When Lance MacLean was recalled in February, his son quipped in the OCR, “See you in November.” So it was not a surprise that MacLean picked up a council candidate’s packet Wednesday from the City Clerk.
MacLean (Navy Shirt) Golfing With City Trash Bidder's Team
An employees’ union, the AOCDS, spent an unprecedented sum narrowly failing to save MacLean during the recall. It loaded cable TV programming with slick commercials, and the union filled mailboxes with attacks on grassroot residents.
MacLean was cited by some voters for his arrogance, exemplified by a police report that said three officers had to pull MacLean off a fellow UCI employee, handcuff him, and wrestle him to the ground while he shouted expletives at police. MacLean agreed with a judge to take anger management classes to avoid prosecution.
Dave Leckness
Following the recall, MacLean threatened to sue the OC Registrar of Voters and ridiculed his replacement, Dave Leckness, calling Leckness a “lesser evil” and telling the OC Weekly, ”[Leckness] thinks himself to be quite the jokester. He’s flippant, he’s comical. That’s going to wear real thin after a few meetings . ..” It was serious betrayal by MacLean, considering Leckness partnered with Lance during the recall.
MacLean also threatened the City, telling the OC Weekly he might have to sue Mission Viejo and the OC District Attorney: “It looks like I may have to sue all three of em,” he told the Weekly.
A resident’s letter to the Dispatch summarized other issues:
The issue of the recall is Councilman Lance MacLean – nothing else. I want to take a moment to respond to MacLean’s campaign rhetoric versus the facts on just a few of the relevant issues.
He told Councilwoman Gail Reavis to “Shut the Hell Up.” The truth is certainly more aggressive than Lance and his surrogates have stated in their PR release. Also, I am a good friend of Diane Greenwood. I arrived on the scene just a few minutes after MacLean verbally assaulted her with his nose in her face. The woman was traumatized; she is 5′ 4″ and 123 pounds, and Lance is over 6′ 4″ and 230-plus pounds. Those wanting more information can call Mission Viejo resident Bill Barker to confirm this, as he witnessed MacLean’s tirade and his nose-to-nose assault on Diane.
So why hasn’t Lance addressed the anger management issues he had at UCI? He plea bargained out of criminal charges and now claims it was no big deal. The details on his assault case were reported in an Irvine Police Report, the UCI official campus newspaper, and the OC Weekly. By the way, when the OC Register attempted to get facts on the case, Lance played games with the reporter, falsifying his age and his middle name. I know public institutions don’t take precipitous actions, so I wonder if there were other incidents that led up to UCI’s “urging” Lance’s “early retirement.”
More details: Something no one has addressed was Lance’s brutal browbeating of Dr. Frank Lieberman at a council meeting when Dr. Lieberman was discussing some potential changes in the Fun with Chalk event this year. Mind you, Lieberman has put this event on for years and donated the residual funds to various art projects and schools that promote art. Lance’s act on this occasion was a total embarrassment, and it is just another indication he has NOT solved his anger management problem.
In addition, on numerous occasions Lance has taken the special interest position that is opposed to the citizens in our community. On the Southern California Edison Viejo System Project, (look out your back window and thank Lance for all those lines) he continually tried to deter action by the city to get Edison to bury the lines. Lance has since ignored the fact that Edison’s EMF reading from the Viejo System Project lines far exceeds what they said it would be. This was validated by the Sage and Associates’ readings (commissioned by the City of Mission Viejo) but dismissed by Lance. Mind you, MV children are now exposed to a Class B carcinogen, thanks to Lance’s game-playing. Details can be found in the Sage Report and the Bio-Initiative Report.
Another note that no one has addressed was that Lance was on the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) when all the consultants and bond pushers wanted to “refinance” the toll road. That would have cost millions if he had succeeded. Luckily, County Supervisor Bill Campbell stepped in and stopped that nonsense. Lance summarily dismissed and demeaned the environmentalists on the 241 extension. I attended the meeting at the Del Mar race track when the California Coastal Commission listened to the details. Lance was an outright embarrassment for our city. The California Coastal Commission must have thought so also, as they said a big NO to the TCA and Lance as the TCA representative.
Lance also failed to support his Deane neighborhood school when hearings were being held to see if it should be closed. Wouldn’t you think he would come to the meetings and express a concern for the neighborhood and potential property value impact? Not Lance.
