At the end of each city election, I think it can’t get any worse. In a city of 100,000, no one is interested in running, and we end up with lunatics and goofballs on the council.

Glaab isn’t a consultant, he’s a buzzard circling with other buzzards and flies (Kelley, Ury and MacLean). What a bunch of sickos!

MV Citizen.

We agree. Having personally being “hit” in two city council and one water district race, with false accusations in last minute mailings, I can understand why qualified citizens, wishing to give back to their community, will avoid this arena.
While I recall some of the details related to the harassment allegations, for the Mayor of Laguna Niguel to enter the fray leaves himself open for public criticism.

Did Larry miss it.

As a reporter you let the person being interviewed make whatever statements they wish. Having been on both sides of discussions with media representatives not everything can be included in published reports. The Reavis’ told me of their legal limits in forcing an investigation.
That entire episode was rather costly to our city which goes beyond the $10,000 settlement and its related costs.
And the above quotes were repeated to me by Gail.
We leave it to you the reader to decide if she was off base in her strategy and tactics.

I am not niave in my personal feelings about this episode in MV politics. Challenging “damage control” is not my role in being the messenger in the basis of this post. Let’s not forget the connection between Mayor Glaab and the city as well as his relationship with current council members who may be hiding under a rug as the dirt hits the fan.
Let’s stay focused on the future “hit piece” and not whether or not Gail was wrong in her methods.

After reading the post Gail sent me a follow up note indicating that she has not requested my endorsement.

So Larry, are you in favor of the legal system being used this way? To “get attention”. Your post sure sounded like you were on Reavis side…

Yes or no, pretty easy question to you.

Wow Haya, you are so right.

A city councilmember suing her own city for $10,000,000 is tiny compared to a $14000 bill for a service.

Yes, that is great perspective.

Message to the good ‘ol boys crew,

There is no excuse for Gail’s actions while on the council.

Reavis was the only councilmember who was alert enough to ask the smart questions; but then succumbed to fear and intimidation by Ury, Maclean, Curly- whoever was hustling her around at the moment. Gail’s biggest blind spot is her fragile ego and need for “appearance”.

Ury on the other hand, is the biggest disappointment. He has the smarts and capability, but his blind spot has been his own sense of entitlement and greed. Ury’s got his hand in the cookie jar with his “Viejo Tech” municipal wi-fi company; and he can never advocate for the public because he’s manipulating for his own survival.

You know what I’m talking about; everybody who has been watching does.

Neither Ury nor Reavis should be re-elected. They are both disappointments, caring more for themselves than the public they are elected to serve.

Yet the people get what they deserve, and come November, we will know if the public is satisfied with the lot they’ve voted for, or if they’re ready to make a better choice.

Haya Sakadjian
MVcell-out.org

Jubal.
Perhaps you can explain why the Mayor of a neighboring city made a Public Records request in July of 2008 about an three year old claim involving a council member in another city that has zero bearing on his city of Laguna Niguel?

Perhaps Mayor Glaab is assisting in the removal of Gail Reavis who has voted no to “factoring” future receivables on cell towers for which Mr. Glaab has a financial interest? At a time when our city manager and your close friend Frank Ury boast of our huge reserves yet they promote “monetizing” the cell towers where ATS is the sole contractor for whom Mr. Glaab is the representative for ATS’s cell tower citing agreement in our city.
And Matt. We have been down this road before. Let’s be very open about your relationship for Frank Ury who, along with Gail Reavis, is up for reelection this November.

Is Paul Glaab his campaign Manager?
And even if he is, if it smells like a “hit piece” his questioning our city leads to only one conclussion. His discovery does not reach the bottom of the bar for integrity or ethical conduct by an elected official.
As to your bottom line. Where did I give readers any impression that I was supporting her reelection?

Did Haya miss it too.
While any lawsuit against any city comes at a cost to taxpayers we are not staying focused. The 2005 claim is in the “dead” file.

The “current” city council debate of “monetizing” our cell towers to get somewhere less than the full future revenues involves Paul Glaab due to his representing ATS. We are talking about a current action that involves compensation for Mr. Glaab.

Did Haya miss it. If you send me your address I will send you a 2008 calendar.

