Lance MacLean knew voters were abandoning him when he was re-elected by only 94 votes. The vast majority of OC incumbent councilmembers win by large margins. He acknowledged the scare when he was quoted in the media saying he got the message and was going to do a better job of listening and representing his contituents. But he didn’t, according to his former supporters.
MacLean’s core constituency appears gone. Those who picketed on street corners to get him elected are ready to picket to get him recalled. The final straw probably came last year when he was arrested for physically assaulting a co-worker at UCI. The District Attorney allowed MacLean to take anger management classes instead of facing trial, but the City was embarrassed.
MacLean Waits After Police Arrive
In 2006, council candidate Diane Greenwood called Mission Viejo police alleging MacLean came within inches of her face with belligerent and threatening conduct. Last year an audio tape of a closed City Council meeting was released where MacLean could be heard ordering Councilwoman Gail Reavis to “Shut up!” The Councilman’s history has caused residents concern about potential liability to the City if inappropriate conduct occurs in the future.
At Monday night’s council meeting resident Jim Snyder walked to the dais before the meeting commenced. He approached MacLean and served him with a formal Notification of Intent to Circulate a recall petition. It was no surprise to MacLean since rumors had been circulating for weeks that a recall was imminent. He tried to laugh dismissingly when served.
The notice to MacLean stated the following reasons for the recall, but some residents have several additional reasons.
“You violated your responsibilities to voters, showing yourself unfit to serve as a City Council member by exhibiting:
• Violence when you were arrested by Police for assault and battery on a co-worker.
• Anger and incivility when you ordered a Mission Viejo councilwoman to “SHUT UP” in closed session.
• Hatred and disrespect when you called residents racists and elitists in a LA Times interview.
• Self-dealing when you voted to double your council salary during our current economic crisis.
• Greed and corrupt priorities when you voted to give yourself lifetime medical benefits at taxpayer expense after only 12 years of part-time council service.
• Financial mismanagement when you voted for budget items leading to $11.8 million in deficit spending.
• A tax increase when you authored and promoted Measure K, which was rejected by Mission Viejo voters.
• False promises when you voted to increase housing density leading to more traffic congestion.”
The Notice of Intention will be published and filed with the Registrar. MacLean will then have seven days to file a written answer. Within ten days election officials must review the petition which will be used to gather signatures to insure conformance with legal format.
Upon approval of the petition, proponents will have 160 days to gather the number of signatures required to put the recall before voters. Fifteen percent of registered voters must sign the recall petition to qualify the matter for the ballot.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Would like to know who “some” is. This kind of vague reporting reeks of innuendo, and weakens the argument. If people have voiced concerns, then list those people who voice them. I read the comments of a Ms. Lee, who decried that the voice of the people had not been listened to, and therefore justified a recall. Well, seems to me that the voice of the people in the form of an elective mandate, regardless of the slim majority, was heard and ratified in the 2006 election. I, for one, object to any tax dollars spent on a recall simply because someone who can’t practice patience wants to circumvent the electoral process. Why don’t we all wait for the next election and then let the will of the people be known once again in a due process manner.
[Editor's Note: In 2006 only about 1 of every 4 voters who voted selected Lance MacLean as one of their choices for city council. Mission Viejo had 59,563 registered voters and 32,521 of them cast ballots. Each voter could cast up to three votes for city council since there were three seats available. There were a total of 74,383 votes cast in the council race. Lance MacLean was elected with 8,574 votes. As you can see, Mission Viejo councilmembers are elected by a small minority, not by a mandate or majority. The argument, therefore, is that if substantial questions are raised about performance, only a recall vote will create a true democratic result because it is a "yes" or "no" requiring a majority result.]
Substantial questions are raised all the time about elected officials and their performance. Why do you state that only a recall election could produce a democratic result?
What additional mechanisms are available to MV voters who would like to provide valuable feedback until such time as a recall vote would be available at the polls? As you know, there may not be enough signatures gathered to put the recall vote before the public for their decision. If that happens, what is the best alternative for constituents to communicate with their elected officials about issues that are important to both them and our community?
I look forward to your response.
Thank you so much for your valuable resource to readers like me. Keep up the good work!
[Editor's Note: Residents can communicate with local officials by writing comments under the articles in the Mission Viejo Dispatch. It seems opinons are taken more seriously when they are made publicly to other residents and published broadly by the MVD. Alternatively, the Dispatch provides a tab at the top of its front page ("Email Officials") which grants readers quick access for emailing thoughts directly to members of the City Council, Commissions and local School Boards.]
Perhaps Ms. Kirby did not read or study the very plain listing of offenses by Lance MacLean. Fixing a problem before a total disaster strikes is indeed a good and valued use of “tax payer money”
I believe the someone is very clearly identified……………….