The following guest view “letter” was offered to myself and the Mission Viejo Dispatch by Mission Viejo resident Brian Skalsky. As the Dispatch published it first I am going to cut and paste, and post it from their web site.
For those not following Measure D, the Right to Vote initiative-Ordinance in Mission Viejo, let me open by providing an email that I just sent to our city manager Dennis Wilberg and senior staff at the OC Register.
“Dennis. You are so close to Frank Ury that you have not considered your repeated requests.
Not once, in any of your recent emails, have you asked me to post the Measure D ballot text, nor the argument in favor of the Right to Vote Ordinance. Yet six times you have asked me to post the “Court Approved Ballot Argument.” The Coins in my pocket have two sides.
As to your comment about my post of “your opinion” let me remind you that the purpose of blogs is to create dialogue based on our opinions. Yes, at times, we break news stories but that is not our main function.
In this case we surely have scooped the Register who has yet to publish a single word of this court case and subsequent $40,000 legal tab which was discussed by the mayor on Monday evening. In fact the cost of these elections was pointed out by yourself as you discussed the budget amendment.
I guess the Register does not wish to rock the boat as they need your crumbs for future news reporting. Today’s OUR TOWNS mentions bleacher covers yet fails to comment on the budget adjustments which, as pointed out by you and the mayor, have been impacted by two special elections this year. I guess the Register does not feel the lawsuit being a story worthy of coverage while you plead with me to post it on the Juice blog. How many times have you asked the Register to post the Measure D text?
Perhaps you should read “Stanson Vs. Mott” and not simply accept Bill Curley’s spin. In your capacity as city manager you may have crossed the line exposing the city to yet another lawsuit by your City Newsletter, city blog and most recent TWT.”
I have just received a one word response from Dennis Wilberg. The word was “noted.”
From the Dispatch. www.missionviejodispatch.com
Letter: City Violates Spirit Of Neutrality Law
by MissionViejoDispatch.com on April 7, 2010
On Friday April 2, the city sent out an e-newsletter to its list serve which included: a notice about the upcoming bunny days, a section on cultural arts programs in the city, and several other things, one of which had to do with the recent court ruling on Measure D. It stated, “The city is pleased to report” on a recent court ruling and only provided an argument against Measure D. The city did not even attempt to provide a neutral argument and allow residents to decide for themselves how they should vote on Measure D. The residents of Mission Viejo are smart enough to figure out how they will vote on their own. The vast majority of residents are active in their community, vote regularly, and do not need to be told how to vote from a city newsletter.
If the city is going to send information out about upcoming Ballot Measures, as a purveyor of information that is not allowed to take sides on election issues, they must present both sides of the argument or none at all. The city is walking a fine line with the April 2 newsletter, especially when compared to the spirit of California Gov. Code 54964.
California Gov. Code 54964 states the following:
(a) An officer, employee, or consultant of a local agency may not expend or authorize the expenditure of any of the funds of the local agency to support or oppose the approval or rejection of a ballot measure, or the election or defeat of a candidate, by the voters.
(Click here to view t0 the rest of the Gov. Code 54964.)
A plain reading of the April 2 newsletter clearly shows the city only presented one side of the argument. The city took the time to write the newsletter and publicly distribute the information. Anyone reading this newsletter can read between the lines and see the city is supporting a particular view on a ballot measure, regardless of what side of Measure D you may fall on. Whether you support of oppose Measure D, it was not proper for the city to provide only one view on a ballot measure in this newsletter. The city provided Mr. Ury’s ballot statement and then a single link to the registrar of voters for any additional information on the subject. As a resident and City Commissioner, I expect the city to either present both sides of the argument or simply provide a link to the registrar of voters, so that residents may form their own conclusions.
Lastly, I was involved with a coalition of people to prevent the development of the Casta Del Sol Golf Course. This coalition was comprised of the Home Owners Associations that surrounded the golf course as well as other concerned residents. At the time in 2008, the development of the golf course was a very real concern.
Mr. Ury’s ballot statement is misleading. Yes, parts of the golf course are situated on a flood plain, however Sunrise, the group wanting to develop the golf course, was not looking to develop the area in the flood plain. They were looking to develop the significant portion of land that is not a part of the flood plain. That is an undeniable fact that is not addressed in Mr. Ury’s ballot statement. For more information on the Casta Del Sol Golf Course issue, as it was presented in 2008, you can view the website I developed with the advice and consent of the coalition that wanted to save the golf course from high density development. The bottom-line is that even though the city’s newsletter is not a violation of the law, because the city did not overtly say they were advocating for a particular result, it is clearly a violation of the spirit of what the law was intended to prevent. The law was intended to prevent local governments from using taxpayer money to support or oppose ballot measures, particular candidates, etc. It was improper for the City of Mission Viejo to publish the information about Measure D in the manner it did with the April 2 city newsletter because the city took sides on a ballot measure.