Perhaps you can explain why the Mayor of a neighboring city made a Public Records request in July of 2008 about an three year old claim involving a council member in another city that has zero bearing on his city of Laguna Niguel?

I think it is pretty obvious why: He’s probably putting together an IE attack mailer against Reavis. It’s a free country, after all, Larry.

And I have to laugh at your leaving it to readers to “make their judgment” about Reavis’ antics, but you’re always quick to leap to conclusions about MV politics you don’t like.

My “agenda” is transparent, Larry. I’d like Frank to win re-election and Reavis to go down in defeat. That’s not exactly a secret, kemosabe.

If everyone in Mission Viejo knows that Reavis sued the city for $10M, then she is toast. How in the world can a councilmember sue her own city and still ask to be reelected? Have you ever heard of such a thing?

Gilbert Note: There’s inadequate space on this blog to share the entire circumstances leading up to the litigation issue which consumed our attention for perhaps a solid year. After the employee “harassment” action was received, Mayor Reavis eventually retained the legal services of Newport Beach Attorney Philip Greer.

Before I take you down that path, and his testimony, let us not overlook the original question.

Why is Paul Glaab seeking documentation on MV litigation which we closed out a few years ago?

It’s simple. He stands to benefit financially from his arrangement with ATS. An arrangement that Gail Reavis opposes. That proposal goes well beyond the $14,000 stated in one of the comments.

Following is the November 15, 2004 testimony of Atty. Philip Greer at that MV city council meeting. Mr. Greer represented Mayor Gail Reavis in the allegations of harassment filed against her by a city employee.

“Gail:     …and I do have one public comment request to speak from for the closed session.  Phil Greer. Pardon me. Phillip Greer.

Madam Mayor, members of the City Council, Mr. City Attorney, Mr. City Manager: My name is Phillip Greer.  I am an attorney in Newport Beach and I represent Mayor Gail Reavis.   It is my understanding that on the advise of council, the city council intends to exclude Mayor Reavis and her attorney from those deliberations.  It is our opinion that to so exclude Mayor Reavis, who is essentially a party defendant to this action, is to deny her the opportunity and the ability to participate in her own defense and to contribute an understanding of the full extent of the issues presented by this claim. Such action is a violation of the law and a denial of her right to due process and, in our opinion, creates additional and independent liabilities for the city council, members of the city council and the city itself. These liabilities are separate and apart from those liabilities contained in the claim to be discussed. Additionally, it is respectfully requested that the city council, either on its own motion or pursuant to the advice of council, disqualify and recuse from participating, Council Member Trish Kelley in these discussions. Numerous comments by Miss Kelley, both publicly and via e-mail, show a bias against Mayor Reavis. It is our opinion that this bias is so ingrained that Council Member Kelley will be unable to reasonably and rationally review the allegations contained in the claim and make decisions unencumbered by such bias. As such, Council Member Kelley may take actions or render decisions not based on fact but upon such biases, leaving the city council, it’s individual members and the City of Mission Viejo, subject to liability separate and apart from those contained in the claim. We believe that the underlying claim by the city employee and the subsequent actions taken by the members of the city council, are politically motivated and have no basis either in fact or law. The timing of the presentation is suspect. The allegations are contradicted by facts, and comments by council members may present a picture of involvement much greater than a simple concern for Mission Viejo and one of its employees. Regrettably, it appears that the die has been cast and unfortunately when the smoke clears, Mayor Reavis, I believe, will be vindicated and exonerated, while others who are participating in this will have their reputations ruined as a result of the facts that will be brought to light. I urge you to allow the mayor to participate in this process so that this matter might be resolved expeditiously and with nominal ramifications.  Thank you very much.  

Gail:     Thank you.  With that we will recess to closes session.
Peter (Thorson, city attorney):   Madam Mayor.

