Text + -

Submitted Comments

From:    CA Schlicht 
Sent:    Saturday, March 19, 2022 1:13 PM
To:    Bill Curley; District-Elections
Subject:2021-2022 Districting Comments

Bill - I knew posting on MVC would get a response from you.  Thank you.

Again, you use hyperbole in your response without any substantive information or responding to the question - So I will ask again:
    
When did the Council give the authority to the city attorney to delay the second reading of Ordinance 22-434? Why is this ordinance that amends the city's municipal code from at-large voting to voting by district being postponed to a date uncertain?

From: wcurley 
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2022 1:09 PM 
To: CASchlicht@hotmail.com districtelections@cityofmissionviejo.org 
Subject:  2021-2022 Districting Comments 
 
Dear Ms. Schlicht:

You are wholly and very incorrectly making up a scenario as to what is occurring. That's very inappropriate and misleading. You constantly, randomly and incorrectly blame staff for 
improper  behavior regarding actions and occurrences that you do not understand. Blaming people out of your ignorance is very inappropriate.
Thank you for your interest in the City.

From: Cathy Schlicht 
Date: 3/19/22 11:11 AM (GMT-08:00) 
To: districtelections@cityofmissionviejo.org 
Subject: 2021-2022 Districting Comments 

The city attorney is supposed to take direction from the City Council.  
 
When did the Council give the authority to the city attorney to delay the second reading of Ordinance 22-434? Why is this ordinance that amends the city's municipal code from at-large voting to voting by district being postponed to a date uncertain?


From:    Robert Campbell 
Sent:    Tuesday, February 22, 2022 12:31 PM
To:    CityClerk
Subject: Election Maps

Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

After careful review of all redistricting options, I support Districting Plan A and respectfully request you to adopt this plan.  

How anyone convinced citizens that less representation is better, is beyond my understanding.  I know from experience with other elections, district elections provided less, and not necessarily better representation. Unfortunately, the City was forced into this process; since it is being required, in my opinion, Plan A is the best plan option presented for several reasons.

First, it does not violate the U.S. Constitution by making decisions based on race or ethnicity. 

Second, it was prepared by a professional demographer and not a resident with a personal interest in the outcome.

In addition, for the most part,  it follows boundaries set by many of the City’s main arterial roadways.

Finally, it keeps neighbors, HOAs, and where possible school boundaries together, and therefore produces a less fractured district map.

For these reasons, I again urge you to adopt Districting Plan A.

Rob Campbell
Mission Viejo


From: smitha shaker 
Date: February 22, 2022 at 12:14:25 PM PST 
To: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org
Subject: Support for Map E1
 
I wanted to send this email to let you know my family and I strongly support Map E 1.  This Map E 1 is the best solution for Districts in MV given the 
diverse population and growth in our community.  I have followed what is going on with the city topics lately and would like to see the council make the 
right choice here for the residents of this great city.  Thank you  


From:    James Morrison 
Sent:    Tuesday, February 22, 2022 9:44 AM
To:    CityClerk
Subject: Support of Map A - I would like this to be read at this evening's meeting

Good Evening Council,  
 
My name is James Morrison, and I have been a resident of Mission Viejo for nine years. I am writing to discuss my support of Map A for the district proposal submitted to the city of Mission Viejo for its districting effort of 2022. I am thankful to the individuals who contributed to the creation of Maps B through E1, but I am in full support of Map A, which was prepared by the Center for Demographic Research (CDR) from Cal State Fullerton. While I do not want to discredit the creators' efforts of the alternative maps, the CDR was established in 1996 to be a centralized data source of Orange County's demographic characteristics. Not to degrade them as well, but everyone is a little biased. Being an HR Professional, I understand bias, whether conscious, unconscious, implicit, systemic, etc... Supporting Map A would eliminate any potential of human prejudice and would be the best version without any political influence.

Respectfully,   

James Morrison


From:    therueschs
Sent:    Tuesday, February 22, 2022 7:11 AM
To:    CityClerk
Subject: District Maps

Dear Honorable Council Members,

I wish to express my support for District Map A-1 as the map to choose for elections moving forward.  This map gives the best division of the city keeping clear lines along major roads and keeping areas and school districts as intact as possible.  It is time to finalize this decision and move ahead.  Choosing a different map may invite further litigation based on our City Attorney’s comments for discrimination, further delaying the adoption.  In the beginning the city hired a demographer and we found that our city is very balanced in every category with a less that 10% discrepancy.  We need to stop looking for disenfranchised groups that do not exist and vote for District A-1. 