I was Chairman of the Friends of Mission Viejo that originally helped get Lance elected. I had a number of conversations with him during that campaign. I spent time waving his campaign signs with him on the street corners. Typically, Lance told me one thing and then did exactly the opposite after he was elected. Lance started out by wanting to do good, but he very quickly only wanted to do good for himself. As an example, he took campaign money from Edison, walked away from his campaign platform, doubled his salary and gave himself lifetime health care benefits. Joe Holtzman.
A letter written by MacLean, released through Trish Kelley, was printed in the OC Register after the recall wherein he specifically wished “vindication” against recall organizers. His best opportunity is a general election like this one where he doesn’t need a majority of the votes as required in the recall.
There are currently 11 potential council candidates this year for three seats, and Mission Viejo doesn’t hold run-off elections. MacLean realizes he could be elected by a small minority. In 2006 he was re-elected among 10 candidates by receiving only 11.5% of the votes.
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
The little ego that could – I think I can, I think I can, I think I can. Who knows – Maybe he can.
If I wasn’t so fond of the Dispatch, I would think this article is a joke! Really, Lance????? Being recalled wasn’t enough of a clue that we don’t want him involved in any decision-making position for this city? Voters, take note!!
I can’t say that I am surprised. He let the OC Deputies Union spend $103,000 on him during the campaign, while he was having fundraisers and hoarding the money for a come-back should he lose.
It will be very interesting to see what Trish Kelley and Leckness will do. Will they run as a slate? Will Scott Taylor, MacLean’s political agent, run their campaigns? Will I have to go back to carrying pepper spray?
Since Rick Sandzimeir also pulled papers, now there is one too many for their slate. Sandzimier was Lance’s appointee to a commission.
I would expect the city vendors, and the same people who paid into Lance’s campaign from the tollroad agency (TCA), Saddleback College Foundation and whomever he had convinced to back him in other campaigns will now be willing to pony up again.
When he ran the first time, he lost. When he ran the second time, he came in on Trish’s coat tails. MacLean got John Paul Ledesma to run with him, and he used J.P.’s consultant, Taylor.
Maybe he just wants to thank Leckness for keeping his seat warm and now run against Trish and Leckness. This will be more fun than Mission Viejo has a right to. Ury always got away saying that MV had a reputation in the county as a laughing stalk. Frank also ran on the premise that MV had the most dysfunctional council in the county. More than ever now, that will be true. Maybe he can hire another logo maker (like the iron tree) and have his own logo on the dysfunctional council.
Now we can see some of the great political cartoons that Lisa used to make of them. That might be worth waiting for.
What, no words of wisdom from Dan Avery! Come-on brother – isn’t Lance your guy?
Actually, Tom. Lance was never my guy. As I have said countless times, I was just standing up to preserve our system of representational government. I would have done the same thing for Gail if someone had tried to recall her, and I can’t stand the sight of Gail. Right is right, which is what many of you folks lose sight of.
I did like the way the Editor referred to Francis Holtzman as just a “resident.” Why not be honest? I’m honest. I don’t lie. I don’t issue threats.
[Editor's Note: The Constitution for our system of representational government provides the democratic right for elections, recalls and initiatives. Citizens need to beware of those who oppose or attempt to abrogate such freedoms. Rights are rights, which is what some folks lose sight of.]
Please note that the Editor did include my name–Joe Holtzman as the author of the comment about Lance MacLean’s actions. As to Dan Avery being honest–I leave that up to the readers to determine that. I know Dan Avery has been banned from one local blog and edited out of others.
Should I be laughing? Dan SAYS he can’t stand the sight of me. Yet at the only council meeting that I have been to in many months, Dan kept shoving his cell phone cam in my face to get me on tape.
That is HIS right, as is mine to take pictures on the street and in public places. Hope he can remember that if ever his cell phone is taking pictures of my cell phone.
Yes, we have the right to recall. But in CA the person doesn’t have to do anything to get recalled. Get enough signatures and bam it’s on. Lance did not break any laws. In our country we are still innocent until proven guilty. Seems to me our system works great. Wait until election time and then vote. If someone breaks a law then maybe. Recall, as you know, reverses the will of the voters. Like it or not, the will of the voters put Lance in office. We should be extremely cautious when thinking about reversing the will of the voters. And that didn’t happen with Lance. There was no caution at all. Lance was up for reelection in a few months. It was needlessly expensive. And that’s coming from a man so liberal it’d keep you awake at nights.
