Mission Viejo’s residents will be paying for Trish Kelley’s healthcare forever!
Some people know how to be effective leaders. Sadly, they are not the majority of the Mission Viejo city council.
At last night’s city council meeting Cathy Schlicht’s Agenda item #24 called for “elimination of lifetime healthcare benefits for the remaining eligible council members.”
Those members who would be able to retain this costly benefit are Trish Kelley and Frank Ury, who, if reelected one more time, would have access to $250,000 each in lifetime health care benefits. Without providing the entire history of this self serving benefit let me simply report that in May of 2008 that council voted to eliminate this perk only to re-instate it in Nov of 2008.
After Cathy read the Agenda report and made the Motion to proceed, member Ledesma provided the Second. Mayor pro tem Leckness stated “I agree with Cathy that this lifetime benefit is no good. It would not be part of my policy for employees.”
He than proceeded stating that he has “two reasons why I cannot support Cathy.” First. He referenced his business philosophy in which after hiring someone you don’t pull the benefit, you stick by your offer. His second point related to a comment attributed to our city attorney (long before Dave joined the council) that if contested the city would lose in court in that the council member can sue the city.
He went on to say “Cathy. This is like picking a scab.” We need to heal. “Our revenues are down.” We need to move forward and that “we need to do what’s right for the city.”
Councilman Ledesma followed and said “Dave, I absolutely agree with you that we should do what’s right for the city. That’s why I seconded Cathy’s Motion.”
Member Ledesma cited our having rules vs Ordinances and Resolutions with no enforcement.J.P. went on to say that “fear of a lawsuit is a red herring” and that referring to former Mayor Gail Reavis’s emails are “irrelevant today.”
As anticipated by me, Member Schlicht’s Agenda item failed by a 3-2 vote with Frank Ury, Dave Leckness and Trish Kelley voting NO. At this point Cathy said she was following a campaign pledge to remove this perk. She went on stating “I wonder how many people in our city do not have any health care benefits” calling this benefit “unreasonably generous.”
Gilbert comment. What Dave is overlooking is that this benefit was not earned or promised as part of being elected. They bestowed the benefit on themselves. His comment that our revenues are down were reason enough to oppose continuing with this benefit. It is worth pointing out that on virtually every Agenda Item mayor Kelley always has something to add. However, she did not utter a single word either in support of or opposition to this item last night.
It’s worth noting that in his remarks Frank Ury commented on the defeat of Measure D which he attributed to a “fear factor” by the ballot Measure supporters yet uses the same “fear tactic” in his opposition to Cathy’s proposal with a reference to possible litigations against the city. Dave also picked up on that point.
The very next Agenda item was a proposal by mayor Kelley where the recommended action is to “direct staff to research alternatives to our current retirement program, to develop a proposal for a second tier retirement benefit program and to report back with in 90 days.” Trish was on her soapbox stating that we will lead the nation in taking this measure at a time when we deal with a “down economy.”
Mayor Kelley is proposing creation of a second tier employee pension benefit. She pointed out that “our current retirement program of 2.7% at 55 is one of the highest among other cities in Orange County.” She wants to see it changed to 2% at 60.
Yes, she wants to be pro-active with new hire benefits by reducing their benefits while voting to protect those for herself worth upwards of $250,000 even after she has told us that she is covered by her husbands insurance policy?
By voting to give herself access to lifetime health care Trish Kelley is placing her wants above the needs of the residents while playing the role of a fiscal conservative.
Although he is a Democrat I am disappointed that Mayor Pro Tem Leckness did not support Cathy’s cost saving proposal for all residents, especially when he cannot be the recipient of the health care benefit he just voted for.
To me this only indicates that he wants to remain in the majority at all costs which may cost him his seat on the council come November. In my view that was a very ill advised vote. Dave should have stayed with his first comment about Cathy and voted YES.
Don’t these incumbents realize that their votes today will impact our votes in November?
Email response from a long time MV taxpayer.
“Re: the question you asked. No! They do not. Want to know the reason why? They haven’t been punished. Punishment is a deterrent. It is the basis of the Judeo-Christian Law. Just attempting to vote them out is not sufficient punishment. Often times that doesn’t even work, and the same problem-maker gets re-elected. There needs to be an organized and systematic way of keeping them accountable week in and week out. People who earn paychecks get raises and additional benefits based on performance. If the performance of an elected official is counter-productive to the benefit of the people who elected him/her, then there needs to be a better way of advertising it, n’est pas?
Your Juice certainly is beneficial in this respect, but not sufficient.”
PS: Admin. As the former campaign manager for Trish Kelley I can say that this is not a current photo of the mayor.
Although it might not be a current picture of Trish Kelley, it is lovely. Thank you.
