Counterpoint: A Response to Don Stoll's 'Abuse of Recall,' Part 2

In Part 1 of my response to the blog by Don Stoll, the point man for the Lake Forest Civility - No Hamilton Recall movement, I explained how Stoll's standards of integrity are being compromised by his involvement with City Councilman Andrew Hamilton supporters that have used deceitful measures both now and in the past, to protect City Hamilton from a recall.

As one of the City's most respected figures, Stoll risks his reputation by going to bat for a councilman who has been on the side of incivility for the last 18 months. Stoll himself is perpetuating some of the lies that Hamilton's protectors have been espousing in an effort to sway residents from supporting a recall, and current supporters of Andrew Hamilton, including Mayor Scott Voigts, are implicitly tied to the campaign of hate that dominated the recall effort and election of 2016.

AN ETHICS ISSUE

Stoll, and all residents of Lake Forest, should know that Andrew Hamilton created this situation, not the "small group of adults" Stoll wants to blame. Hamilton turned his back on residents in fear of Saddleback Ranch Road. Despite traffic that already gives most residents fits, and overcrowded schools -- are there any in Lake Forest that don't have temporary buildings on campus? -- Hamilton continues to support new housing development before the City is able to get a handle on the problems that already exist within its boundaries. Yet Hamilton claims he has improved the traffic in Lake Forest. Seriously? Anyone who's been stopped at four of the six stoplights from Trabuco to Muirlands on El Toro Road will tell you differently. Anyone who's had their elementary school child bused to Mission Viejo for classes instead of Foothill Ranch Elementary School will tell you differently.

FACTLESS

I referred to the lies that Stoll perpetuated with his commentary. Stoll says the recall advocates are misleading the public about Hamilton's record of service. Not true.

Hamilton's record includes voting for an animal shelter that has been a killing machine for decades and locked the City into a 10-year contract over the objection of residents who made their feelings known at Council meetings; the City has no equity stake in the facility. Yet Stoll says the new animal shelter will save the City millions. Not true. Not only has the City invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in building the new shelter without a dime of equity, but the annual costs to the City are also going up; there won't be a savings, there will be a deficit. Stoll's a math teacher, he can figure that out. And Stoll calls the vote for the shelter a "near unanimous Council decision"; since when is 3-2 nearly unanimous? Again, Stoll is perpetuating the lies he has been fed.

Hamilton's record includes voting for development despite current traffic woes and school overcrowding. Hamilton absolutely supports rezoning of the Nakase Nursery property and the development of 800 or more housing units to be built there if he gets the chance (as a self-described Constitutionalist, property rights advocate, and free market capitalist, per the Orange County Register, Hamilton can't justify voting against it); he implicitly and inherently supports it even if it hasn't happened yet; if Toll Brothers purchases the nursery, Hamilton will support whatever Toll Brothers wants to do with it (and they want to build lots of houses).

How do Stoll and the others on the steering committee of Lake Forest Civility justify Hamilton creating copycat Facebook sites in order to confuse and deceive residents looking for recall information? How do Stoll and the others rationalize Hamilton secretly videotaping citizens and then, without their consent, posting the doctored videos to those copycat sites? How do Stoll and the others reconcile Hamilton posting on this very website, the Lake Forest Patch, using the alias "James Ross" and posting false information -- including putting words in the mouth of the City Clerk? There's an easy way for Hamilton to disprove the entire James Ross element of the complaint against him; produce James Ross, but so far, nothing.

How do Stoll and the others explain Hamilton's voting with Voigts and Robinson all but one or two times in his first two years in office, and then -- for the first time in more than a year -- vote separate from them on agenda items in three of the next four meetings -- "coincidentally" beginning this change in voting pattern the night Hamilton learned he was being recalled in 2017? There's a reason recall supporters accused Hamilton, Voigts and Robinson of being in collusion, and Hamilton's recent bid to separate himself from such accusations support it.

The last thing recall supporters have to do is make up stuff about Andrew Hamilton's record.

OTHER ISSUES

Stoll is fails to see the big picture because the information he's getting is bad. Allow me to address those point-by-point.

"This very small minority wants to settle old political scores ... and (are) misleading the public about Councilman Andrew Hamilton's record of service.": Here's a statistic that should prove this is not about "a small minority" interested in change or "old political scores": The 19,966 verified signatures for the three targets of the 2016 recall represent 38.7 percent of the 51,584 votes cast in the 2016 election of City Council candidates; so, even though the recall didn't meet the 20 percent threshold of registered voters, it more than exceeded the threshold among those willing to vote in the council election. The people who actually vote, who are not indifferent to local government, recognize the need for change.

