We’re engaged in a detailed analysis of Mayor Robinson’s conduct in office, comparing that record with what he promised to do, and considering what he might have done differently. Last week we looked at his promises about Musick Jail, Traffic, Schools, and Pension Debt. Today we’ll look at his promises in the areas of Wasteful Spending, Costly Perks, Open Government, and The Public’s Voice.
Note: All the quotes in this article are from his campaign literature. You can view some of the literature above.
Find out what's happening in Lake Forestfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
WASTEFUL SPENDING
What He Promised
Find out what's happening in Lake Forestfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
“Dwight Robinson will use his business experience to oppose wasteful city spending.”
What He Did
He has done nothing to reduce wasteful spending.
What He Could Have Done
I’m not sure “wasteful spending” has ever been a major problem at the City. There have been occasional instances of wasteful spending, but these have been isolated. Once more, Robinson seems to be a politician attacking a popular issue he knows people will respond to. After all, no one is in favor of wasteful spending, so why not be opposed to it?
OTOH, Robinson has created his own cases of wasteful spending. On Dec 17, 2013 he pushed for expensive iPads for Council and Commission members even when much less expensive tablets would accomplish the same goal. Then he voted to give Council and Commission members paper copies of the agendas indefinitely, completely eliminating any savings from purchasing the tablets in the first place. On Jan 17 2014 he voted to spend $14K per year so that he and the other appointees didn’t have to file their FPPC forms by paper but could do it online – a big savings in time for them, but not worth the costs for the taxpayers.
COSTLY PERKS
What He Promised
“Eliminate Costly Perks. Stop incumbent Councilmembers from billing Lake Forest taxpayers for personal expenses.”
What He Did
Robinson promised to stop Council members for billing the City for personal expenses, another popular politician’s ploy. Yet Robinson has done nothing to prevent this from continuing, nor has he documented any cases.
What He Could Have Done
On March 17, 2014 Councilman Nick criticized one of his colleagues for spending $45 on expensive filet mignon dinners. Robinson could join with his other Council members and put reasonable limits on how much they can spend on meals, but he has never done this. In fact I don’t recall him ever criticizing his colleagues for their spending patterns. In fairness to Robinson, along with Councilman Nick, he doesn’t ask the City to pay for any of his personal expenses. While this is certainly praiseworthy, it still doesn’t explain why he hasn’t tried to reduce or eliminate costly perks.
OPEN GOVERNMENT
What He Promised
“Promote Open Government. Implement a city “Sunshine Law” to make city government more transparent, eliminate backroom deals and ensure that the public’s voice is heard.”
What He Did
Robinson promised open government then voted against it on March 5, 2013. Either he didn’t understand what it meant when he promised to support it, or he changed his mind once he got into power. He never explained his lack of support for the Sunshine Ordinance he voted against.
As far as backroom deals are concerned, Robinson is probably the “King of Backroom Deals”. Among other things
He accepted thousands of dollars from home builders Brookfield and Trumark and then on Feb 3, 2013 voted them special exemptions not given to other developers, despite staunch opposition from the people, the Planning Commission, City staff, and two Council members.
He accepted money from trash hauler CR&R and then voted for them on March 3, 2014 to replace Waste Management (WM) as our trash hauler, despite WM having an excellent record of service and having a lower bid.
He accepted money from mobile home management and then voted on Jan 21, 2014 to deny mobile home residents a new ordinance that would protect them from the sale of the mobile home parks.
Despite having both social and financial relationships with people and businesses that come before the Council, Robinson has never mentioned these relationships while he’s voted to give them what they were asking for.
On Dec 18, 2012, when Councilman Nick asked that new items be added to the Council agenda with only 2 members’ agreement, rather than the 3 that was required, Robinson opposed that. Fortunately he lost so that new items are now easier to see the light of day.
What He Could Have Done
First and foremost he could be an example of open government, rather than a symptom of those abuses he campaigned against. In addition he could have voted for any of the progressive measures introduced by Councilman Nick (e.g., sunshine ordinance, lobbyist register), but he didn’t.
LISTENING TO THE PUBLIC’S VOICE
What He Promised
“…ensure that the public’s voice is heard.”
What He Did
As far as ensuring that the “public’s voice is heard”, Robinson has been the staunchest advocate of NOT listening to the public. Several times he’s said that he doesn’t need to listen to what the public have to say. He’s voted against any opportunity to establish a new committee composed of new members of the public, whether the topic was a Traffic Commission, a Community Foundation, or a Military Support Committee.
On August 6, 2013 when a dozen people who lived opposite the vacant Nursery on Jeronimo Rd. objected to a proposed 4-story U-Haul building blighting their area, Robinson was the only Council member to vote against the people’s wishes. On Jan 21 2014 when a room full of mobile home residents asked him for protection against the sale of the mobile home parks by the owners of the land, he listened to their pleas and then voted against them. On March 18, 2014 when Councilman Nick asked for the Council to conduct a straw vote of the residents from Ridge Route who took the time to come to the Council meeting to discuss permit parking, Robinson refused to allow it.
On March 21, 2013 the Council discussed term limits (something Robinson had spoken about but I couldn’t find any written references). During the discussion, Councilmen Nick and Herzog recommended a maximum of 8 years, but Robinson and Voigts argued strongly for 12 successive years (3 terms) separated by a 2 year (1 term) absence. IOW - 24 out of 26 years. Such an unrealistic term limit is no limit at all. Robinson won. The people lost!
What He Could Have Done
He could support new committees to deal with such important issues as traffic, the dog park, the nonprofit community foundation, etc. He could stop saying that he doesn’t care what people think, even if he means it. As Mayor he could allow more participation from the public.