This council majority is out of touch. While voters don’t understand the nuances of city politics, they do get it when three council members vote for self-enrichment. Incredible!
I appreciate Councilwoman Schlicht’s attempt to right the situation on behalf of the taxpayers.
It would have been smarter for her to vote no if she wasn’t doing this for the money. Now we know that she is. Shame on Dave, since Kelley made no comment, we can see that she told Dave how to vote. He even said he agreed with Cathy, so why the heck not vote with her.
She can say that her husband’s insurance covers her, but if there is any form on co insurance payment, she would be better off with the free insurance from the city. Right now in addition to the newly raised stipend for council members of $1,000/mo, they also get the employee insurance amount of $925.00. If they take say vision or dental, that is deducted and the remainder is placed into an escrow account that they can keep when they leave the job. They also get $2500/yr in HSA money, mileage, and stipends for many of their committees they appoint themselves to. i.e. SCAG, OCFA, TCA and more, some of these are multiple meetings a month, they are paid per meeting. My guess is she makes about $40,000/yr which is not bad for a PTA mom with no skills. When she finally goes, I am sure that Dennis will arrange a post (paying) with the city, something like Character Counts or the Foundation. She needs the money. What is Frank’s excuse?
Oh, I remember, he keeps blaming me. Since I never sued the city, that argument is very old and very weak. My attorney happened to be a close friend of Frank’s. Big Mistake! Big, Huge.
It’s time to get rid of Frank and Kelley
Gail
Thank you Gail for that insider response. We all made a big mistake supporting Frank which goes to prove that none of us are perfect.
Since neither Frank or Trish are eligible for the insurance benefit at this time, I don’t see how anyone was enriched because Councilman Leckness voted yes. Everytime a certain group of people in our City put a petition together and then cloud the truth of the matter it costs the people of Mission Viejo thousands of dollars for a special election. At some point in time I am sure this matter will be decided in a court of law. The courts tend to lean to the left in these matters historically and in that case the City would have to offer this benefit anyways.
To Cathy Schlicht: Your due dillegence in all matters is to be commended. You do your homework. However, I think a more constructive motion that could be introduced would be to ask each individual council member to sign an “option out” agreement declining the City paid health insurance benefit. What do think?
By the way OCJ, the characture of Trish Kelly is totally uncalled for and immature on your part.
John,
Don’t be silly. That picture serves as a graphic reminder that Mission Viejo’s residents will be paying for Kelley’s healthcare forever – even when she eventually comes to look like that…
John Lusk.
With all due respect both Frank Ury and Trish Kelley will be eligibile for this lifetime perk.
To use a scare tactic of a potential lawsuit by removal of same is a slap in the face to any Mission Viejo resident.
Now that we have removed former Mayor MacLean, who himself was eligible for this benefit if he was successful in Nov., the policy left only Trish and Frank as potential recipients. At a time when we our Mid Year budget analysis indicated having a $2 million shortfall, this was a no brainer vote for any conservative. They have placed their own selfish desires over the needs of our citizens.
When we have Trish Kelley charging the taxpayers 50 cents per mile to attend our staff and employee Christman Party I am angry. Sorry, it’s no longer a Christmas Party, its a Holiday Party. To the best of my oversight no other member of our city council has ever been so greedy at the public trough.
I have reviewed in detail the City manning/budget practices.
The city staff is overmanned by approx. 27 headcount. So in addition to Kelley ripping our pockets out—so is Dennis Wilberg with his over staffing.
Use of a picture like that is not “a graphic reminder” of anything other than Larry likes to use intimidation and plain old mean tricks to achieve his aim – truth be damned. Ironic that “Madame Mayor” shows in her comments above that she is so versed on the best ways to milk the most of of government employment without actually accusing anyone else of wrong doing. Me thinks thou dost protest too much. She is also very versed in the extent of the benefit available during almost all of her term of office – did some research? Interesting . . .. By the way, when you sue members of the City Council in their official capacity you are definitionally suing the City. How did that law suit go by the way?
Mr. Willis.
You truly disappoint me. Instead of engaging in “ready, fire, aim” you might inquire as to who added the photo in question. It was not me.
My efforts on this blog is not to intimidate anyone. The adminstrators will confirm that fact.
Perhaps I need to go over the Juice rules if you plan to return to our blog.
First. Stay on topic. This is not a posting from a former mayor.
Second. This report is not about any form of litigation.
My aim is the same as all of our team members. To report the news or add our opinion of same.
Please don’t wear out your welcome with personal attacks!
Geoff.
As you mention “milking” the system. Do you support Trish Kelley’s using taxpayers money to reimburse her for driving to our Christmas Party while charging us 50 cents per mile? Trust, but verify. Check her AB 1234 reports.