Gail:     I’m sorry. Peter:   If I could respond to that.
 Gail:     Yes. Peter:   Mr. Greer raised three items.  The first on excluding the Mayor from the closed session.  It is my view that the claim does not involve the mayor that is does ahhhh…..the city council is entitled to exclude the mayor from the closed session.  There is two cases right on point on that issue.  One is DeGrasse v. City of Glendora, and the other is Hamilton v. Town of Los Gatos. Second, with respect to the request that Council Member Kelley be excluded, I have discussed this with Mr. Greer.  I find no cases that apply the bias issue to the discussion of a lawsuit and so I see no legal basis on which that can occur.             And I have no comments on his discussion of the underlying claim. 
Gail:     All right, with that are we recessed to closed session?
 Peter:   Yes. 
Gail:     Thank you very much. Thank you.”

As a follow up to this post the following text is provided by councilwoman Reavis.

“Kelley, MacLean and Craycraft were in every closed session meeting.  The now CA sent letters to the California Attorney General asking for a ruling on how they could proceed on this.  During this time, the CLAIM was allowed to expire and not responded to my the city.
 
Then, having had nothing resolved, I had to make the ultimate decision WHETHER OR NOT TO FILE A LAWSUIT in the restricted time available to me by law.  Since Ms. XXXXX had begun this episode, for about 8 months my name had been subjected to a cloud of doubt as to whether or not I had ‘harassed’ her.  Still never investigated, frustrated and feeling that my rights to Due Process had been denied, I (we) decided to SUE. 

..”the suit was against only KELLEY, MACLEAN AND RIOS.  Among other things, it asserted DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  The city & JPIA provided the three with attorney Lee Woods, which was provided and paid for by the JPIA   Woods and his staffer Mr. Francis attended several of these closed session meetings where I and my attorney were excluded.
 
The substance of their argument to the court to toss out the lawsuit was an acronym S.L.A.P.P. 
Gilbert Note: “A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (”SLAPP”) is a lawsuit or a threat of lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.”

… based on their submissions there was one moment before an actual judge.  Both attorneys ‘defended’ their briefs.  My attorney did not make an argument, he told me there would be other days ahead to do that.  Instead the judge ‘took it under advisement’, and made a ruling.  It was short and sweet.
 
He upheld Woods’ argument that these three were covered by “privilege”, and that “PRIVILEGE COVERS COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE FRAUDULENT, PERJURIOUS, UNETHICAL AND ILLEGAL”. 
 
And, because this was a “S.L.A.P.P.” suit, they asked for and were awarded attorneys fees of $2835.00.  All kinds of correspondence with Francis takes place now and they start demanding the judgment of $3105, (which was never explained to me),  And, after nearly a year of trying to get a JPIA ruling on why I was being asked to pay for services which our insurance coverage had already paid for, signed an agreement with them to make payments.  Which I have done and received a full release from them.  I even appealed this to the Board of the JPIA and was denied.
 
Even after all this, the council on a 5-0 voted for me as Mayor in 2007!” 

Note: The City of Mission Viejo is covered by their membership in JPIA’s insurance policy. Therefore we should not have incurred any legal expenses.

and getting back to the main point here…

What is this love triangle all about?

Ury recommends Tony/ATS and his $200K “master wireless plan”. The plan receives negative feedback from the public. ATS brings in Paul Glaab to assuage the masses. Glaab needs his chunk of change for the memo he puts out.

and lo, here is mayor Glaab back in the picture with a public records request. Is he working for Ury? Just a yes or no answer would do.

Concerned:
You just don’t get it or you are so stupid and can’t read. Gail Reavis NEVER SUED THE CITY!
It was a claim because her rights were violated. Ury is the one behind saying Reavis sued the city. It did not happen. The $10,000 claim was by a employee who ex-boss was running against Reavis in 2004. Kelley, MacLean and Craycraft approved the claim without an investigation. First time in the history of Mission Viejo a clain was investigated. It cost Reavis 25% of the vote for her re-election, but she still won.
Reavis is the only member on the council that will stand up for the rights of the citizens.
Gail Reavis for President1

Concerned.
you bet I have spent a sizeable amount of time trying to respond to every reader comment which requires official documentation or persoanl contacts. The transcript of attorney Philip Greer’s Nov 2004 public comments provides some insight into this Closed Session matter the night before that election.
Where do you prefer my going?
Apparently you are well versed in our city’s politics. There were several of us activists, possibly including yourself, that in addition to removing our mayor and mayor pro-tem, also worked together to remove our former city manager. The lawsuit against Gail Reavis may have wratched up that final settlement. That’s my unspecified comment as to the cost of misdeeds in the “very ugly and dark period.”

