Mission Viejo The California Promise
According to Monday’s comments and a vote from Mission Viejo mayor Kelley the Nov. General election is now underway. After fighting if favor of retaining access to lifetime health care benefits, as recently as our last council meeting, Trish made the following statement before voting in support of Cathy Schlicht’s Agenda item calling for removal of this perk on Monday evening. The final vote to remove the lifetime health care option for members Kelley and Ury was 4 YES and Frank Ury voting NO.
“I would like to just say this is redundant. I think it is unnecessary. This is being used as a political tool to try to use against me and against council member Ury and I’m going to vote in favor of it because anything other than this is going to continue to be used against me.”
She went on to say that “I will support this because the city attorney said that its PROBABLY a safe thing to do. Probably duplicating an effort” (in reference to her last minute questionable recision of the benefits).
Question. Why didn’t she ask the city attorney the same question at the last meeting so that council member Schlicht did not have to place it back on the Agenda?
Let me now take us back to the beginning of this 50 minute discussion where the first action of mayor Kelley was an attempt to block this item from ever seeing the light of day. After the city attorney provided a menu of options council member Ury questioned Mr. Curly on our current city policy suggesting a typical 6 month wait for revisiting an item.
Note: Trish is up for re-election in less than four months.
The attorney advised him that you can “lay it on the table” adding that it can be back on any Agenda. Hearing that option Frank stated “I am very comfortable with laying this in the table right now, so, I will make a Motion to lay this on the table.” Trish asked if he would allow public speakers (of which I was one). He did not respond. We than heard is there a second?” The delay was very dramatic. After a period of silence mayor pro tem Leckness asked a basic question. “Tabling this just delays it. Am I right?” He than added that “I can’t support delaying this. I think we need to get this thing and be done with it. So I won’t be able to support delaying of it.” The Ury Motion to table failed by a vote of 3-2 with only mayor Kelley, who also would benefit from the health care perk, voting YES.
At this point member Schlicht made her Motion which was seconded by member Ledesma.
When they opened the item for public comment I read my transcript of a prior council meeting exchange between member Ledesma and city treasurer Irwin Bornstein in which the benefit, based on our city’s actuarial analysis, would result in a cost to MV taxpayers of approximately $257,000 per eligible participant.
I than read part of a city document regarding these unnecessary benefits as follows:
“Elected officials run for office with the call to ‘public service’. In no way should that mean that the public continues to ‘serve’ them after their time in office is completed. Note that the benefit is for the Council Member AND their spouses.
One of the areas of government impacting the financial position of the State and local government is the issue of lifetime benefits of any sort, be they retiree funds or retire medical.
Bottom line: It is not right for the taxpayers of Mission Viejo to pay a lifetime of benefits to retired Council Members (and their spouses) for 12 years of part time work.” Author of the above document. Frank Ury. Date May 19, 2008.
This Agenda report from Mr Ury was heard five months prior to his re-election. The first meeting after his Nov 2008 re-election Frank voted to reinstate that very same benefit.
Bloggers will like the discussion between Cathy and Trish in which Cathy references a June 23rd OC Weekly article where Trish was quoted to having said she would not rule out taking advantage of the benefits if she was no longer eligible under her husband’s plan. Trish replied stating “what a reporter wrote on a blog was innuendo. I don’t know. None of us have ever been misquoted on a blog… have we?”
If you watch the city video of this meeting you will see Frank and Trish devote probably 10 minutes beating up on former Mayor Reavis who chose not to run for a third term. At no time has she accepted any health benefit from the city while she has been out of office for two years.
Readers not familiar with the lifetime policy as it relates to council members let me simply state that you must serve for 12 consecutive years by a specific age to qualify for the benefit. Although John Paul Ledesma, whose third term ends this year, is not eligible due to his age which does not meet the policy requirement.