   Debbie Ruesch
   30 year resident of MV


From:    Martin Shramo 
Sent:    Tuesday, February 22, 2022 6:08 AM
To:    CityClerk
Subject: Martin J Shramo - Support for Map A-1

I’ve lived in Mission Viejo for 29 years.  I have reviewed the different map proposals.  I support map A-1.

Regards,

Martin Shramo


From:   Corinne Akahoshi 
Sent:    Monday, February 21, 2022 8:57 PM
To:    District-Elections
Subject: Public Hearing

I listened to the public comments at the February 8th council meeting regarding the potential maps for creating Mission Viejo’s voting districts.  Simply based on the speakers, it seemed clear two had the support of the public, A1 and E1, more heavily in favor of the latter.  Based on the comments presented by the community, particularly the last speaker, I urge you to support map E1.

Thank you,

Corinne Akahoshi


From: Jeri Griffin
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 8:13 PM 
To: CityCouncil <citycouncil@cityofmissionviejo.org
Subject: District Voting Map E -1

Hello,

I am 30 year resident of Mission Viejo and propose Map E - 1 be adopted into use. 

Thank you

Jeri Griffin 


From:    Pam Smith
Sent:    Monday, February 21, 2022 5:44 PM
To:    CityClerk
Subject: District Map

Hi,

As a 46 year resident of Mission Viejo, I am in support of either Map A or Map A1 in regard to the districting issue.  I feel that either of these maps best serve the residents of Mission Viejo. I appreciate all the time and hard work that has been put into making this decision.

Sincerely

Pam Smith


From:    BrendaCooper
Sent:    Monday, February 21, 2022 4:38 PM
To:    CityClerk
Subject: My Comments regarding Re Districting Maps

MY NAME IS BRENDA COOPER.  I HAVE LIVED IN THE DEANE HOMES FOR 38 YEARS.   THAT WAS EVEN BEFORE WE BECAME A CITY.
 
I DO NOT ALWAYS AGREE WITH OUR CITY COUNCILS BUT I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE MORE INFORMATION AND MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN I HAVE.
 
I HAVE ALWAYS FELT OUR CITY COUNCILS ARE CONSERVATIVE AND LOVE MISSION VIEJO AS WE ALL DO.  I TRUST OUR CITY COUNCIL!
 
IT IS A SHAME WE HAVE TO CHANGE TO VOTING DISTRICTS BECAUSE OUR GOVERNOR THINKS HE KNOWS BEST FOR ALL CITIES IN CALIFORNIA. SOME RESIDENTS DO NOT KNOW THAT OUR GOVERNOR IS DEMANDING THIS CHANGE 
THROUGH A LAW.   SOME RESIDENTS INCORRECTLY THINK THE CITY COUNCIL IS BEHIND THIS CHANGE.
 
BEING FORCED TO CHOOSE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MAP 1-A KEEPS THE AREAS A CLOSE AS POSSIBLE CONSIDERING NEIGHBORHOODS AND SCHOOLS.
 
THANK YOU,
 
BRENDA COOPER


From:    Bill Moorhead 
Sent:    Monday, February 21, 2022 4:35 PM
To:    CityClerk
Subject: For Mission Viejo City Council in Support of District Voting plan A

Dear Council,

After hearing presentations regarding the various plans in the City’s District set up for council member representation , I would consider Map A as the best way to establish the new district voting plan. 

This recommendation comes from serious evaluation, city residency for the past 28 years and my 46 year experience as a direct employee and consultant to various Cities and special Districts in Pennsylvania and California, as the most equitable and fair way for our City, the City of Mission Viejo, to have the representation it deserves for continued growth and future progress. 

sincerely,

William “Bill”  Moorhead PE


From: Jon Achee 
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 11:58 AM 
To: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org
Subject: Public Hearing on Maps to set Election Districts for Mission Viejo - 2/22/22 / Support Map E1

Dear Councilwoman Kelly,


I write you today to submit a public comment in support of Map E1. I have followed the Public Hearings on the selection of the District Election Maps for the next Council elections on Jan 25 and Feb 8 and request your vote in favor of  Map E1 over Map A1 for Mission Viejo Districts. I feel Map E1 provides the best solution to ensure equal and fair representation for all the Election Districts in Mission Viejo. 