In response to the editorial note to Dan Avery’s post (which is relevant to the main post), the problem that I had with the recall was NOT that there were serious questions about Mr. MacLean, NOT that I do not support the recall system and NOT that I did thought the citizens had the right to recall an elected official. The problem that I had was that the effort cost the City of Mission Viejo about $250,000 to remove someone for office merely months before they would have been up for election in the ordinary course. The problem I have is that the recall system was put in place to remove someone for what amounts to an impeachable offense in the middle of their term and not simply for the political gain of the recall subject’s opponents.
I am not a MacLean supporter and think that his behavior as an elected official did not put the City of Mission Viejo in the best light. I will not support his reelection efforts. Having said that, I think that the recall effort at that point in his term was a terrible waste of taxpayer money aimed solely at getting Dale Tyler elected in an inexpensive “side election” as an after effect of the recall. That effort failed, but the whole exercise was a terrible waste of taxpayer money.
I know that there will be a long discussion about the number of signatures gathered for the recall and how there was a grass roots effort supporting the recall, but I sat in front of Albertson’s listening to the untruths told by the Yes on D folks and know the limitations on the signature gathering process. I actually talked to this Yes on D person who was gathering signatures who grew concerned about what she had been told to say. I asked her for a copy of the actual intiative and she did not have it. She then called Connie Lee to talk to me, but Connie refused to get on the line with me. Bottom line is, the signature gathering process, including for the recall, is only as good as the information being given out by those gathering the signatures.
Again, while I am not a supporter of Mr. MacLean, I do plan to have a tape recorder stationed anywhere that signatures are gathered in Mission Viejo in the future to accurately document what people are being told.
In response to “untruths told about Yes on D,” No on D filled my mailboxes and voice mail with some of the biggest lies told to date in any campaign.
It is very easy for Mr. Avery and Mr. Willis to jump off the MacLean bandwagon now. Fortitude is something you don’t check at the gate and then later hide behind convenient rationalizations.
Perhaps Mr. Avery has a dual standard. It was OK for us to put Lance in office in 2002 but not OK for the voters to remove him? The constitution does not require and official to be convicted of a crime to be removed from any elected office.
Will of the people? You are right. Thousands of voters casting ballots, a majority, removed him from office, not a handful of watchdogs.
There are some details that Mr. Willis is overlooking. Do you have any idea of when the effort to recall Lance MacLean commenced? Do you know that the city clerk plays a role in when the election is held?
To say that the election was conducted “merely months” prior to the General Election is misleading the other Dispatch readers. Just as he is within his rights to run for council again Lance could also have resigned from office. You seem to focus on the cost of the recall yet overlook the $258,000 potential savings by our removing his ability to access lifetime health care if he won in November. As of now he will not have 12 consecutive years of service. His recall predates the recent council action that should close that chapter of that self-serving agenda.
Lance was recalled by 19 votes. That farce of a recall election only served to completely divide this community. Lance has many supporters in this community which is why almost kept his seat. I look forward to voting for Lance in November – and driving a stake through the heart of these so-called watchdogs who have made our town the laughing stock of the county. $250k for a recalling a guy who will win his seat again 9 months later. What a bunch of chumps.
[Editor's Note: It wasn't the recall that caused division, it was Lance's conduct. The original polls were so lopsided against Lance's actions that his sympathizers brought in Dave Leckness as a backup candidate.
The wealthy special interests, however, needed to keep Lance in office to advance their agendas. They were dominated by the Sheriff's Union which was paranoid about its $15 million annual contract with Mission Viejo, its largest OC client city. Lance's money boys spent over $15 for each vote garnered, and still lost. For that unprecedented sum, and its professional propaganda, they should be able to elect Lance's dog.
The symbiotic relationship between elected officials seeking campaign donations, and commercial financial interests seeking regulatory favors, is a factor behind the adage that "you can't fight city hall." Fortunately Mission Viejo is blessed with some brave souls who feel a stronger duty to fellow residents than to the municipal castle.
Any outside laughter is generated by embarrassing council missteps; Brown Act convictions, bush league baseball subsidies, corporate welfare, run-ins with police, lifetime medical benefits, project costs, street disrepair, lawsuits against schools, court ruling against false ballot statements, to name a few. For those who tire of the sniffing of citizen watchdogs, perhaps they should consider the City of Bell and other deteriorated cities which only had lapdogs and sleeping dogs.]
