newbie, look at your post, “we vote for Council members to make these decisions.” This is Frank Ury’s mantra. New name, same garbage.
We vote people into office to represent us, and they take an oath before they are seated. We did not vote them into office to lie or waste our taxes promoting their lies.
Larry is to be commended for holding Ury, Kelley, Wilberg, Hamman and Curley accountable. These folks were wrong, and they’re trying to cover their butts.
Where is that boob who is on OCR’s payroll to cover Mission Viejo’s news? Does he ever leave his apartment in Lake Forest?
“Call Newbie out”
At least you placed the blame on multiple parties (though you may have missed a Councilmember), which was my point all along. You don’t have to like what our city does, but if you’re on the losing side, calling names and improperly singling people out is not the answer. The city is a collective of Council, staff, City Attorney, etc., and they don’t always get it right (shocking, I know). I respect your opinion that the city made a mistake here, and I even agree that the part of Ury’s statement that houses will never be built on any part of the golf course went beyond mere hyperbole and was wrong.
As for my “garbage,” I would hope that all voters, Councilmembers, and city staff would adhere to Ury’s (and my) mantra since it’s called the democratic process.
Helloooooooo? Ury, Kelley, Wilbert, Hamman and Curley LOST, and I called no one a name, so watchit. I’m calling you out on your spin that lies as part of the democratic process. No, they’re not.
The other people who lost in this scam are the taxpayers. No one asked Ury to write a ballot rebuttal — not the voters, not the council, not the city staff — no one. He did it on his own steam, and his lies cost taxpayers $40,000.
Newbie.
Sorry to be late but as you can see by my latest post I have been somewhat occupied.
With all due respect I can pin the tail on Trish Kelley for several reasons. Beyond being the head of state of MV she was asked by Cathy Schlicht to co-author the ballot argument in opposing the Ordinance. She declined. She should have insisted that Frank Ury share his text prior to its submission to the city clerk. While promoting transparency you might feel that all five members should have seen it, some may argue that Cathy would have to be included thereby presenting some concern.
However, Trish should have insisted that Frank show her chapter and verse of State Law as referenced by Mr. Ury to back up his caustic remarks in the event there was a court challenge.
Therefore, while I surely lay some of the blame at Frank’s feet, the mayor of our city has a responsibility to serve and protect the citizens against litigation if at all possible. She finds time to attend a local spelling bee, charging the taxpayers for her three mile trip, yet didn’t even attend or send a city staffer to the trial.
Hopefully that satisfies your challenge regarding the accuracy of my title.
Newbie.
To set you straight. The city attorney did NOT see Frank’s text prior to its submission to the city clerk.
Perhaps if our RW&G city attorney Bill Curley had reviewed, and suggested revisions to the Ury submission Cathy Schlicht might not have filed her Writ of Mandate.
While I have issues with Bill, I do not support blaming him for failing to comment on Frank’s wording.
Newbie. If you are going to quote statements I am going to insist that you provide proof. Please list the alleged 23 statements challenged by Cathy. I have a copy of the Writ which contains Six Causes of action. Furthermore, I was in courtroom C-27 on
March 29th and witnessed the entire proceedings.
Don’t become part of the spin machine repeating Ury supporter’s bogus mantra.
While I am not from MO. I think you need to provide proof or your credibility goes into the toilet.
LBM aka planning commission vice chair Bruchmann.
You, hit a nerve?
Let me suggest our readers go to the city web site to see and hear you in action.
Poor Mr. B. His feelings were hurt when he was not greeted with hugs and kisses at the Saddleback Republican Assembly meeting where he cursed at CRA VP Scott Voigts.
Yup. You are one big, brave man. New Jersey is happy that you have left the state.
Readers.I apologize for violating our rules. The option was to hit the delete key. I will stay on point but will not permit comments that have nothing to do with the post.
Why don’t you punt Bruchmann permanently? He’s a hatchet thrower for city hall. No one had ever heard of him before he began attending meetings as a spy for Wilberg.
Larry,
I can’t take credit for the 20 of 23 comments because I was not there. I got the information from here:
http://voiceofoc.org/blogs/article_255a1f3c-41bc-11df-9a01-001cc4c002e0.html
I, unlike many on here, am always happy to provide my sources.
I would love to read the petition and the briefs, but I can’t find the case on the OC Court’s website, so I’m stuck with a secondary source at the moment.
As for the ballot statement, I fault everyone for not running the proposed statement by the City Attorney – that should be done any time there is a statement to be offered by a Councilmember that could expose the city to liability. And if the statement was going to be attributed to the Council at-large, then I agree that the Council should have had a chance to review it before it was submitted. As for Ury’s “caustic” statements, both sides of the issue have been guilty of far too many caustic statements rather than addressing the facts. I believe the city has been through more than enough in the past year to continue the sniping over Measure D. I would prefer that both sides make their points to the electorate and we keep the name-calling out of it, but I’m a realist and I don’t expect it to happen.
Newbie.
You have one problem. There were 12 of us in court on Monday when the case was heard by Judge Rodriguez. Let me help you out with some hard facts.
In C-27, on March 29th, were Judge Luis Rodriguez, a court reporter, two other court employees, two attorney’s from RW&G, another attorney representing the ROV, Petitioner attorney Brad Morton, Dale Tyler, Joe Holtzman, Cathy Schlicht and myself. Dale Tyler having left in the morning session.
Therefore the Voice of OC cannot provide hard evidence of what was said in this trial. Period!
