Councilman Gardner and the unknown lawsuit

Just like you, I read past posts from Councilman Gardner (and before he was elected) in a certain light, trying to give him the benefit of doubt. However, I recently thought "what if I were to examine and research his posts for myself?"

When I first started, I found issues with his writings. I then decided to write here on the Patch and perform more in-depth research. And here I am today, writing on my fourth topic!

In my most recent posts, I examined many claims by Councilman Gardner where he discussed crime rates, council attendance at city events and the supposed Gang of 3. Today, we look at the lawsuit between Lake 1 HOA and the City of Lake Forest.

Summary to date

Regarding crime, Lake Forest is ranked #12 out of 482 California cities in 2016 (http://www.safewise.com/blog/safest-cities-california-2016/). This is quite an accomplishment! On the other hand, Councilman Gardner has greatly exaggerated the "high crime rate" in Lake Forest and how he hasn't received an explanation (but he actually did at a council meeting).

The absolute safest cities in California are located in South Orange County, holding 3 of the top 4 spots // 6 of the top 12 rankings. I also discussed how the top cities have great reasons for having lower crime rates:

- Rancho Santa Margarita (#2) and Aliso Viejo (#3) are more remote without access to a major freeway that criminals need for a quick getaway
- Laguna Woods (#4) is a gated community

At #12, Lake Forest is very comparable to Mission Viejo (#10) and Laguna Niguel (#11).

I'm also examined Councilman Gardner claims about the mayor's lack of attendance at city events. Simply reviewing the mayor's Facebook account shows he indeed attended some of these events. Councilman Garden's claims were yet again proved false.

Most recently, I discussed Councilman Gardner's claim that he and his favorite colleague, Adam Nick, rarely vote with the majority. As I performed unbiased and scientific research, the council unanimously voted together 93% of the time over the last nine months since the recall started. We have a GANG OF 5.

This is in stark contrast to Councilman Gardner's claim that he and Nick being "on the winning side" dropped to 20% and 30% after the recall was initiated. This is a difference of 63-73%! Also, the largest area of differences between Councilman Gardner/Nick and their colleagues are on city appointments to various commissions.

HOA vs. City lawsuit

Back to today's story, I recently performed research to see whether yet another of Councilman Gardner's claims is accurate. Earlier this month when discussing Village Pond Park, Councilman Gardner makes the following statement:

"the HOA has no knowledge of any litigation and the City refuses to discuss the issue, claiming that there is litigation (Catch 22)." - http://patch.com/california/lakeforest-ca/city-council-review-july-5-0

First, I have been following the Village Pond Park issue for quite some time and had to perform a lot of additional research for the following analysis doing original research and verifying rumors I had heard. And let me tell you, it has been a LOT of research!

Let me begin by saying that council agendas have something called "Closed Session" - I have learned that this is where the council gets to meet privately to discuss lawsuits and stuff. On the most recent agenda just posted a couple days ago, a lawsuit against the city by his HOA is listed on the agenda with case number #30-2015-00823671 CU-MC-CJC. Knowing this has to mean something, I found the Orange County Courts website and searched for this case number in "All Cases" (it look a while to figure out spaces don't work in the search field) - https://ocapps.occourts.org/CourtIndex/all_case_results.jsp?cn=30-2015-0....

In any case, it lists the Lake Forest Community Association as the plaintiff along with three defendants: City of Lake Forest, Orange County Transportation Authority and Southern California Regional Rail Authority. So I confirmed there is a lawsuit (and I haven't read anything in the lawsuit documents - maybe I will have time to read them and summarize them later).

It seems very strange that Councilman Gardner says "the HOA has no knowledge of any litigation . . ." Either there is miscommunication between Gardner and the HOA or Gardner is fabricating things again. Either scenario doesn't look good (HOA may not trust Gardner or Gardner knowingly makes untrue statements). In addition, Gardner is again making claims without doing the basic research.

Digging deeper (and this took me time!), I found that Gardner's wife is on the HOA board which I must say is quite odd. Even more odd is that Councilman Gardner was on the HOA board AND the City Council at the same time during at least the first eight months of his council tenure. Also, I have confirmed that his wife took his place on the HOA board when he resigned. I am still trying to wrap my head around all of these events, but it sure appears he has is STRONG and quite hyper active (i.e., obsessive) in the desire to have his tentacles in many things in town.

After following recent council debate, it appears that Councilman Gardner has a conflict (sorry, haven't had time to research this topic either) as he appears to not be able to discuss this item on council agendas. However, at the last two council meetings (second meeting in June and first meeting in July), he still wants to participate in the discussion. I haven't the first clue about required ethics in his position, but I would assume if you have a conflict that you cannot participate in the decision-making process. Again, this appears that he is fighting mightily to maintain his voice in the situation.

Does any else agree with me? That this stuff is really strange?! Anyway, I now have questions about this situation:

My Questions

Q1. Wouldn't a normal person want to resign from the HOA Board immediately after being elected to the council? Why did Councilman Gardner take over 8 months to resign?

Q2. Why did his wife take his place on the HOA board?

Q3. Does Councilman Gardner really think that the HOA doesn't have knowledge of the lawsuit they filed? Or is he making untrue statements again? (I lean toward the latter)

Q4. Why does his wife, on the HOA Board when they filed the lawsuit, remain on the board while Councilman Gardner is on the city council who represents the city, a defendant in the lawsuit? It seems like they have a combined or joint conflict of interest, right?

Q5. What is up with his conflict of interest and not being able to participate at council meetings? And why is he so obsessed about wanting to stay in the discussion/decision-making about the lawsuit? One could argue it APPEARS he is fighting for one side - either his HOA or all Lake Forest residents (also, I would assume his HOA fees might increase if the HOA loses)?

Conclusion

On these issues, I feel that I am just starting to scratch the surface. However, having examined now four of his patch posts, I am starting to see a trend of untrue statements from Councilman Gardner. In addition, I see him as wanting excess CONTROL of situations (and in this situation, when he even has a conflict of interest). Often proclaiming his psychologist credentials, I would think he should be self-aware of his obsessive desire of CONTROL.