Small or big doesn't matter, and recall supporters clearly are not misleading the public because it doesn't have to fear Hamilton's record. Hamilton voted for the OCAC killing machine, which will cost the City millions, not save it millions. Hamilton failed to act on Saddleback Ranch Road despite pleas from scared residents; if he could turn his back on them, he could turn his back on any neighborhood within the city. Hamilton did nothing to advance Village Pond Park's reconstruction, but supported a smear campaign against the councilman (Adam Nick) who actually created some forward progress. Hamilton supports housing development within the City without having an answer for traffic and school overcrowding. Hamilton voted against getting competitive bids for services ranging from printing to street sweeping to police -- which could potentially save hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least). Hamilton voted against having City departments cut 5 percent fat from their budgets, which could save the City as much as $2 million (a far greater savings than the cost of a recall). The most impressive thing Hamilton is taking credit for is paying off the City's unfunded pension liability, but that idea wasn't original; Nick proposed it a year earlier but didn't get the support of Voigts and Robinson because of "petty politics," which Lake Forest Civility is accusing recall supporters of playing.

The claim that this is about settling old political scores is political rhetoric from a team that has no solid response; frankly, it's a coach creating bulletin board material to inspire his players. The recall is about democracy, and people acting on it, and holding their elected leaders accountable for their actions. It's about getting good government in place and not suffering the damage that can be done in the course of another year by bad government. Collectively, Hamilton, Robinson and Voigts have served 12 years on the Council, including 2 1/2 as a Gang of 3; can anyone provide three verifiable campaign promises from a handbill or mailer that they have kept? The answer is no; you'd be hard-pressed to find even one campaign promise kept. This is despite having absolute power to fulfill every single campaign promise among them

"They don't seem to care this is wasting our taxpayer money, which could be used for public safety services like police and fire protection.": Removing Hamilton from office creates the opportunity to save taxpayers millions. Cutting 2 percent of the fat from the City budget alone would save taxpayers $2 million, but Hamilton, Voigts and Robinson refused to support that proposal. They refuse to negotiate with OCFD and OCFA, which might save millions. This is about protecting the City taxpayers, not wasting their money on a "frivolous and expensive" recall. In the long run, the City can make more money by removing Hamilton than it would spend on a recall. That is to the benefit of the taxpayers.

Remember, there were more verified signatures (6690) for Hamilton's recall in 2016 than there were votes (6068) for him to take office in 2014. The most important thing a resident has to give a candidate is his trust, and it's clear Hamilton has lost that trust.

"Hamilton's term is up next year. The 2018 election would be a perfect opportunity for his opponents to air their issues without wasting our city's tax dollars.": In a perfect world, that would be true. But the Council majority in Lake Forest has perpetrated fraud against the residents, and will do so in the next election with the the added power of incumbency. Forget for a moment the lies they told in 2016 during the recall effort, they haven't fulfilled their campaign promises. Robinson said in his campaign statement that he had a Lake Forest business that employed nearly 100 (but had two employees), and that he was responsible for ending Mello-Roos fees that had already been paid off. Did the lies of 2016 help get Robinson elected? Darn right! Did the smear campaign against Nick help Robinson get elected? Darn right! Look at all the broken campaign promises; they tell you what you want to hear to get your vote, and then do what they want so they can get an attaboy and an endorsement from a higher ranking Republican. Without a single verifiable campaign promise that Robinson kept from 2012, he received the endorsement of four County Supervisors, the Lincoln Club, the OC GOP, and the Orange County Register -- as well as Hamilton and Voigts.

In 2 1/2 years, Hamilton has failed to move the needle and his votes have cost the City millions. He claims to be a fiscal conservative, but he failed to support competitive bidding on City contracts! He claims to be a fiscal conservative, but he didn't support an audit of the Orange County Sheriff Department services! He claims to be a fiscal conservative, but he voted against district voting even though the City of Palmdale took a similar stance and spent $7 million in legal fees -- and lost. So Hamilton is willing to lose $7 million in court so that he doesn't have to run against Robinson in a district election, but is engaging in scare tactics to prevent the City from "wasting" the exaggerated $250,000 it errantly claims a recall would cost.

If you want to flip a house to make money, the first thing you must do is spend money to buy the house. If you want to grow your business, the first thing you do is spend money on the resources to take you to the top. In 2018, Hamilton will be endorsed just like Robinson, by the majority of the County's Board of Supervisors, by the Lincoln Club, by the OC GOP, and by the Orange County Register even though he has been a poor example of a councilman who failed miserably to hold Robinson and Voigts accountable for their broken campaign promises; with Hamilton on their side (Hamilton was Robinson's first choice to replace Peter Herzog after his resignation, by the way), every promise that Robinson and Voigts have made could have been kept. None have.