The source you are quoting was NOT in courtroom C-27 on the 8th floor nor have they purchased a copy of the transcript. That said, everyone is making statements based on hearsay.
Larry,
I have found a copy of the petition (my copy only has 5 causes of action, and not six like you state). Now, here’s where it gets tricky. The petition’s prayer is very broad, seeking “a peremptory writ of mandate . . . directing respondents to fulfill duties under the Elections Code by assuring any material included in the Argument Against Measure [D] . . . which is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Elections Code, be removed from the official election materials . . .” This means she could be challenging every word of the statement, or only part of it.
So, I looked into the Petition’s allegations, but this only got me so far. The Petition does contain some challenges to specific language from the statement – see, for example, paragraphs 14, 19, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 39, 44, and 45. That amounts to 13 challenges, by my humble count. But that doesn’t end the inquiry because one of the sentences struck from the statement (“Under State law, it CAN NEVER be developed with housing, EVER!”) found in the First Cause of Action, was not specifically alleged to be false or misleading in the Petition, rather other parts of the statement were challenged (see paragraphs 14 and 19). That leads me to believe that the statement was challenged some other way, either in Councilmember Schlicht’s briefs, or at the hearing on the Petition. I don’t care to drop the $30 bucks to read her briefs, and I don’t have a copy of the reporter’s transcript or the Court’s final ruling to review to make a determination at this time.
What I can say is that Councilmember Schlict partially prevailed on her First, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action, and lost on her Second and Fifth Causes of Action. She managed to get a grand total of 33 words out of a statement that contained over 250 words. Moreover, words such as “misleading,” “conned,” purposefully misled,” “fooled,” sloppily written,” “HUGE JOB KILLER,” and “radical, irresponsible activists” remain in the statement.
I leave it to the voters to decide if it was worth the trouble for Councilmember Schlicht to sue the city, and whether she achieved a success that was worth the $40,000 it cost the city.
So that’s my take for now Larry.
Newbie.
Give me a call and I will show you the Sixth Cause of Action.
As you were not in court you truly need to get a copy of the court transcript.
It will cost you $600 in case you are interested.
Does anyone besides me think “Newbie” is a little off center?
The fact that you resort to name calling Larry is very disturbing. You seem to be impressed that you and your friends were in court all day. It must be nice to have that kind of time. Good for you. The documents are available and the important part of this is the message in the body. After reading the before and after argument I can’t see that the message has changed. A “win” would be a clear change in message. Also it seems to me that after Dale Tyler got trashed in the election mostly because he tried to avoid paying legitimate DMV fees, it may not be a good idea for you to brag about him attending, it doesn’t help your credibility. One more thing, you said that there is no group behind this and that the people are different for both these special elections. If that is so, why are the same people that you proudly point out spent their entire day in court the same people that let the recall?
Larry as I told you in the post you censored because you didn’t like what it said about you, I am not Bruchmann. I did not speak at the council meeting on Monday night. Just another example of your arrogance causing you to be wrong.
LBM.
Help me out here. If you are going to make accusations I am asking you to document which of your comments was censored by ME and when.
Let me also remind you as a repeat reader, that you stay on point if you want to continue seeing your remarks posted. This blog is not your personal target range to shoot at the messenger as you hide behind the curtain.
Amazing Grace,
If off-center is simply stating the facts, then I’m guilty as charged. I’m glad you have such wonderful insights to offer to the discussion.
Girl scout leader.
Name calling? show me where?
As to your comments about Dale Tyler. I guess you want me to be dishonest. I listed EVERY person who was in the courtroom. Dale Tyler was there. Should I have lied?
So you think I/we enjoyed spending a full day in court? No, I was there to witness and report on the Judge’s ruling. And might I add that the writers on the Juice blog are not paid for our time and effort to inform and entertain you.
Do me a favor go away. Don’t bother reading my reports if they offend you.
As to your statement that “the documents are available”? The only document that counts is the court transcript that you have not seen.
For $600 I will give you a copy where you can discover exactly what the judge ruled. And he did NOT say that every word in Frank’s ballot argument was the truth as alleged in a web site.
As to who supports the RTV initiative. As stated by Mr. Skalsky. It was the local residents surrounding the golf course who support the RTV Ordinance. These same people were NOT involved in the recall of mayor MacLean.
And lastly. The recall began with 51 residents, some of which were not involved in the RTV initiative. You are jumping to conclussions.
Newbie.
As some readers question the role of the city attorney, or lack thereof in the Ury argument, let me provide some text of the Sixth Cause of Action.
In his draft, Frank Ury references the city attorney having cited laws supporting his opposing text.
Pg. 10, First Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate.
“Petitioner alleges on
information and belief alleges the reference to the City Attorney is improper because the City attorney had the responsibility to contribute the Impartial Analysis of the RTV for the ballot material. The reference therefore corrupts City Attorney’s impartiality by indicating the City Attorney supports a particular political position.”
Reading further Petitioner questioned as to whether or not the City attorney assisted in the preparation of the Ury statements creating a conflict of interest.
I share this as some questioned the role of the city attorney to catching or questioning Frank’s errors before the Writ was filed.
In his Declaration attorney Curley states that he did not assist in the preparation of Ury’s statement. He goes on to admit having advised individual City Councilmembers that, in his opinion, residential development could never occur on the site of the Casta Del Sol Golf Course property.
That Juice readers was the biggest part of this trial of facts. Housing CAN be built on part of the golf course. Clear and convincing evidence was produced and the judge agreed with the Petitioner.