Earlier in the meeting Frank mentioned having a “fiduciary responsibility” as a council member. I repeated his words twice last night. How sad. Frank Ury is conducting a scorched earth policy against former mayor Gail Reavis that is obvious to anyone in attendance or watching at home.
Folks. Trish was right. This does warrant voter attention. She, along with Frank Ury, fought to block this vote knowing that we will put your feet to the fire when you abuse the taxpayer.
Mission Viejo voters are already calling Cathy to commend her for her staying the course on this issue which was one of her campaign promises. Being a freshman last year, it is no easy task to get a majority of your peers to support your proposals. In this case she might have saved taxpayers over $500,000 if we are to believe our city treasurer.
Mission Viejo has one of the most dysfunctional councils in California, and that’s saying something. Does Trish Kelley think her vote at this meeting ended the problem after she repeatedly voted to reward herself?
Get rid of these incumbents. They are an embarrassment.
The hypocrisy of Kelley and Ury is astounding !!
This is now the fourth time these two have address this issue and Kelley has Flip Flopped again.
Yes, November is very present in Kelley’s decision and action.
One BIG question–Mission Viejo just had a big July 4th blow out—when will Trish Kelley submit her expense travel voucher from her home to the Lake Mission Viejo site for the celebration.
Remember Kelley submits travel vouchers to spelling bees, Bunny Days, city Christmas parties and so on.
Larry,
Let’s be fair and tell the whole story. First, Trish did not try to block the item from ever seeing the light of day, as you claim. Per the City Attorney, laying the item on the table would only have precluded any vote at that meeting. Your hinting that Ury tried to table the matter for 6 months (after Trish is up for re-election) neglects to tell all of the facts. Ury was questioning the City Attorney as to what the Council could do when a Councilmember repeatedly brings up the same issue. He mentioned a six month period. The City Attorney clarified that the six month period only applied to land use decisions and that Cathy Schlicht, or any other councilmember, would have been free to bring up the item at any future meeting. Also, Trish repeatedly said that the item was unnecessary since both she and Ury had signed irrevocable revocations of the benefits. Agree or disagree, Ms. Schlict repeatedly ignored the advice of the City Attorney that the revocations were binding and the City would fight to enforce them should either Trish or Ury seek benefits in the future. Her persistent comments that the revocations were just for political purposes and could be revoked at any time were entirely without support and in direct contradiction to the only legal advice offered at the meeting.
Larry, it appears that you also are skeptical of the legal effect of the revocations. I do not have a background in this area of the law, so I have repeatedly reached out to Brad Morton over at the Dispatch for his opinion on the enforceability of the revocations. To date, he has not responded to my posts. So, at this point I’m going with the only attorney willing to put it on the record – the City Attorney stated he feels they are enforceable. If you have any authority to the contrary, I will review it.
As to Ury and Madame Mayor, Ury was well-within his rights to prepare his Powerpoint presentation and say his piece regarding Ms. Schlicht’s agenda item. I would also note that Ms. Schlicht, apparently not happy with what Ury was going to say, improperly tried to pull her item from the agenda in an attempt to prevent Ury from making his presentation – bad form I would say. As for the presentation itself, it was illuminating on the motives behind why Ury voted to restore the benefits after initially voting to remove them. The emails from Madame Mayor are a clear indication that she was setting up a claim against the City if they didn’t restore the benefits. I understand that the issue is now moot since Madame Mayor is off the Council, but that doesn’t excuse her actions, inasmuch as Councilmembers should always be held accountable for all of their actions while serving Mission Viejo’s residents.
Ury definitely had a bone to pick with Madame Mayor, but he did it within his rights as a Councilmember and he abided by the Council’s rules in doing so. As for your claim that Trish “beat up” Madame Mayor, I don’t remember any of her comments to that point, but I’m happy to review the tape again if I’m wrong.
I will give Ms. Schlicht credit for her persistence. I think any Councilmember should be free to raise issues that they feel are important at any time, as long as it is within the rules. I also agree with Dave Leckness that we have some very important issues ahead of us, and I hope the Council can put the events of the past year behind them and unify in addressing the issues that will impact our great quality of life.
