Orange County Register

The first-ever recall in Laguna Woods Village’s 40-something-year history may head to court next week - before it’s even held, before ballots are even mailed, cast or counted.

And the company originally chosen to conduct said recall election? Gone with the wind, amid a swirl of wild rumors (though we promise to dispel them by the end of this column).

This $121,000-or-so exercise in direct democracy came about after rebellious director Mike Curtis got fed up with how some fellow board members handle the community’s finances - and how they, in his opinion, kowtow to property manager Professional Community Management.

Curtis is blazing mad about the $5.4 million of seniors’ money that PCM spent on employee incentives, which were a mystery to many for the better part of a decade. After Curtis failed to get traction with his board colleagues re: trying to recoup money from PCM (and as assessments were slated to rise another 4 percent), his troops sprang to action, gathered some 400 signatures and forced a vote on the fate of four United board members - Lloyd Foster, Linda Wilson, Marty Rubin and Gail McNutly. (United is one of LWV’s homeowners associations.)

BALLOTS STINK?

“Surreal” might be a good word to describe the meeting last week where directors facing recall helped choose the ballot for their recall. 

Curtis, and his lawyer, have problems with this ballot.  ”It is my opinion that the ballot does not comply with California law,” said Curtis’s attorney, Peter Nitschke.

Remember that fun exercise in direct democracy we enjoyed a few years ago - the historic recall of California’s governor? The ballot was very simple. It said, “”Shall Gray Davis be recalled (removed) from the office of Governor?” The choices were yes, or no.

As you see, the LWV recall ballots are a bit more complicated, with capital letters saying “RECALL WITHOUT CAUSE” before each targeted director’s name, and a third option (after “no” and “yes”): “Abstain.”

“The inclusion of the ‘abstain’ provision is simply outside of what is proper protocol for a recall election,” Nitschke said. “A recall ballot is a simple yes or no.”

Attorneys for LWV have forwarded these concerns to their elections experts, and ask Nitschke to cite the “actual legal basis” for said concerns. So the two sides are talking, and court could be avoided.

(Check below for the ballot as Curtis and Nitschke believe it should be.)

ELECTION CZAR DROPS OUT

Fueling the conspiratorial fires was why TrueBallot - which has conducted several successful elections in LWV and is trusted by many - decided to pass on this one.

TrueBallot was intimidated by Curtis and refused to work with him! TrueBallot refused to word the ballot in the confusing way that the-powers-that-be desired!

The truth, TrueBallot tells us in an emailed statement,  is this:

“A number of people with whom we spoke at Laguna Woods indicated that they believed there was a very significant likelihood that this election would result in a lawsuit. This was reinforced by two emails we received from an individual who is a party to the dispute. Because of this, we requested a clause in our contract through which the corporation would indemnify Kenneth Mostern, who was to be appointed Inspector of Elections, against lawsuits over the election. Such clauses indemnifying election inspectors are not unusual, and are indeed fairly standard.

“TrueBallot has not been sued in fifteen years, by its clients, or by any party challenging an election result. In the three years we have been the election administrator/inspector of elections for United Mutual, we have been threatened with lawsuits each year.”

And this, according to LWV’s lawyers:

 ”There are a few reasons why United and TrueBallot are not working together on the recall materials. After threats of litigation against United and TrueBallot by the recall proponents, TrueBallot and United both had their own legitimate concerns about protection under their existing contractual relationship. Litigation by the recall proponents was a very real concern due to the fact that TrueBallot had been contacted and challenged by recall proponents. Even if such a lawsuit would have no validity, United and TrueBallot each wanted as much protection under the contract as possible to avoid exposure to potential legal liability and attorneys fees which might be incurred in a lawsuit. Among the contract issues discussed were United’s request that TrueBallot carry insurance and TrueBallot’s request for complete indemnification. Ultimately, we were unable to reach a mutually satisfactory contract that both parties were comfortable with.

“United and TrueBallot couldn’t reach agreement on contract terms. That’s it. There is no conspiracy, no secret story, no hidden agendas.

Anyway, the company  handling the election now is Martin & Chapman. We wish them luck!

ONWARD

According to the community’s official site on the recall, which is here:

• Secret ballots will be mailed to United members by July 20.
• They must be returned to the Inspector of Elections by 9 a.m. Aug. 21.
• A special United board meeting to open and count the secret ballots will begin at 9:30 a.m. Aug. 21 in Clubhouse 3
• First, the Inspector will count the ballots to ensure that a quorum–15 percent–of eligible United
  members cast a vote.
• If a quorum is obtained, the ballots will be tallied and the outcome announced by the Inspector of
  Election.
• In order to remove each director on the ballot, a majority of the actual votes cast for recall of that individual director must be checked “Yes.”

Hmm. That last one has us scratching our heads a bit. What if there are 20 yes votes, 10 no votes, and 100 abstentions? Is that person recalled, or not?

Those inclined to doubt the character of the powers-that-be see this as a way to ensure the recalls fail. We’ve asked officials to clarify, and will keep you posted on what we learn.

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

Meantime, the yes-0n-the-recall web site is here, emblazoned with a fierce-looking bald eagle, the internal emails summarizing the incentive payments that have Curtis and the others so riled up, and a PayPal link so supporters can help fund the rebellion, whose costs will rise if the ballot issue must go to court next week.

Some of those who oppose the recall are calling it a tragedy.

“This process already has - and will continue to - demand an enormous amount of time, effort and attention from this board, as well as our managing agent,” target/United Board President Foster said in a press release. “This will preclude us from executing our regular duties and fiduciary responsibilities in the most constructive and effective manner.”

Perhaps we should remember that democracy is a messy business, and that a rather vital part of it involves giving voice to the minority, even if the majority doesn’t like what it hears.

Here, meantime, is the ballot as Curtis would like to see it:

 More Watchdog:

• State slaps water district with $204,000 fine
• ‘Mandatory spay-neuter doesn’t work!’ Or…does it?
• High-flying water board member resigns amid turbulence      
• Controversial pet spay-neuter law gets closer to governor’s desk    

• California’s $3 billion stem-cell experiment suffers from appearance of self-dealing
• Showdown on statewide spay/neuter law for pets slated for Tuesday
• Airplane whisks OC water official to ceremony in, er, Riverside
• OC air marshal - fired for revealing bad plan - is denied whistleblower protection
• Some water officials use office for personal gain, report says
• Tax prep giant must stop deceptive ads and pay more than $1 million
• Fair gets slapped for promotional cartoons
• No, San Onofre is not closing down any time soon!
• County pays $250,000 in sheriff car accident
• Charitable giving down more than $6 billion as economy tanks
• Saddleback College defends senior fitness classes
• Is college cheating state for seniors’ fitness classes?
• All systems go for contentious, first-ever, recall election in Laguna Woods Village
• LWV weighs in with official statement on first-ever recall election
• Candidate OKs $10 million for execs of bankrupt bank
• Secret extremist agenda: To outlaw dogs as pets, says spay/neuter law critic
• Grand jury: Street’s big bet ‘imprudent’
• As OC Fair graduates from cattle drive to film production, some are outraged
• OC Fair executives accept gifts worth thousands
• Great Park tries to keep contamination info under wrap
• Drought-induced building freeze not necessary - yet, officials say
• Is ’severe drought’ just a chance to hike water rates? Residents wonder

.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.