I have no issue with transparency as to the costs incurred by our city. I must respectfully bring all of us back on track.
Why is the Mayor of Laguna Niguel requesting that data?
As pointed out by Matt Cunningham it is surely for an I.E. For those unfamiliar with that acronym, an I.E. is an “independent expenditure” for which the candidates have no input or control. It’s what some may refer to as a “hit piece.” In the last election every voter in O.C. surely received their share of these mailings.

Furthermore. as a former candidate I did challenge the voting record of incumbents. That’s a given for any challenger. However I must repeat myself by saying that Gail Reavis is a thorn to ATS and Paul Glaab re ongoing council decision making that impact commissions from “monetizing ” cell tower accounts receivable.

Good morning Concerned.
As I re-read your comment where you stated:
Larry did attempt to answer part of my questions by trying to blame the entire Council for what he terms a “very ugly and dark period”.

Question. How many members of the city council did it take to remove our city manager? ONE?
I rest my case!

Haya:
check your mv-cellout e-mail.

Larry, please get a life. So Haya who lives in Irvine can comment on politics in MV and criticize select council members, but Paul Glaab from Laguna Niguel cannot? I believe that is called hypocrisy, something you are very familiar with.

Larry, you used “hit pieces” on incumbents when you ran for office THREE times and lost! Obviously you and your opinions are irrelevant to residents of MV, you just somehow haven’t recognized it yet. You are a pathetic tired old man searching for relevance and continually missing it. You only feel good about yourself as you tear others down. I feel sorry for you Larry - you are sick, go get some help.

Who will guard the guardians.

Haya moved out of Mission Viejo to protect the health and safety of her son. Prior to her moving, a difficult choice for her and her family to make, she was very active in fighting the installation of cell towers where children are present. That activism including gathering petition signatures and speaking at multiple MV council meetings.
How many have you attended?
Therefore she is probably better informed than you on the topic and involvement of Paul Glaab
(unless you are Paul, Tony from ATS or a member of our city council or staff.

Haya,

Why are you still concerned with Mission Viejo politics? Could it be that that you have finally found an audience on the lunatic fringe? Unfortunately, MV is full of half wits and idiots that subscribe to your nonsense of health issues with cell towers. Scientific facts are not even close to conclusive on cellular antennae and health. Since you are now in Laguna Niguel why not pester that council with your invective dim-witted postulate of health effects of invisible cellular waves and drop the MVcell-out BS. My guess is you will not have any lunatics to support your fantasy.

to poster #37, haya has the courage of her convictions to sign her name, it is obvious that you do not.

i have said this many times before: hiding behind a cloak of anonymity is cowardly; you want to be heard but you do not want to be judged. by not leaving your name, you silence your voice of conscience and your communication becomes vindictive, spiteful and non-productive.

i salute haya for all the time she has dedicated to raising public awareness about cell phone usage. she has some pretty good heavy hitters in her corner. you go, girl!

see the following from last night’s Larry King Live program on cell phones and cancer:

here is a rush transcript from larry king live:

to view the video got to: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/07/30/lkl.cell.phone.cnn
Aired July 29, 2008 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

And we’ll be right back. And when we come back - hey, you got a call phone? You want to know this. Is it putting your children and you at risk for cancer? That’s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Does cell phone use increase your risk of cancer? It’s a hot-button debate. The latest development, a memo from Dr. Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, offering precautionary advice on cell phone use to his faculty and his staff.

We welcome to LARRY KING LIVE. Dr. Devra Davis, director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh’s Cancer Institute. Dr. Keith Black, chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery and director of the Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute in Cedars-Sinai in L.A. And also from L.A., Dr. Paul Song, radiation oncologist.

Dr. Davis has this new book, “The Secret History of the War on Cancer.” Dr. Davis, what do you maybe of Dr. Herberman’s memo? It should frighten everybody.

DR. DEVRA DAVIS, DIRECTOR, CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL ONCOLOGY: Well, we don’t want to frighten people. We want people to take precautions. That’s the reason he wrote the memo.