November should be a lot of fun.
Newbie. This will be choppy in that I am have some personal issues to deal with this afternoon.
Having been involved in this arena longer than yourself and having spent what might total hundreds of hours helping her in her 2002 campaign, including numerous one-on-one meetings in Trish’s home with her and Jack I think I know Trish Kelley. Let me also point out that we NEVER discussed any health care benefits. NEVER! Yet she now tells us the benefits were available at that time.
She speaks of “redundancy” as an excuse to cut Cathy off at the pass. Trish mentions signing off any future benefit by her last minute letter of revocation that may not be acceptable in a court of law to block this item. Instead of simply opening Cathy’s item for discussion, she immediately was seeking a legal way out. In our 22 years of cityhood I do not recall any Agenda item being tabled unless it might have been pulled by the member who added it.
Why didn’t Trish offer to sign that revocation letter at the prior meeting instead of being silent? OH, she does get an email copy of my blog posts where I included her name and reported her vote on this issue.
Newbie. Are you serious? Cathy ignored the advise of our City attorney? Do you truly believe that Bill Curley walks on water? Are you assuming that Cathy did not seek outside legal cousel on their letter before coming to the meeting?
Didn’t Bill Curley ignore Frank Ury’s Measure D ballot statement text for which he found no fault yet the judge disagreed and removed Frank’s bogus statements?
While Frank was in the drivers seat hammering Gail, Trish did join in later in the meeting. By all means go back and view the tape.
Have you seen the White Paper referenced by Gail? That document, from Peter Thorson, Bill Curley’s predecessor at RW&G, may in fact contain legal advise that could be 180 degrees different in our costly legal team’s interpretation of partial vesting rights.Could Gail Reavis argue for partial vesting? She only served 8 years and did not seek a third term. The policy calls for 12 consecutive years of service.
If Peter Thorson believes Gail could make a claim than Bill Curley misled Trish.
Why didn’t Trish approve this Agenda item the first time rather than throwing Dave under a bus?
Those of us in the blogosphere with our active keyboards have put Trish and Dave on notice that “we will remember in November.” That is why Trish begrudgingly caved on Monday.
Do you know the background of Gail’s legal issues with the city? It was not about health care.
Yet Frank and Trish made a point to dig it up didn’t they?
And while he was wrong, JP, the last time I counted, had only one vote in 2000 when the health care policy was approved. For Frank to lay the blame solely on him ignoring the other four council members without naming them shows his anger against John Paul which could be another lengthy story.
If I am not mistaken weren’t Susan and Sherri supporters of Frank in opposing Measure D? They were found guilty of violating the Brown Act by attacking JP in a Closed Session meeting. They served on that same council who voted for this benefit yet Frank fails to take them to the same woodshed.
Larry, why should he mention them as they no longer serve on our city council? Nor does Gail Reavis. Think about it!
Two MV voters have scheduled meetings with our city clerk to pull papers on Monday. Stay tuned.
Larry,
If Cathy did seek advice of counsel before Tuesday’s Council meeting, I find it interesting that she didn’t offer that as support for her claims (in contradiction to the City Attorney’s advice) that the revocations were essentially worth nothing more than the paper they were printed on. And as for Bill Curley, I think he is competent but I hardly would say he walks on water. I think he gave some bad advice during the pendency of the benefits issue that may have complicated the matter further than it should have, but my point in my post was only that his is the only advice we have heard on the matter of the revocations with any authority (I don’t count Dale Tyler as an authority on ERISA and benefits).
I will go back and watch the tape again, but Ury’s presentation was about Madame Mayor’s emails threatening a claim against the City if benefits were not reinstated. I know there was some tangential mention of her lawsuit/claim but when you file a $10 million claim against the City while you’re a sitting Councilmember, you should expect to get grief, much the same way I’m sure many will give Trish and Ury grief over the benefits issue. I know of no statute of limitations on the public’s tolerance.