Geoff,
Larry barely knows how to use pictures here. I put up that graphic. It was a funny way to bring home the point that Mission Viejo residents will be stuck paying for Kelley’s health care forever, even when she finally comes to look like that.
Mr. GIlbert,
My comments were about the propriety of receiving benefits as an elected official and the history of the medical benefits for council members – the very topic of the post. While I do agree with you that government officials should not extend benefits to themselves, that public service should be just that public service and that extension of benefits to public employees has gotten out of control, I struggle to find the consistency in your post. First, lifetime benefits to council members was created in Mission Viejo more than a decade ago – this was not a decision of the current council. Second, if you are conservative, why do you criticize the decision to evaluate city employee pension benefits – isn’t that the kind of fiscal conservancy that you advocate in the first half of your post?
As to my compliance with the blog rules, you are kidding right – almost all of the comments below the post are responsive to other posts – mine was certainly not the first. Second, are you really saying that you, as a part of the regular posters on this blog, has no control whatsoever over the photos attached to your posts? This sounds like passing the buck to me. Third, please read your own posts “they [mayor Kelly and council member Ury] have placed their own selfish desires over the needs of the citizens” or Madame Mayor “it would have been smarter for her [mayor Kelly] to vote no if she wasn’t doing this for the money?” These are personal attacks – I have read quite a bit on this blog as a whole and my comments are clearly within the political forum and much milder than most of the stuff posted here.
Geoff.
Having been involved in our local politics since we became a city I do not recall your being visible in any activity until this spring. As such let me suggest that you do some research before adding your comments.
Frank Ury and Trish Kelley, each of whom can benefit from taxpayer funded health care, voted to remove it and reinstate it in 2008. According to my calendar that was only two years ago, not a decade.
The timing of the initial perk is irrelevant at this point in time. They had the authority to act in 2008 and have the same powers today.
I do not oppose a second tier pension plan. However, the timing of Trish’s action is suspect in that she is requesting a policy from staff in 90 days which is just prior to her reelection bid. Furthermore, if you followed council actions, we are cutting staff and have a hiring freeze. Therfore this is simply grandstanding to create a positive campaign image.
I find it hypocritical for Trish not to say a single word in support of or express opposition when Cathy proposed removal of Frank and Trish’s lifetime health care benefits, worth approximately $250,000 each, which was immediately followed by Trish’s future cost savings proposal.
So you agree that it’s OK to cut employeee benefits but continue to reward yourself? Is that what is known as a sweetheart deal?
They have placed their own interests above ours. That’s a fact, not a personal attack!
Mr. Gilbert
So much for no personal attacks and not responding to comments rather than the post – par for the course. If you had spent your career working fighting the excess of government like I have done for the past 25 years, maybe you would understand that I do my research thoroughly and completely – you actually don’t correct my factual assertions, you just make it look like you do – I clearly state that I do not support either creating a new benefit nor do I condemn reducing one. If you had spent the time to go to law school like I did, maybe you would understand that rhetoric unsupported by real facts is hollow – like your assertion that your use of inflammatory words like “selfish desires” IS a personal attack. If you had been a reporter for the Orange County Register like I have, maybe your stories would be properly fact checked so that the $250,000 benefit quoted by you would be supportable.
While my children are 5th generation Southern Californians and I was born and raised in Orange County, I am jealous that you have been able to live in this beautiful city so long. Though you constantly remind people how long you have lived here, it doesn’t seem like you are ever very happy about the City. Must be painful to live so long in a place you hold in such contempt.
Lie, lie louder and then change the subject. Modus operandi.
Geoff,
Fair enough. Would you support ending these lifetime health benefits for Council Members? I understand that you are a candidate for the MV City Council. Will you make this a campaign issue? Will you promise to support ending these egregious payouts to politicians?
Geoff.
With all of the Juice comments added over the past two days I missed your assertion of a personal attack.
“Selfish desires” is a personal attack? Give it up. That is not our definition of a personal attack on this blog.
The word on the street is that Trish, Dave and yourself are running as a slate.
What you may not be aware of is that whenever I mention a member of the city council I send them a hard copy the minute the story is posted. In fact I copy the city manager and quite often our city attorney.
If Trish has issues with my posts, which she receives directly from me, she is big enough to respond herself. She surely doesn’t need you to defend her actions. Dave Leckness, who has only been on the job for 4 months, has added his comments to my reports on our blog.
Fact check? My rounded off reference to the $250,000 was not picked out of the air. Perhaps you might speak to Assistant City Manager/Treasurer Irwin Bornstein or watch a prior council meeting where he told John Paul Ledesma that the value of that perk was $257,000 [or $258,000] per participant.