@Adriana Brady – since I wrote or reviewed virtually all of the No on D materials, I would love to know what you consider to be the “biggest lies told to date.”
@Mr. Gilbert – 1) whatever the reason, the recall election did happen just months before Mr. MacLean was up for reelection, 2) while recall elections are allowed under the California Constitution I think that they are overused at great taxpayer expense, 3) having done election law my entire career, I understand the recall, referendum and initiative process as well as any other expert in the field, and 4) I AGREE with you about the lifetime pension issue and have stated that clearly and consistently. Before I decided to run for City Council, I agreed with Scott Baugh’s position that taking money from any public employees union is not consistent with true conservative principles. I feel strongly that the concept of “public service” has been largely forgotten in local politics and believe that there should be little or no financial benefits paid to elected officials.
Having said all of that, I have reviewed the voting records of both Ms. Kelly and Mr. Ury pretty carefully and other than the vote on lifetime benefits I don’t really have an issue on any of their votes. I think that they have done a good job for the City of Mission Viejo and I support the reelection of Mayor Kelly.
I do find funny the recurring comments about me parroting the words fed to me by either Mr. Ury or Ms. Kelly (I have met each of them a small handful of times). I find it even more entertaining that there have been suggestions that I am going to run as part of a “slate” (whatever that means) with Ms. Kelly and Mr. Leckness. Anyone that knows me at all will tell you that I always speak my own mind and stick to my own principles.
[Editor's Note: Ury's false ballot statements about Measure D were convicted by a superior court judge. A "small handful" of meetings (oxymoron?) among Ury, Kelley and newbie Willis sounds like very sufficient contact to stimulate the Willis' misinformation about Measure D.]
I can only speak to Measure D as written since I did not draft it, did not draft the ballot statements and but did carefully read the Measure itself. By the way, it is ONLY the initiative that would have become law, the ballot statements would not have controlled implementation of the Measure in any way. While it is true that the Court did make very minor changes to the ballot argument, I have reviewed the transcripts and do not find those discrepancies to be material.
What I do strongly object to is the claim that there were any false statements made against the Measure ITSELF. Whenever I ask for misstatements made during the campaign, proponents point to the Court hearing which was pre-campaign and with which I had nothing to do. The mailers, the phone calls and the supporting arguments against Measure D I read very carefully and suggested changes whenever I thought the arguments should be clearer. I was very careful to make sure that every argument was factually and legally true.
I have also had a “small handful” of meetings where Ms. Schlicht was present and don’t think that you would consider that to have somehow influenced me. I am my own man, form my own opinions and own the consequences.
A huge thank you to the editor for exposing the lies plastered on the NO on D flyers – I rest my case.
After professing to be a fiscal conservative Willis is supporting the liberal spending Trish Kelley, who along with Lance MacLean promoted a tax increase? They authored the Measure K tax increase which 59.4% of Mission Viejo voters rejected!
There are a few who claim to be fiscal conservatives, yet where are they when Trish Kelley and Lance MacLean are giving hundreds of thousands away to car dealerships. One of the big rifts with Kelley came when I voted no to giving the Audi dealership $600,000.00. I don’t remember seeing Willis and Avery back then. We are still paying them off and that’s totally on Trish and Lance.
Also Dan Avery kept saying how much the June election cost the city. He seems to not know that the election was a regularly scheduled election and that regardless of Measure D being on the ballot, there was still Meg Whitman, Carly and dozens of others to be voted on. I sent an e-mail to the city clerk asking how much extra the election cost MV. She was unable to answer because the city had to pay the same thing regardless of our measure. If the measure itself cost more, then I am still waiting for answers, but I do know that the money the city attorney racked up definitely did not need to be spent. That was pure nastiness on the part of the city since they did not want Measure D on the ballot.
Has anyone noticed that now that Lance has pulled papers, the city is back showing his old programs on MVTV? Don’t fool yourselves, city hall will grease every thing they can to get him back. I know you candidates just want a level playing field (like I did), … wish again.
Geoff Willis’ reason for not supporting MacLean’s recall was the $250,000 waste of taxpayers money to remove him merely months before he was up for reelection.”
For Mr. Willis’ information, I voted to remove him from office 9 months before his bid for reelection in November, because in a general election it is very difficult to defeat an incumbent with access to special interest campaign money, coupled with many candidates splitting the vote, and the voters apathy relying on slick flyers with a bunch a lies.