As for who voted for the benefits in the first place, I don’t care. The only thing that matters to me is who can benefit now, should they, and should the current Council do anything about it. So I agree that Ury’s comments about JP didn’t add anything to the mix. Personally, I’m against lifetime benefits for ANY City employees, but that’s obviously an issue for another day.
Newbie.
Not everything that happens off camera needs to be aired and I won’t violate that information.
Let’s simply close by calling this a major victory for the taxpayers of Mission Viejo. Whether its redundant as some allege or not we have just eliminated access to the benefit that only applied to the very same two council member who were to benefit from this self directed perk.
Notice my decision not to mention another speaker’s chastizing Frank who does need to be taken down a peg or two from his high horse.
Addressing Newbie’s comments about a sitting council member filing a claim. If he would bother to read the claim and lawsuit (for NO monetary value), he would know that it had nothing to do with healthcare. Mr. Wilberg’s secretary (yes, currently) sued the city naming me, and the city failed to investigate, to interview or compile any kind of report. In short no one ever bothered to ask ‘by the way did you do any of those things?’ In trying to be heard (because Lance and Trish held private meetings to which I was thrown out) a friend of Franks offered to help me by intervening as an attorney. He said he was not charging me, because it was the right thing to do. I went forward right to the night before the election where the attorney begged council not to settle until this was investigated. They settled with her anyway the night before the election of 2004. We had recently parted company with the former city manager who then decided to run against me for city council. Then, as soon as he pulled papers, she filed a suit against me that hung over Mission Viejo all during the election. Trish sent dozens of e-mails will all manner of accusations that were untrue. After the election, I wanted to clear my name. Still wanting an investigation, was advised that filing a claim might get the council to finally talk to me.
Wrong again, they totally ignored it until it died on the vine. My only choice then was to drop it (looking guilty of something I never did), or file a lawsuit. Which I decided to do. For NO monetary value, against the perpetrators, Lance Trish and the secretary who started this.
THEY got an attorney, while I did not. elected officials are supposed to be protected from frivolous law suits, the city did not protect me. In the end. Their attorney claimed that they had “privilege” and that privilege meant they could liable, slander and do illegal things. The judge upheld his argument and ruled that I must pay their attorneys fees. Odd since the city’s insurer paid their fees, I paid their fees again.
Thinking about running for office? Three people on the council can put you in financial ruin, and its all legal.
Back to the issue, this was two years before health insurance ever came up. The only reason it did was when The 2008 election drew near, Frank needed an issue. So, he agendized the elimination of council healthcare, which I voted for. And, since I was the only one he had pointed out as being eligible should I run and win, asked valid questions.
One of the questions was, if I was considered an employee, if they could eliminate my benefits, could the council at any time change or eliminate other employees benefits? Trish appointed herself and Frank as a committee to research this and other questions, they were together for nearly 7 months. Not one word ever came out of this committee. Not one report. When I asked Curley when we would hear something, I got stonewalled. If you bother to read those e-mails that Frank made public (some of these were CONFIDENTIAL) how is that??? You will see not only that the city manager and attorney ignored my e-mails, they decided to just wait until my term ran out since I decided not to run. For a number of reasons, one was Frank’s harassment. The last meeting of November which I was not at, they restored the benefit to themselves while I was out of town. Trying to blame me for their actions.
While Frank continues to redirect the argument of his taking healthcare to myself, they still never answer the questions of what came out of those meetings.
Newbie, if you are truly interested in the truth, you would be asking for public records of his e-mails, notes and reports that he and Trish kept from the public.
just a thought
Madame Mayor.
Thank you for filling in the blanks. Sadly there will always be residents who fail to challenge what they read. Your reward for appointing Frank Ury to two different posts in the city has come back to bite you.
