Yes, Adam Nick's Attendance is "Really 100%"

James Ross recently wrote an article citing "expanded research" that indicated that Adam Nick didn't have "a 100% attendance record" at Lake Forest City Council meetings.

But Ross has got it wrong on several counts.

Nick, who is up for reelection in November, has never said he had a perfect voting record, only that he had "a 100% attendance record" Mr. Ross clumsily rebrands Nick's stance here: "I have found the Adam's [sic] statement to be false as he has not attended every vote before the council. In fact he has missed many votes."

So Mr. Ross' shift is from attendance to votes. There's a distinction.

Over nearly four years, approximately 85 meetings, Mr. Ross counts only seven times in which Nick has missed a portion of any City Council meeting. Let's put this in perspective because Nick's detractors in this discussion support and make excuses for Scott Voigts in Jim Gardner's August 22 article "Scott Voigts - M.I.A." In that article, Gardner cites the first 10 Vector Control meetings (of which there were records for nine) in which Councilman Voigts was supposed to attend as Lake Forest's representative.

It turned out that Voigts missed two meetings and parts of five others (a total of seven); in two of those meetings in which he attended, Voigts left before the first vote -- meaning he didn't cast a vote in at least four of the first 10 meetings he was supposed to attend. I offer that for perspective. Voigts has missed parts of seven of 10 meetings, and Nick has supposedly missed parts of seven of 85 meetings.

From what I can tell, here's the tale of the tape for the meetings Mr. Ross mentions about Nick's "absences" and what they entailed (Mr. Ross makes it sound much worse than it is):

Ross' claim: "Adam Nick arrived nearly 90 minutes late to the Council meeting on April 15, 2014, and was marked "absent" by the City Clerk for agenda items #1 and #2."

Reality: On April 14, 2014, the first two agenda items were in closed session and involved discussion with property negotiators. Closed session meetings begin at 5:30 p.m., and the public session begins at 7 p.m. (hence the 90-minute reference); closed session could have lasted 30 minutes, but by Mr. Ross' account, Nick would have still been 90 minutes late. Nick was present for the public session; it doesn't begin earlier than 7 p.m. no matter when the closed session ends. The public session of City Council meetings does have a specific start time, and is called to order by the mayor, but if the mayor is running 10 minutes late, it doesn't begin until he gets there unless it gets drawn out and the mayor pro tem begins the meeting.

Ross' claim: On Feb. 17, 2015, Adam Nick missed the vast majority of the meeting for nearly 3 hours, missing votes for agenda items #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16 and #17. Again, the City Clerk marks him as absent during the time he missed the meeting.

Reality: On Feb. 17, 2015, items 5 through 16 were consent items, which are typically approved with one vote. Generally, they are hardly worth discussing and I'm not aware of any consent item that has ever not been approved. By the way, consent items are the foundation for Mr. Ross' point that there is no "Gang of 3" but a "Gang of 5" because the Council votes together so often, but his facts are misused; consent items are typically approved 5-0 because there's nothing controversial about them (i.e., Do you consent to pay the electric bill this month?), but there's a broad distinction on votes that are not unanimous, which has been subject of articles by Gardner and myself. Anyway, back to reality: Item 17 was an appeal of the Planning Commission's PCN for a Mobil Station to sell alcohol, and for that, the City Attorney recommended that Nick recuse himself. That was the first meeting after the district attorney charged Nick improperly with stealing the illegally placed campaign signs of Scott Voigts, Andrew Hamilton and Jose Vergara; Nick was taking a beating in public comments because people wanted to know what was up, so he excused himself from the meeting for the consent items and invited the public to meet with him in a side room so he could answer their questions directly. So, Nick missed the consent items 5-16 and recused himself from voting on Item 17 at the request of the City Attorney.

The other incidences are more of the same in which Mr. Ross claims Nick missed part of a Council meeting. Here's the reality to those varied claims:

• On July 21, 2015, the discussion of City Manager Bob Dunek's job performance was part of closed session, not the regular meeting the public is allowed to attend. The video shows Nick in his seat when Voigts -- just back from Hawaii -- says "Aloha!" to begin the public session.
• On November 17, 2015, the first agenda item was the introduction of the city's new landscape inspector, Hugo Andreani.
• On January 5, 2016, the first agenda item was closed session with legal counsel over anticipated litigation; there was no vote that I'm aware of.
• On January 19, 2016, the first agenda item was closed session with legal counsel over anticipated litigation; there was no vote that I'm aware of. Nick led the Pledge of Allegiance at the public meeting, which was followed by Item 2.
• On June 7, 2016, Mr. Ross is in error. Nick missed four items, not five (viewable on video). Nick asked for a break and left the meeting early because he received news that his father-in-law was battling for his life in a Los Angeles hospital, which he made known to attendees as he was departing. Since there were 23 items on that agenda, he was there for 83 percent of the items on the agenda.

If you want to knock Nick based on semantics, that's your prerogative, but you cannot say he does not have a 100 percent attendance record at City Council meetings despite any "expanded research." There’s no indication, in those few times Nick did not cast a vote, that it was consequential.

I suppose you could ask Nick to give back the money to the City for the time missed at the meetings, but unlike his colleagues, he doesn't take any salary. Nor does he receive reimbursement for his personal expenses, like Andrew Hamilton. Nor does he travel at taxpayers’ expense, like Scott Voigts. Nor does he have free use of a car at taxpayers’ expense, like Dwight Robinson.

Mr. Ross admits Nick has attended every council meeting. That’s “100% attendance.” The only question is whether Nick voted on every item that came before the council – which Nick never claimed. But Mr. Ross is claiming it.

It’s political season, and Nick’s claim is unassailable. Not that there won’t be detractors who try.

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