June 2, 2008
Amazing. Mission Viejo’s council meeting is not being broadcast tonight.
We spent millions of resident taxdollars building a new city hall with multiple cameras in the council chamber so that the council, staff and speakers can be both seen and heard at every city council meeting. In fact our city web site contains Agendas and video of all prior meetings. That’s called transparency. Not tonight, however. Someone in authority, most likely Mayor Kelley, moved the meeting to the newly expanded senior and community center to accommodate the Capistrano School District students relating to award presentations rather than focusing on the 98,000 residents of the city, many of which are seniors and watch the proceedings from their homes rather than sitting for hours in the chamber. Other residents unable to attend for whatever reason can view these meetings live or anytime later via the archives. Having turned on our TV’s resident’s have told me that the normal station is not broadcasting. Nor is it live on line. We have intentionally gone dark tonight. Where are our priorities? Is this an attempt to get students to hang around to support agenda Items #10 & #11?
Following are my written comments on those items as I have last minute personal and election related functions which take priority over attending in person.
Mrs. Karen Hamman, City Clerk, City of Mission Viejo
Public comments for June 2 meeting Agenda Items #10 & #11
Social Host Underage Drinking & Consumption Regulatory Ordinance
So that there is no question on my position I recommend a NO vote on Agenda items #10 & #11. My thoughts today are the same as stated during a prior council meeting. Let the legislature impose statewide laws to deal with this issue if they feel that it’s necessary. Our outgoing Assembly Member Todd Spitzer has been very tough on crime yet I do not believe even he has introduced any proposals addressing this topic.
While this is being promoted as a “tool for law enforcement” let’s engage in a little investigative reporting before jumping into the pool with another city Ordinance.
Mission Viejo resident Cathy Schlicht received the following reply to her May 12th Public Records request from the OCSD…. “we are unable to determine the number of calls resulting in underage drinking or how many were arrested. Most of the calls for service cited in the OC Register’s article did not result in reports being written. Of those that did result in a report, we found one that may have involved underage drinking (the deputy did not witness it) and the resident was issued a citation for disturbing the peace.”
And to “appoint the city manager to act as an appellate officer and adjust or dismiss charges ” (and fines) is placing the fox in charge of the hen house.
However, rather than repeating my prior testimony opposing this Ordinance I must question the motivation for moving this evening’s meeting of our city council to an off-site location.
The taxpayers of Mission Viejo spent millions of dollars building a new city hall with a council chamber that “comfortably seats 155 in a column-free environment that makes it ideal for meetings or performances and encourages residents to participate, whether by attending in person or viewing from home.”
Is the council chamber undergoing any repairs? Did it suffer a fire such as Universal Studios? What is the real reason for this change of venue?
We have a long track record of giving out presentations and issuing awards to students, city staff and volunteers in our city. There is no valid reason why this could not be accomplished in our council chambers.
Larry:
I applaud you for once again exposing this particular city councils actions of thumbing their noses at the citizens of our city.
This just under scores that in the up coming elections we have to start clean house–again, of council members who are captives of the special interest in this city. Like you say–they ignore the folks that pay the taxes and salute those who message their egoes.
In this case the ordinance they are hiding from the public is a clear violation of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendment.
*As usual with Community Service..many City Council Members can not seem to think out of the box correctly!
Instead of moving the Standard meeting…they
all should have attended a presentation of the
issues at the school auditorium – thereby making
themselves available to answer any and all questions!
But then that would take extra effort wouldn’t it?
Why would they want to inconvenience themselves…
instead just shut out the entire city…and let them hear about it by word of mouth. Or worse..
like the bad old days when you had to rely on the
local press!
School awards should be presented at a school. A couple weeks ago, a Capo art event was held at the center at the city’s expense. The city seems to be funding the Capo school district. I don’t see Saddleback sponging off the city.
It appears that the staff is trying to do everything possible to get warm bodies into the senior center. That’s what it is, a SENIOR CENTER, for Pete’s sake! The city built another oversize empty barn, and now they’re trying to fill it up in any way possible.
With the number of people who attend council meetings (not the presentations), they could meet in a closet. Does anyone remember when Susan Withrow was mayor and residents thought it couldn’t get worse?
Council member Frank Ury was extremely condescending towards public concerns regarding 4th amendment and due process protections. In fact he said that I was “making it up”, that the ordinance does not “smash the Constitution” and that there are no special zen powers being given to the police.
I guess he was not listening to the city attorney who had expressed some concerns during his remarks.
The police chief was defensive about my comments. He, too, wants this tool, but he did not have any bonafide data on the number of underaged drinking parties have occurred in Mission Viejo. The answer I received from OCSD was “one may have involved underaged drinking” of the 1300 reported in the OCRegister.
Council members Lance MacLean and Gail Reavis have sincere reservations about passing this ordinance. They were making reasoned inquiries but did not receive any firm answers. Trish’s responses were based on emotion, and not on facts.
When it was questionable about the passage of this ordinance, Frank motioned for an ad hoc committee. Its members are JP Ledesma and Trish Kelley. So this will go underground – out of public view, while they tinker on it so it becomes acceptable to JP for the third vote. So much for transparency in government.
Email reply:
Larry,
Who is running this city and who are they running it for? I personally feel ripped off to not be able to view this meeting from home. If this was the plan, it should have been made known that it was not available on TV or on the net, and why. This should have been discussed and related to the public way ahead of time.
They have the ability to work their magic on their select crowd tonight.
Thanks for making others aware of the situation.
diane
Email from Mayor Trish Kelley.
Hi Larry,
Be careful about making statements when you have not verified them. It was not my idea to move the meeting to the Murray Center, yet you state that it was most likely me. You know that I am quickly responsive to emails and phone calls most of the time. I answered Cathy Schlict’s email request to pull an item from the consent calendar within seconds of when she sent it (and I told her I would pull it.)