"The OC Register ... rightly pointed out, 'Recalls should be a political weapon of last resort. They should be used sparingly, and only when the claims of impropriety surpass typical election-year differences into the realm of the immoral, unethical or criminal, which requires the immediate removal of the offenders from office.'": The OC Register failed its responsibility to the residents of Lake Forest as a media watchdog to hold Hamilton, Voigts and Robinson accountable for their campaign promises and their actions. All three were endorsed by the Register, so the OCR has protected its credibility by not investigating them, by not pushing back during interviews to get something deeper than surface answers, and by taking the whole of the situation of Lake Forest into account.

In addition, in 2014 the Register endorsed David Bass, who is on the steering committee for Lake Forest Civility, even though Bass reneged on the guarantee he made during the interview that would not seek election if he received the appointment from the Council to replace Herzog following his resignation. The Register also endorsed Scott Voigts, who is actively working on behalf of Lake Forest Civility, even though Voigts failed to keep his campaign promises from 2010 (and in some cases voted against them) and lied time and again, has failed to meet his civic duty as a representative of the County's Vector Control Board, and has abused the City's campaign sign laws.

Let's focus on the realm of the Register's "immoral, unethical or criminal." Is it ethical for Hamilton to receive campaign contributions from special interests and then vote in favor of those special interests every ... single ... time? Is it ethical for Hamilton to show up where recall workers are gathered to intimidate residents and to obstruct their Constitutional right to collect signatures? Is it ethical for Hamilton to create copycat Facebook pages, using the same name as existing pro-recall sites, in an effort to confuse and deceive residents with his anti-recall smear campaign against Nick? Is it ethical for Hamilton to secretly videotape his conversations with citizens, manipulate them for his own purpose, and then post them online -- all without the subject's consent? Is it ethical for Hamilton to create an alias so that he can use internet anonymity and a legitimate blogging forum to post lies, inaccurate information, and hateful and "uncivil" messages? Is it ethical for Hamilton, using the alias and internet anonymity, to Photoshop the face of then-candidate Leah Basile onto a racy image with the message, "Oops, I did it again"? (Similar manipulations were made of Gardner in an effort to mock him) Is it ethical for Hamilton, using the alias and internet anonymity, to cast aspersions on council candidates, council members, and residents who don't support his views? Is it ethical for Hamilton, while mayor, to cut off public speakers he disagrees with and allow his proponents to go on as long as they need? Is it ethical for Hamilton to stand behind a smear campaign that calls the residents he serves thugs and pedophiles, and paint another councilman as a terrorist and racist? Is it ethical for Mayor Hamilton to not insist on absolute clarity from the Council dais when a public speaker seeks a response? Is it ethical for Hamilton to use messages out of context to create an attitude of hate toward another individual? Is it ethical for Hamilton to stalk a resident inside a Walmart and confront her about signing the petition to recall him? (There may be more than this one instance I'm aware of) Is it ethical for Hamilton to create this "Lake Forest Civility - No Hamilton Recall" campaign that uses verifiable lies to convince residents that he doesn't deserve to be recalled?

I would swear in court that each of these 13 things - off the top of my head -- are true. Trust me, I'm sure Jim Gardner has a list of more examples. They're not criminal, though Basile -- and maybe even Gardner -- might have foundation to pursue a case of cyber stalking over the Photoshop images. Are they immoral? Probably not by most standards. But are they "unethical," the word purposefully used by the OC Register? Most reasonable people, certainly church-going people such as Hamilton, would probably think this behavior is wrong and consider it unethical. It's certainly not mayoral or honorable. Committing one or two or three of these things over time might be forgiven as missteps. These were not things in the heat of the moment, but deliberate actions with forethought. Collectively, they show unethical behavior that warrants, in the OC Register's own words, "... the immediate removal of the offenders from office."

Does the City of Lake Forest deserve another year of this? I'd love to hear the OC Register's argument that such behavior is unequivocally ethical. Not the excuse that it's "not that bad and doesn't warrant removal," but that it's unequivocally ethical. Barring that, maybe Coach Don Stoll -- as an educator dedicated to teaching "civility and fair play" can make that argument since he has become the face of Lake Forest Civility - No Hamilton Recall.

Next time, the credibility of Lake Forest Civility - No Hamilton Recall gets a closer look in a game of "Who do You Trust?"

About the author: Martin Henderson won several Los Angeles and Orange County press club awards while an editor at Patch in 2012-13.