“Lie, lie.”
And you asked me to get together for a cup of coffee. Are you sure you want to associate with a liar?
Why the hell are cities giving part-time elected councilmembers health benefits? That is utterly absurd and a gross abuse of taxpayer dollars. I bet 99% of the residents have no idea their councilmembers get any health benefits.
After reading Willis’ rants he is not only uninformed but he is hopeless !!
“Willis is Nuts”
Thank you for adhering to the rules of the Juice and avoiding personal attacks. And thank you for such a valuable contribution to this thread with your insightful and thoughtful post.
The OC register article on the blog says that FU is planning to ask the council to release the closed session tapes so that he can continue to obfuscate the facts by claiming ‘she made me do it’.
Tell you what Frank, and tell this to Curley. Release every single tape from closed session since we had to start taping because of Butterfield, Withrow and Craycraft! I would like to hear all of those closed sessions where you determined that I could not stay because you were discussing me. The tapes where you all discussed how you were going to use Rios’ lawsuit to try and get me out. The tapes where you settled with Rios the night before the election without ever conducting an investigation (which I repeatedly requested). The tapes where Trish and Lance had a JPIA attorney paid for by the insurance company while I took free advice from YOUR friend. The tape where you told me it was OK to leave the room that you would be looking out for me.
Yes, Frank release everything!
I have to question releasing selected information because just after leaving the council, the city attorney sent me an e-mail advising me that anything I said or revealed about ‘confidential’ materials that the city could sue me for. I have disappeared from the city, Drop it Frank, either take your lumps for taking free lifetime healthcare or rescind the benefit.
As I said before, Trish may have her husband’s medical now because she puts the money away in a future account which is hers when she leaves. If there is any form on co-insurance payment with her husband’s plan, she can well choose to enjoy the city free plan and save the money she is currently paying.
As the article said, I was asking questions, lots of questions about a great deal more than insurance. You gave the only employee who worked for us the right to ignore me and the advisor for the council told me he could not answer my questions because YOU and TRISH had appointed yourselves as the ad hoc committee looking into the council benefits, And, that you were not going to answer anything until it was clear that I was gone!
For anyone thinking about running, three people on the council can decide to do anything to another council member with complete impunity. As I have written before, look at the judges ruling in my suit against TRISH, LANCE AND KATHY (NOT THE CITY)
They had “privilege” and that “privilege included “communications that are FRAUDULENT, PERJURIOUS, UNETHICAL AND ILLEGAL.” You all are covered as long as you can keep three votes. Dave needs to know he is being used.
Folks.
Yesterdays Saddleback Valley News and todays OC Register contain some very interesting numbers.
$38,000 and $40,000. Larry what are you talking about. I am referring to the total value of the lifetime health care in which MV City Treasurer Irwin Bornstein told John Paul Ledesma, during a televised city council meeting, that the value of this perk was around $258,000 each, not $38,000 to $40,000.
Was he misinforming us then or is he misinforming us today?
Mr. Willis. Notice I am not calling Irwin a liar.
No one questioned the $250,000 estimate during the recall of Lance MacLean who was entitled to the identical benefit if we did not recall him in Feb and should he have been re-elected in Nov.
Regardless of the outcome I will do another story to clarify this major cost difference. It is also worth noting that the Register representative did not comment on the quarter million dollar figure that activists have been using for the past year in his story. That’s why I am not referring to him as a reporter.
I don’t know what to say – evidently Mr. Gilbert and Madame Mayor have all of the facts correct and everyone else including the Orange County Register has it wrong.
Geoff.
The Register representative states getting his facts from a city document. What he should have done is raise questions on the 7.75%, especially when we have been quoting a massive difference in the total cost of this perk.
Readers. Do I need a new pair of glasses? Please read the second column of the Register Local Section page 8 where it states “according to a city report.” As such he did not interview or question Irwin Bornstein on this point.
Geoff. Who is the everybody else you refer to?
Geoff-
Glad you recognize you have nothing of value to add to this thread.
You have nothing of value to add to Mission Viejo either!!
As far as Larry is concerned we disagree all the time thats why I don’t add to the orange juice, however, that picture of Trish Kelly is not funny, and quite frankly thats something Larry would not do.He may be somewhat difficult at times , but he does have ethics. More than I can say for some people. When you are discussing such a serious subject, keep it that way, no room for childish added pictorials.
Colin. As we are out of state I have not been on the OJ for the past week.
In fact I am not looking back at the photo you reference.
She did vote to give herself lifetime health care access and only backed down after Dave L supported Cathy breaking the majority control.
I will address this post after we return.
Aloha!