And fyi…the kids who came to speak do not go to Capo or Newhart. They came from MVHS and Trabuco Hills. Most of them came twice, last time and tonight. Again, I know that your integrity is important to you as well as your credibility so be careful about the statements and the innuendos that you make.
The meeting was recorded and will be televised later.
Trish
Juice readers.
Based on the last two comments I will chase down “who” made the “call” and why we were not advised of the plan to broadcast it later.
The real question remains. What was the motivation and justification of moving this council meeting from our multimillion dollar city hall to an off-site location?
And why wasn’t the public advised that the meeting would not be broadcast live or available on the Net as they all are?
Broadcast later? We are still broadcasting videos from last year’s events on the MVTV channel.
As her campaign manager in 2002 I can report that Trish was very active in the CUSD in PTA leadership.
As stated above. While we have a track record of honoring students prior to council meetings, the school district or individual schools should recognize their students in their own facilities.
Did we place their convenience ahead of the public or was this move to show off the newly expanded community center?
trish kelley does not want to take responsibility for moving the council meeting to the community center. so who was responsible and why was it done?
who is running city hall? who are the real decision makers? are our council members puppets or our representatives?
if the council was not responsible for the move, then why did they not take staff to task, publicly? silence is acceptance, and there was not any protest last night except from those members that complained about public commenters who did not support their point of view.
once again, the public was not the factor in the decision making. once again the critical element in this move ignored the importance that the public places on watching the performance of its government. maybe city hall did not want its citizens to see the deliberation about a pair of proposed ordinances that gives addditonal police power to the government at the expense of our civil liberties.
once again, the public is just an inconvenience that has to be dealt with. it would be so much easier if we would just accept that the council knows what is best for us.
yes, trish did quickly respond to my request to pull a consent calendar item. and so did gail. i wanted this item pulled and discussed because it was an example of a claim against the city for a warrantless seizure under the color of authority. this claim has possible violations of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.
the pending social host ordinance also dismisses our 4th, 5th and 14th amendment protections, but we have assurances from the police chief that his department will not act without probably cause and that due process procedure will be followed.
but trish is also trying to cloud another issue here. two presentations last night recognized students from capistrano high school and there was also an event occurring at the community center featuring the wind ensemble of capo valley high school. so it is not a stretch to believe that the change in venue was for the convenience of the capo students and parents. it certainly was not for the convenience of the public. the room was uncomfortable and not very well lit. athough the council and staffed were crowded onto a couple of tables, at least it looked like they had comfortable chairs.
trish also showed her hand with her comments by identifyng the student speakers who spoke in support of her ordinances that contain serious 4th, 5th and 14th amendment issues. she tried to pull out all the stops for approval of her ordinances by not only using emotion over reason, but symbolism over substance.
at the may 19th council hearing, before the social host ordinance was postponed, trish begged members of the audience to come forward in support of her ordinance. last night she made sure that she had speakers speaking in support. so whose will is trish promoting?
Where do we draw the line? Waht is the difference between the role of a city council as compared to the local schools and school district?
Last night’s Mission Viejo council meeting is an illustration of how misguided some of our elected city officials have become.
I would argue that it is the duty and responsibility of the school districts, school boards and individual schools to recognize accomplishments of individual students or groups.
I do not have an issue with an ocassional presentation at city council meetings such as baseball or football teams that become state or national champions that give MV a favorable name in the media. Up until this year we have recognized these teams without taking too much of the council time that should be devoted to policy making decisions that impact the residents.
Last night there were SIX individual presentations preceding their conducting CITY business. Readers. Our two local school districts do NOT report to our city council or city manager.
PRESENTATIONS:
P1 40th anniversary of the O’Neill School
P2 Community of character award–middle school essay
P3 3 finalists in Community of Character Award Newhart school and coach
P4 Recognizing Capo Valley H.S. cheer team for placing 1st
P5 Recognizing Capo Valley H.S. song team for placing 1st in pom & jazz division
P6 Recognizing Principle Tom Ressler.CVHS Retiring
An attendee informs me that these 6 presentations lasted over 30 minutes.
Readers. Do you feel that any or all of these recognitions should be handled by the school district,school boards or schools?
Was this an appropriate use of staff and council time?
We all know how deeply involved Trish Kelley is with the politics of the Capo school district. It was admirable that she wished to showcase the accomplishments of the Capo students last night, but she did it at a time when there is a recall vote pending later this month for two Capo trustees.
Was the almost half hour worth of presentations an effort to change the outcome of the vote? Did the city wish to use the accomplishments of the students as a political tool to influence the vote? Superintendent Carter is also promoting a p.r. campaign to spin a good light on the school district with a $20 million deficit.
The other significant problems I have with the growing number of presentations is that these are kodak moments for a mayor. Also, when we have too many presentations, it loses its significance.
The growing length of the presentations increases the length of a council meeting. The purpose of a council meeting is to take care of the business of the city. The irony is that public participation is strictly limited by the council because we slow down the process.
So kodak moments are good for p.r. and personal agendas, but public participation in the business of the city – which is the purpose of council meetings – are to be limited for the sake of time. After all – good government is what the council tells us is good government.
Apparently this post may have put some pressure on the city which is currently running the video of Monday’s meeting on channel 30. It would have been nice if we were given a heads up on this change of venue for which no explanation was given other than the mayor’s comments that we could see the new facility as I watch her close the meeting and adjourn to city hall for June 16th. I thought we just had a major open house of the expansion with easil’s that eventually found their way into the trash behind a shopping center.
As the council meeting ends you can only see ONE female citizen in the audience. What a crowd after the school presentations.