I could not wait until November, because if he survived one more term, he could have qualified for the Lifetime healthcare benefits he voted for himself, not to mention doubling his part-time council salary.
While it took two other council votes to make bad decisions, MacLean was by far the worst. He led the charge in wasting 400,000 of Taxpayers money for a useless float which Ury and Kelley also approved, but Willis does not have an issue on any of the votes by those two, apart for the lifetime benefits. What about Kelley’s BAD original vote on the Dog Park next to the Murray Center? She reversed herself because of a lawsuit threat by the residents impacted.
MacLean’s arrogance, incivility, disrespect and anger issues were a huge liability and an embarrassment to the citizens of Mission Viejo.
Thanks to the efforts of Cathy Schlicht the healthcare medical benefit was rescinded and the cost versus that saving is now a wash. Without the recall I doubt it would have happened. Since three council members could have qualified, it could have costed us taxpayers down the road more than $800,000! I saw the cost of this recall as an investment for the future.
If Willis was against the recall ONLY because the cost was a waste of taxpayer money, once it made the ballot box, the best use of that cost was to vote him out for future taxpayers savings!
Dead man walking.
Mr. Holtzman, and everyone on here, should actually read the posts before starting to formulate responses. Geoff clearly said he DOES NOT support Lance MacLean.
The Editor forgot to add a councilmember suing her own city (at considerable expense to the taxpayers) as part of why people are laughing at our great City.
Mr. Gilbert should be careful about claiming that “Thousands of voters casting ballots, a majority, removed him [MacLean] from office, not a handful of watchdogs.” I seem to remember when I touted Measure D’s demise on this very site as a landslide, he claimed that since only 9,550 voted it down (it was actually over 13,000), the No on D folks “did not win the hearts and minds of the masses in our city.” Since only 7,000+ voted to recall MacLean, by his own logic that, too, is far from a majority.
Mr. Fair was putting words in Geoff’s mouth. To my knowledge, Geoff has never offered an opinion on here as to whether he supported the Rose Parade float. As to Fair’s claim that the recall was the spur for the lifetime benefits (and thus worth the cost), Ms. Schlicht’s persistence was the reason why it was kept on the forefront of the Council agenda (and I applaud her for that) – it had nothing to do with the recall.
Mr Woodard plays a little fast and lose with his statement that Geoff Willis did not support Lance MacLean. Perhaps both Mr. Willis and Mr. Woodard should go back and review some of the archived city council meetings.
Mr. Willis (actions) public comments at council meetings, helped to support Lance MacLean.
MR Greg Woodhard: From Mr Willis own mouth (July 23) post which I am pasting:
“Having said all of that, I have reviewed the voting records of both Ms. Kelly and Mr. Ury pretty carefully and other than the vote on lifetime benefits I don’t really have an issue on any of their votes.
Mr Willis must have supported the Rose Parade Float $400,000 expenditure since apart from the Lifetime Benefits.. he did not… and still .. does not have…any issue with it as least any of their other votes.. which included that expenditure. Both voted for it!
When Ms Kelley ran the first time, I asked her as well as the other two candidates I was considering, how they would handle a specific situation which I described to them, to test their judgement and fairness. While the other two spent the time to write me back in detail how they would handle it .. Ms Kelley’s response.. I do not Know! Mrs Kelly has made bad judgement decisions on those two issues and the Dog Park etc.. She has also shown a lack of fairness towards a homeowner who appealed his neighbor’s remodeling plan that was placing a window facing directly his. Mrs Kelley response … I have the same situation, and it does not bother me.. which meant “it should not bother you!
If Mr Willis is running for a spot this coming November, although I have not met him his posts on this blog have so far clearly demonstrated to me a certain short sightedness!
Mr. Fair, at the time of the founding of our country their was a split over the proper criteria for electing officials. One train of thought was that you elect someone that would vote exactly like you would on every issue. The second train of thought was that you elected a good and honorable person to act as trustee. While I am more than willing to go issue by issue with you on Ms. Kelly’s voting record, suffice it to say that I think that she is a good trustee for the City of Mission Viejo.
I have another comment “pending moderation” for reasons that I cannot tell so I do not want to duplicate my answers contained in that earlier as yet unpublished post. [Ed. See comment #15]
A very legitimate response by Mr. Fair on Geoff’s opinion as to Trish’s and Frank Ury’s other votes. I apologize for my criticism of that part of his post. I’ll have to ask him if he was generalizing or not.