Larry,
I tohught we were challenging Madame Mayor with what we read in the emails that Ury had in his presentation? I will note that she has not denied that she was looking to file a claim against the City if they failed to re-instate the benefits. Of course, her emails are clear on that, so I wouldn’t expect her to deny that.
Madame Mayor, as to the issue of your claim against the City, I did read it and I know that it had nothing to do with healthcare. I also know that you were seeking $10 million from the City and that the claim is required as a precursor to a lawsuit against the City. So, regardless of your motives, you were exhausting your administrative remedies so you could sue the City for $10 million if they rejected your claim. That is a fact. It is also a fact that your lawsuit against Trish and MacLean was dismissed as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (or SLAPP suit). SLAPP suits are filed to intimidate and quell the exercise of free speech, and the judge found that your lawsuit qualified and dismissed it under the anti-SLAPP statute.
Newbie Why is it that freedom of speech is only good for themselves? When the secretary sued me (and the city) it supposedly was over something that I MAY have said. She sues and wins (during an election) with no questions asked, no investigation, no denial of suit (which would be a first for the city). TK had me thrown out of every meeting that was agendized for closed session, she would not allow this pro bono attorney to talk to their attorney, or the city’s attorney. etc. etc. I have an entire file box on this issue. Even to the extent that I requested in writing for representation since they were getting it. Denied, Denied, Denied.
You are assuming that I was advised that a claim was the precursor to a lawsuit. Remember the pro bono attorney is a friend of Frank’s. Admittedly, I needed better advice. But since the city and TK denied me any advice, I was left to what ever good will I could find.
As I said before, if you are so sure that the right thing will always be done, then please by all means RUN FOR OFFICE. You will quickly learn that three people can harass and try to ruin you with complete backing of the city and the law.
Good luck out there.
Kelley is a laughingstock to those around the county, but it’s not funny to see how she has turned public service into her personal cash cow.
I cannot stand her hypocrisy or her vindictiveness.
Newbie,
Just a quick point, while I seldom agree with your posts / comments, this was a well written cohesive argument, without name calling and wild accusations. While we as residents may disagree, I think we get a lot farther talking and making points rather than name calling.
In my “book” give Cathy major credit, and a big win for sticking to her guns, and getting this whole issue overturned in a matter of 2 weeks, and sticking to her campaign promise!
And yes, I agree November will be fun! We will start to see who is looking for some af that fun, in just a few days!
Thanks Mark. I appreciate your service to the City and the time you take not only on the Commission but as a resident speaking at Council meetings. I don’t expect/want everyone to agree with me. I don’t agree with Larry on many things, and on others I do. I do want to have a civil discourse because the name calling has been going on for far too long and doesn’t add anything to the discussion.
That is the best way to go about it, and the best way to get stuff done! Keep it up. (You too Larry)
Newbi—Please “Put It On The Table” is effectively burying and avoiding the issue at hand. This was nothing more than Kelley and Ury once again manipulating they system. Since there was no “quid pro quo” their letter rejecting the benefits was a meaningless document in the eyes of the law.
Since you are a lawyer you certainly understand that–I would hope.!!1
Now on to the big issue…eliminating these ridiculous benefits for all city employees.
Dwight.
As a resident of Lake Forest perhaps you can let our readers know what benefits you provide for your city employees.
Hi Larry,
Lake Forest’s benefits are not as ridiculous as Mission Viejo’s and are pretty normal compared to most of the state, but that’s not saying much.
Lake Forest’s employee benefit package includes participation in PERS Health medical program, dental and vision insurance, membership in the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) at 2%@55 (not as extravagant as what some public employees get but still ridiculous when compared to the private sector), employee paid deferred compensation programs, and life insurance coverage.
Pensions and out of control benefits (which I define as those that nearly every private sector, non-union company would not provide) must be eliminated or our cities, counties, states, and country will continue their slow decay as we spend more money on bureaucrats and less money on infrastructure and our safety and security.