City Council Preview - June 3

This week’s Council meeting has a whole bunch of interesting topics, but not a single one of the “Voigts’ Void” issues is on the docket. Items like the reform of the PCN process, the dog park, Village Pond Park, the community garden, greater website transparency, etc. all remain on the sidelines.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (Item 7)

The Political Reform Act of 1974 requires the City to review, every 2 years, the “Conflict of Interest Code” and that’s the subject for item 7 for this week’s meeting. Of course, we’ve documented dozens of times that the city has a code but it doesn’t adhere to it, so it’s more than merely ironic that the agenda does not include a copy of the code, as is probably required by law. Someone must be thinking – “If they pay no attention to the code at all, why should we even bother to produce it?” It makes sense, but it’s probably against the law to have an agenda item, without the appropriate accompanying document.

This item should be continued until such time as the City produces the Code for review by the public. How can people be expected to comment on a document they can’t see? “They don’t need to see it because we ain’t going to do nothing about it” most of the members of the City Council are thinking right now as they read this sentence.

The purpose of the Conflict of Interest Code as defined by Government Code 87300-14 is to insure that “any financial interest” does not impact “the making of decisions”. Included in these “financial interests” are “investments, business positions, interests in real property, and sources of income…” and the code requires being “affected materially” which is not further defined.

Do campaign contributions constitute “sources of income”? If Voigts and McCullough didn’t get so much money in campaign contributions from vested interests they’d have to finance their own campaigns, as Mayor Pro Tem Nick did. That would mean it would come out of their own savings, so is this a “source of income” if it helps you keep the income you already have? And who is to determine what is “affected materially”?

The Conflict of Interest Code has many loopholes. It’s time the Council did something about it. Of course, when you have a Council where the majority is already taking money from vested interests to fill their campaign coffers, what are the chances they will pass a tight Conflict of Interest Code? The only way to get a decent code is to get rid of the Council members who routinely accept large chunks of money from people and businesses who want their vote, and who get it. We can start by kicking Voigts and McCullough out of office, and next time around, Robinson.

PORTOLA PARK (Item 11)

The Portola project is going to bring 900 more homes into Portola Hills, and as part of that project, there is a 6.3 acre park being built that will belong to the City. It’s at the intersection of Glenn Ranch Rd and Saddleback Ranch Rd, right across the street from a “mixed use” area and adjoining an open area. The city is looking to hire a firm that will do the design work for the park, and the current idea of the park is “an active sports facility which could include lighted sports fields, a baseball/softball diamond, a soccer overlay, etc.”

With a massive sports field complex right down the block, does it make sense to replicate all these same functions in Portola Park? What’s missing from the City is a dog park. The extreme end of the 6.3 acres does not abut any residential homes. It’s an ideal place to build a dog park that could serve the people who live in Portola Hills. Seems like a no brainer. Alternatively, this would be an excellent place for the Community Garden, that has lots of supporters but, as of yet, no place to call home.

Last year I attended a meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission and I heard a very interesting report. Despite what you’ve been told about Lake Forest needing more sports fields, it turns out that much of the time the fields are not fully occupied. This becomes increasingly true in competitive sports when there are tournaments, and as the tournaments progress and teams drop out, it seems the desire to keep playing drops out too. So if we currently have enough sports fields to meet the demands of most of the kids most of the time, and we are about to build a massive sports emporium with many more sports fields, why would we want to add even more sports fields when we are about to be flooded with even more sports fields?

STREET SWEEPING (Item 14)

Street sweeping in Lake Forest is pretty poor. It’s not the fault of Athens Service, who really can’t do their job because most of the streets they sweep are covered with cars. Of course, it helps Athens keep their costs down when they have to do so little. They’re able to zip up and down the middle of the streets without the time consuming need to press the sweeper to the curb, and at the end of the day, most of the debris remains in the streets, so Athens has very little to discharge. It’s a sweet deal for them, and you’ll never hear them urging the Council to do a better job notifying people about street sweeping. In fact, in the streets where I live, not a single one has any notice of when street sweeping occurs.

Athens won the contract in January 17, 2012, for $292,326 for the first year, with 2 one-year extensions. On January 15, 2013 they got their first extension, but instead of the one year originally proposed, it was extended for 17 months and comes up for renewal in July. Instead of the original $292,326 they received, they are now asking for $367,990 (a 26% increase), apparently because they now have 24 curb miles of streets due to the opening of Baker Ranch, even though Baker Ranch doesn’t have very many people actually living there. The 24 curb miles at Baker Ranch are a drop in the thousands of curb miles in the rest of the City, so a 26% increase in order to accommodate a less than 1% increase in the total job seems a little excessive.

LIMITLESS LIMITS (Item 18)

To their shame, last year the Council voted to establish a limitless term limit. Over the next 26 years, a Council member is limited to serving only 24 of those 26 years. To their credit, Councilmen Nick and Herzog offered a reasonable alternative – two terms and you’re out – but they were defeated by Voigts and Robinson, who want to stay until they’re as old as Councilwoman McCullough. But before they can enact this senseless ordinance, they have to take it to the voters, and Item 18 on the agenda is a request to find an author for the ordinance when it appears on the ballot.

Unofficially, Voigts and Robinson have been perusing the fiction author list as well as examining real estate listings for the most imaginative writers they can find. They’ve even auditioned “fairy tale” authors to find a suitable author. Apparently, even among real estate novelists there is too much integrity to accept the commission, so now it will be a public search.

Apparently there is also a need for an author for the rebuttal argument and I for one am tossing my hat into the ring for this assignment, which I will gladly do free of charge. By some curious logic, the rebuttal author should also be the author who writes the argument in favor of the ordinance, so I find myself in the uncomfortable position of asking for that assignment too.

Should anyone be wondering what my qualification are, apart from writing more than 1,000 Patch columns in the past 2 years, I’ll be happy to send you my resume which lists the dozen editorial boards I sat on, the 100+ professional articles I wrote, and the half dozen or more books I’ve written. As a writer, there is probably no one more qualified, but I’d be surprised if I get the assignment. Anyhow, consider this a request for you to show up at the City Council and speak on the issue and urge the Council to appoint me.

Tomorrow I'll cover 2 remaining issues for the agenda - Increasing Fees (Item 19) and Council Travel Expenses (Item 20).