Brian Skalsky
At the Monday night city council meeting I noted to F. Ury that his ballot statement was Sophmoric at best. I take it back–it is Junior High at best. As to the Mayor of Mission Viejo Ms Trish Kelley I have the following comment:
Maybe Ms. Kelley should consult one of her ”Words of the Month ” –Integrity.
Let me help Ms. Kelley on the word INTEGRITY:
Some people see integrity as the quality of having a sense of honesty and truthfulness in regard to the motivations for one’s actions. Some people[who?] use the term hypocrisy in contrast to integrity for asserting that one part of a value system demonstrably conflicts with another, and to demand that the parties holding apparently conflicting values account for the discrepancy or change their beliefs to improve internal consistency.
It would appear that Ms Kelley has not Integrity !!!
Right on, Joe!
Boy you folks are really breaking a sweat here over this “win.”
LBM Bruckmann.
Apparently the Register has gotten the message. Let’s see what after-the-fact coverage they publish.
Late this morning I did email this post to news dept VP Ken Brusic and several lower level staff.
So Mr. LBM. If the Register provides a report on this court case I guess this is a newsworthy story.
How does crow taste anyway?
With city hall’s focus on trying to cover Ury’s ass, attention has been diverted from Karen Hamman’s acts. She was supposed to be the taxpayers’ first line of defense as a neutral party, and she obviously isn’t. Wilberg spins her bias and bad deeds into a “victory” when the judge’s decision was a loss for all of them.
Remember that Wilberg got three votes (MacLean, Ury, Kelley) for a clause in his new contract, protecting him from being fired, even if he commits a felony (which he just did by using taxpayer funds to put the anti-Measure D commercial into his newsletter).
Why is the city putting any text about a ballot measure into its newsletter? This is the role of the Registrar of Voters.
LOL you sending something to the register to publish makes that source valid? How old are you anyway, Mr. Gilbert. And as you know from the comment in another thread that you didn’t publish because you didn’t like that I called your Christianity into question, I am not Bruchmann. I did not speak at the council meeting. Your arrogance is simply astounding.
Here’s how the normal approach a win. They publish one short statement and move on. We all know this. The losers go on and on about why they won. Some of us egg them on so that people in the community get a good clear look at their colors. This is how society works. You and your buddy Holtzman really don’t understand that bluster mean nothing more than hot air. I’m beginning to see why they two of your always leave after you speak.
LBM.
Having attended our council meetings for the past 20 years I would say that I am one of the minority of residents who gives up every other Monday evening to monitor what is being debated and decided by our elected officials.
There have been times when I may pass on Public Comments and speak to specific Agenda items later in the evening. As such I have remained in our council chambers late into the night. At times it was past midnight.
With elected officials abusing the bully pulpit there is no reason for me to hang around to the very end and listen as some members will take advantage of their position to attack our comments when we lack the power to respond.
As I do not take a laptop to the council meeting to write and publish my posts, I head home to have dinner with my family and also to research and draft OJ reports of these meetings which you obviously enjoy attacking.
Sorry that my departing before the final bell is unacceptable to you.
What you don’t know is that the Register reporter contacted me yesterday after this post was sent to them.
They have been MIA on local news coverage. To date they have NOT mentioned this litigation. Perhaps you can explain why? I’m all ears.
Hay Little Big Man – I can’t blame you for not wanting to admit that you are Bruchmann. I would not want to be you either!
Note a sentence from Bruchman’s comments, No. 6: “The losers go on and on about why they won.”
That’s what Dennis Wilberg is doing — he (and Hamman, Curley and Ury) lost, but he goes on and on about why he won.
File criminal charges against Wilberg for using tax money for his political games. It is the only way to stop him, as he is doing it constantly.
Look guys I don’t know this Bruchmann having seen him for the first time Monday night. But for the life of me I can’t figure out what you have against him. Seemed reasonable enough to me. It’s not like he’s that nut-case Avery or something.
LBM
Stay tuned. That’s all I can report about Mr B. at this time!
I saw the original head line in the MV Dispatch that said something to effect Slick beats Ury and gets things thrown out on Measure D. But I now notice the title has changed and after reading the few things that we thrown out, how can you guys claims such a big victory? Now you throw poor Slicksky into the battle. At least I think he has a CA drivers license so that is one less thing to fight with in the November battle. I can’t wait to see how you spin this one and I amcertainly holding my breathe to see what else you have to sqy about Mr’ B.
Don’t kid yourself Larry, the press doesn’t care what you have to say as they are too busy laughing at you. (Not with you, at you!)
Your group junkie.
I guess we wear different glasses. The judge threw out Frank’s bold and highlighted text that housing could NEVER be built on the golf corse. He lied. If this Ballot Measure fails than watch the developers, who have made campaign contributions to one or more members of our council, get a zoning change and begin construction of housing on part of the golf course. I don’t live in the surrounding area. However there were many who do that signed the petition to protect their investment. Several paid premiums to live in a section called Finnestera on the Green. Not, Finnestera facing new housing.
It may surprise you but while I was active in the recall of Lance MacLean I was not engaged in the Right to Vote efforts. Don’t give me credit for the volunteer efforts of other MV residents.