Lake Forest Under Attack By Fred Whitaker, Part 2

Fred Whitaker is using taxpayer dollars earmarked for the Republican party to try to defeat the recall of Andrew Hamilton for a non-partisan seat on the Lake Forest City Council. Whitaker is part of an incestuous relationship with the Council (detailed in Part 1 here), but his message shows that he's playing politics, doing his best to spin political rhetoric because – as has been the case in the past – Whitaker doesn't know what's really going on in Lake Forest but is too consumed by “winning” and protecting his own interests to care about the truth or the integrity that should accompany an elected position.

Whitaker, who joined Hamilton, Dwight Robinson and Scott Voigts in the smear campaign against Adam Nick for the better part of 2016 – while Nick was being used as a deflection of the miserable record of public service by Hamilton, Robinson and Voigts, and again when Nick was vying for reelection (he lost to Robinson by 99 votes).

Notable is that Whitaker distributed a press release to the media in 2016 that was based on the wrong premise in an effort to smear Nick. You can read about it here: Part 1, Part 2.

Whitaker's latest mailed attempts to persuade Lake Forest residents, before the recall deadline, were filled with political rhetoric that's carefully worded to try to protect his man:

“The abuse of the recall process in Lake Forest is shameful.” - No, what's shameful is elected officials who make fraudulent claims to win election, and who turn their backs on residents in matters of public safety. Correcting a wrong is not an abuse of the recall process; if enough residents are unhappy with the erformance of their elected officials, the electorate taking control of the process should be embraced and applauded. Elected office wasn't created for politicians to play politics, it was created for leaders to lead, not to coddle those who got them elected. Recalls weren't meant to be easy, but it's a necessary tool to correct mistakes.

“Hamilton's record of protecting taxpayers is clear.” - If paying off the City's unfunded pension liability is the only thing that matters, then OK, Hamilton has a record of marginally protecting taxpayers (for an idea that was proposed a year earlier by Nick). But there's more to the taxpayer record than that. A couple of meetings ago, Hamilton voted to put Lake Forest at risk of $7 million (the figure Palmdale spent) in legal fees to fight districting, a battle that cities do not win. Hamilton voted against having each department in the City cut 5 percent of the fat from its budget, which would have saved taxpayers about $2 million annually. Hamilton voted to spend $250,000 more on a street sweeping contract for a company that gave money to his campaign. While all but one other south Orange County city was fleeing Orange County Animal Care, Hamilton voted to spend $611,000 (now more than $700,000) to build the new facility without getting a dime's worth of equity, and locked the City into a 10-year contract that has increased its costs for services by 40 percent. (At the same time, Hamilton's side has claimed the decision will save the City millions of dollars). Hamilton voted against trying to leverage a better deal with the City's most expensive vendor, Orange County Sheriff's Department. Hamilton voted against competitive bidding. Hamilton refused to consider corporate naming rights for City facilities, such as the successful partnership that currently exists with Etnies Skate Park. Hamilton's “record of protecting taxpayers” is clear, but it's clearly bad; he has not protected taxpayers. But that's not what Whitaker is telling you, and he's certainly not providing the evidence to prove his point.

“The people behind the recall want to settle old political scores and are doing so at the expense of taxpayers.” - First, let's eliminate this notion that recalling Hamilton comes at the expense of taxpayers. If collection of verified signatures of more than 20 percent of registered voters is achieved, Hamilton should resign; in the last three elections, only two people have received as much as 20 percent of the vote from the voter turnout (which is far less than the total registered voters): Adam Nick (21.9 percent in 2012) and Leah Basile (27 percent in 2016). Hamilton received 14.5 percent and the fewest votes of any elected official since 1998; a year ago, more people signed the petition to recall him than voted for him, and if the same thing happens again – forcing a potential recall election that is likely to cost between $185,000 and $235,000 – Hamilton should read the writing on the wall. The people, from an overall electorate, not just those who actually hit the polling booths, will have voted loud and clear and the cost to the City would be practically beans: $35,000 to $45,000 to verify the signatures. However, replacing Hamilton could save taxpayers millions. Who wouldn't spend $200,000 to make $2 million – or more? Second, “old political scores”? If there are 10,000 people who
want Hamilton gone, it won't be because a few people want to settle an old political score, it will be because Lake Forest has had poor leadership and people noticed. Whitaker has also labeled recall proponents as “liberal,” but if Whitaker's “conservative” candidates did their job efficiently and transparently, there would be no need to replace them; Whitaker labeled Leah Basile as one of the “liberal” forces a year ago, and she got the fourth-highest vote total in City history. Whitaker is clueless, lumping those who disagree with him into whatever category fits his agenda.