KING: Precautions being?

DAVIS: Well, to use an earpiece and to not keep your phone on, on your body all the time and to make sure that children are not using cell phones.

KING: At all?

DAVIS: No, no, young children particularly need to be careful and particularly toddlers, who now have cell phones that they use to play with. This is a really bad idea.

KING: What led Dr. Herberman to this finding?

DAVIS: Well, he looked at the literature and was aware of the growing concerns that we do not have enough information, nor enough time to be sure that cell phones are safe. There’s reason for concern that they may be harmful, so we need to take precautions rather than waiting to experiment on the rest of us.

KING: Dr. Black, meaning, if they are harmful, we don’t know why they are harmful, right?

DR. KEITH BLACK, CHAIRMAN, DEPT. OF NEUROSURGERY, CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: We know that microwave radiation can damage cells, and there’s been some experimental evidence to suggest there are harmful effects. As Dr. Davis said, at this point, they’re looking at the relationship between cell phone use and brain cancer. We have conflicting studies. Some studies, which are not absolutely perfect, showed no correlation. We also have some studies that tend to suggest a correlation.

One of the recent studies from Sweden show that if you use cell phones an hour a day for ten years, your risk may be increased as much as two-fold. The real concern is analogous to this: we’ve only been using cell phones for a short period. Most of the studies are for a short period of time. So if you have a 14-year-old who smokes cigarettes, we don’t expect that 14-year-old to develop lung cancer at 24. We expect them to develop lung cancer at 54. If you have an eight-year-old using a cell phone, we don’t expect them to do you feel lung cancer at 18, but at 48.

What happens after 20, 30, 40 years of use, that’s the concern and we don’t have the answer to that.

KING: If we have — we have millions of cell phones in use now, right?

BLACK: That’s correct.

KING: Has there been an increase in brain cancer?

BLACK: Well, again we know that if you look at studies, there have been various explanations to try to account for the increase in brain cancer. KING: Has there been an increase?

BLACK: There’s been an increase in reported incidents. That may be related to better MRI scans or more frequent use of CT scans, but we don’t expect at this early stage — we’ve only been using cell phones with a high frequency for less than ten years, for about 10, 20 years. So again, you know, the concern, and based on the biology we know with the development of cancer — the real concern is what happens after 20, 30, 40 years. And that is what we need to be concerned about, and that’s why I think the University of Pittsburgh advised us to be cautious.

KING: The evidence, Dr. Song, having done so many interviews over the years, against tobacco, was statistical. It wasn’t — they didn’t know why tobacco caused lung cancer, only that it caused cancer. You use tobacco, you’ve got an increased chance. Is that going to be the evidence here, statistical?

DR. PAUL SONG, RADIATION ONCOLOGIST: It could be, but it may be another 10, 20 years before we have the necessary statistics to make those recommendations. What we do know from radiation studies, whether it was people exposed in Hiroshima, to kids treated for cancer with radiation, is that sometimes it took 15, 20 years before people developed cancer, secondary that we could attribute to the radiation.

When we talk about cell phones, we’re looking at radio frequency, which is on the big spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. You’ve got radio waves on one side, which is responsible for TV, radio and cell phones, and then you’ve gamma waves on the other side. What we know about the gamma waves or the more intense radiation is that’s a ionizing radiation that causes DNA damage, that mutates cells that develop into cancer.

For the radio waves, there has been no clear evidence to suggest that it’s a DNA damage. So if there is some damage, it has to be some other mechanism that has really yet to be reported.

KING: So what would you say to people who use cell phones?

SONG: I think the most important thing is that when we look at any type of radiation exposure, whether or not it’s radio waves or gamma waves, is that the duration of your exposure. So clearly if you’re on the cell phone for a long period of time — I think we all have been in situations where our ear gets warm — that clearly means maybe we’re on a little too long.

KING: So do what?

SONG: I think that an earpiece may help to greatly reduce the exposure for radio frequency radiation, but people need to keep in mind if the phone is on the hip pocket, their whole body is still being exposed to the same amount of radiation than if it was up to their ear.

K