Not that I expect you impartiality, but I would be curious to hear Mr. Holtzman’s take on what comments Geoff made at prior Council meetings that supported MacLean. I take Geoff at his word when he says above that he is not a MacLean supporter. As I understand it, Geoff didn’t speak at Council meetings until Measure D came into focus, well after MacLean was recalled. However, if Mr. Holtzman can provide proof beyond his unsupported generalizations, as Mr. Fair did, I will retract.
For clarification, I NEVER SUED THE CITY. Long story short, I did sue Trish Kelley, Lance MacLean and the secretary who started this mess when they SUED THE CITY AND ME. By the way the secretary is still there.
Dan Joseph ‘sued’ the city (according to Ury a threat, implied or otherwise, IS a suit). There was a suit on behalf of Ledesma. Cathy filed a suit, and MacLean threatened to sue just about everybody in Orange County (and HE is running for office, I am not). I have heard that Frank used a friend of his to sue the school board when he lost that last election, and the city has sued too many people and entities in the state to count. Including both school districts!
The city has paid our City Attorney’s law firm millions and continues to. Look carefully at their contract. Yes, they get a monthly set amount, for the first 20 hours. With four meetings a month minimum for the City Attorney and the Asst. City Attorney, that makes just about everything else hourly.
Then, they bring in outside law firms (say for redevelopment) and they do not have an hourly cap. There is another attorney in LA who seems to get a regular monthly check in excess of $5k/mo for doing things I have never seen an itemized bill for. etc. etc. etc.
You see, Mr. Fair, when you ask questions in this city, you get sued for your troubles. Then the city does not defend your fiduciary duty to ask questions, and the City Attorney and City Manager refuse to respond to e-mails, letters and phone calls.
I wish Cathy God’s Speed in her work to open city government to scrutiny. Just remember the city of Bell, THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD, GO YOU.
Well, as tired as it is seeing Ms. Reavis split hairs over what she has or has not done, I never tire of the truth. On March 16, 2005, Ms. Reavis filed a claim against the City, seeking $10 million from THE CITY. She had to file the claim in order to later file a lawsuit. Whether she ever did file a lawsuit for the claim is irrelevant as it was clearly her intent to do so by filing the claim. Another fact is that she did file a lawsuit against Trish and Lance MacLean (filed June 6, 2005, OC Superior Court Case No. 05CC06914). The lawsuit sues them individually, and in their official capacity as Council members (I took Ms. Reavis’ suggestion and got the documents). Yet another fact – according to the Orange County Superior Court’s website, neither Trish, MacLean, or the secretary has ever sued the City. They were all listed as Defendants in Ms. Reavis’s lawsuit, but none have been a plaintiff in any action against the City. I do love the facts as they reveal all the falsehoods that Ms. Reavis is spreading on here and elsewhere.
When I keep seeing an argument made over and over again I do my own investigation to find those pesky little “true facts.” Ms. Reavis sued Mayor Kelly and councilman MacLean in their OFFICIAL CAPACITY. That means the City was required BY LAW to defend the lawsuit and indemnify the councilmembers from any judgment. While Ms. Reavis is holding the slender thread of truth by saying that the City was not a named party in her suit, the real result of her suit was against the City, at the cost of the City and won by the City. My understanding is that Ms. Reavis’ lawsuit arose from her anger with the City settling a claim made by a City employee against Ms. Reavis for her behavior.
I don’t really follow the rest of her comments about the City’s lawyers to tell if they are in the form of a question or complaint. I have reviewed the City’s billing arrangements with their attorneys and find them to be well within market. While they have often been my opponent in my work, the City’s firm of Richards Watson and Gershon does solid municipal work and is well respected. As far as I can tell from the public record, I don’t see a big track record for citizens being sued for speaking their mind for or against the City.
Minor changes says Mr. Willis (#16)?
While we sat in the courtroom we listened when Judge Rodriguez disagreed with Frank’s opposing ballot argument on a very important point that says it all.
Franks text on the Right to Vote Initiative regarding construction of housing on the Casta Golf Course read:
Rejecting Frank Ury’s text was significant no matter how many words or keystrokes appear in the text.
I still have an original flyer from Sunrise Senior Living that reads in part:
Being an Activist involves more than critiquing others comments. As Larry notes–and I was there; the Judge ruled that Ury’s submission was significantly flawed and ordered that Ury’s ballot statement be changed.