The mailer's message also includes:

“The Orange County Register (4/6/17) is reporting the recall process will cost Lake Forest as much as $250,000.” - It depends on Hamilton, doesn't it? If there are enough signatures to force a recall, he can save everyone the money by resigning. If he wants to battle through, there's almost zero chance it will cost $250,000. The County will charge $150,000 to $200,000, plus the cost of verifying signatures. The only way $250,000 is reached is if Hamilton's anti-recall team acquires about 4,400 signatures of rescission. However, as the recall period was closing, the anti-recall team was outside Stater Brothers (and perhaps other locations) acquiring signatures, period (not just signatures of those who had previously signed the pro-recall petition). The County Registrar of Voters will verify those signatures, even though they're unnecessary, at a cost of $3.40 each. During the 2016 recall, about 44 people rescinded their signatures; getting 4,400 this time to push the cost to $250,000 is a stretch, although the anti-recall team's strategy of acquiring any signature it can get could be a game-changer, cost-wise, but that will fall squarely on Hamilton and his Lake Forest Civility team. If he could actually stand behind his record, he shouldn't need to collect a single signature.

“The group targeting Councilman Hamilton is trying to mislead voters.” - Untrue. Just because Hamilton calls the claims against him “falsehoods, whoppers, lies, distortions, denigration, untruths, fabrications, dishonesty” doesn't make it true. In fact:

• Hamilton did vote over $600,000 to build the high-kill OC animal shelter without negotiating any equity for the City.
• Hamilton does support more residents and the rezoning of the Nakase nursery property to allow hundreds of new homes to be built, further impacting roads and schools.
• Hamilton secretly video recorded citizens and posted manipulated versions online.
• Hamilton created copycat Facebook sites named the same as sites created by Councilman Jim Gardner and then-activist Leah Basile to deceive residents. (Note: Donald Trump builds skyscrapers, but he's not the one who does the actual hammering)
• Hamilton wrote blogs (using the alias James Ross) and made bogus accusations and complaints against political opponents.
• Hamilton did this while he was on the clock at Mesa Water District as a $200,000-plus employee.
• Hamilton photoshopped Basile's head onto a racy photo and posted it online.
• Hamilton facilitated untruthful editorial content for the “Nick is Nuts” smear campaign that appeared in marketing material made to look like a Lake Forest newspaper.

The Orange County Register reported that Hamilton denied the social media claims; so he's not denying anything other than actually creating the Facebook pages, which maybe a family member or friend did for him. But everything else is true, even though his official response is that they are collectively "whoppers, falsehoods, lies, etc."

Notably, Hamilton's anti-recall campaign misled voters with exaggerated claims of cost for a potential special election in 2017, and the cost of last year's recall as a means of scaring residents; as well, the anti-recall campaign has misled residents through messaging such as that delivered by Whitaker and other notable proponents such as former El Toro coach and teacher Don Stoll (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3), and former council members including Kathryn McCullough and David Bass, who have their own credibility issues.

“They are targeting Councilman Hamilton because he made the fiscally responsible decision to partner with Orange County for a modern animal shelter that will save Lake Forest significant tax dollars.” - There are no savings. Hamilton's vote subjected the City to more than $600,000 initial investment to build the facility, and because so few other cities have done the same, the cost of services has increased 40 percent, and the City is locked into a 10-year contract. It's not possible to save significant tax dollars, much less millions as was claimed in a different campaign mailer. I asked Hamilton specifically, during the City Council meeting of July 11, how much savings and where it was coming from; he did not provide an answer because he could not provide an answer – otherwise he would have done so. Instead, his team perpetuates the myth in written form preying upon the ignorance of residents who should be able to take good and responsible government for granted.

“Protecting taxpayer dollars isn't justification for a recall; it's good governance." - Hamilton hasn't protected taxpayer dollars; it's
short-sighted to look at the cost of a recall (even if it was as much as $250,000) without considering the ramifications of a successful recall. Removing Hamilton could save taxpayers millions in less than a year,
and remove an elected representative whose actions have been nothing short of deceptive and circumspect; that's good governance.

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