Thank you,
Jon Achee
Mission Viejo Resident (over 25 years)


From:    Sharon Campbell 
Sent:    Monday, February 21, 2022 10:52 AM
To:    CityClerk
Subject:City Election Maps

Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

After careful review and consideration, I support Districting Plan A and respectfully urge you to adopt this plan.  

How anyone convinced citizens that less representation is better, is beyond my understanding.  I know from experience with the CUSD elections, district elections provided less, and not necessarily better representation. Unfortunately, the City was forced into this process; since it is being required, in my opinion, Plan A is the best plan option presented for several reasons.

First, it does not violate the U.S. Constitution by making decisions based on race or ethnicity. 

Second, it was prepared by a professional demographer and not a resident with a personal interest in the outcome.

In addition, for the most part,  it follows boundaries set by many of the City’s main arterial roadways.

Finally, it keeps neighbors, HOAs, and where possible school boundaries together, and therefore produces a less fractured district map.

For these reasons, I again urge you to adopt Districting Plan A.

Sincerely,
Sharon Campbell
Mission Viejo


From:    Carol Pifer 
Sent:    Sunday, February 20, 2022 2:38 PM
To:    CityClerk
Subject: City Council Agenda:  Support Map A-1

My name is Carol Pifer and I have been a resident and homeowner in Mission Viejo since 1988.

While opposed to changing from cumulative voting, I understand the state requirements behind the change to district voting. City Council and staff have done an excellent job researching alternatives and demographics. I support Map A-1 and the logic behind it.

I hope we continue with staggered terms so that not all five council members are elected at once.  

Thanks and appreciation to our City Council for all the work they do.

Sincerely,
Carol Pifer


From: Laura Guest 
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 6:09 PM
To: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Wendy Bucknum 
<wbucknum@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Greg Raths <graths@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Ed Sachs 
<esachs@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Brian Goodell <bgoodell@cityofmissionviejo.org>
Subject: Re: Districting of Mission Viejo
  
Good Evening City Council,
I want to, once again, stress my support of Map E 1. 

Thank you,
Laura Guest
Resident for 28 years


From: Helen Maurer 
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 3:49 PM 
To: Brian Goodell <bgoodell@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>; 
Greg Raths <graths@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Ed Sachs <esachs@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Wendy 
Bucknum <wbucknum@cityofmissionviejo.org
Subject: district maps

I support Map E-1.  In addition to satisfying all the criteria established at the outset of this process, it does the best job of defining district boundaries based on major streets and 
geographic features that make the districts easier to identify and to remember--and therefore more coherent--in the public eye.

Helen Maurer 
Mission Viejo, CA 92691


From: K Achee   
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 12:34 PM 
To: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org
Subject: Public Comment for District Maps

CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking 
on any links or attachments.
Dear Councilwoman Trish Kelley,

I am submitting my public comment that I support Map E 1. I feel Map E 1 is the best solution for districts in Mission Viejo. I have followed the Map Public Hearings on Jan 25 and Feb 8 and recommend Map E 1 over Map A 1 for Mission Viejo districts.

Thank you,

Kelly Achee (resident in Mission Viejo for 25 years).


From:    Judith Berman 
Sent:    Sunday, February 20, 2022 9:04 AM
To:    Brian Goodell; Trish Kelley; Wendy Bucknum; CityClerk; Greg Raths; Ed Sachs

Hello,

I have followed the Map Public Hearings on Jan 25th and Feb 8th and I believe, as do many of my neighbors that I have been 
speaking with, that Map E 1 is the best solution for Districts in MV.

Sincerely,

Judith Berman, PMP, CSM, SPHR, M.S.,M.A., Ph.D.  


From:    Kim Camp 
Sent:    Saturday, February 19, 2022 12:25 PM
To:    CityClerk
Subject:New District Map

I would like to let you know I support the current City Council and I think Map A is the best option.

Thank you!

Kim Camp


From: Cathy Schlicht 
Sent:    Friday, February 18, 2022 2:27 PM
To:    District-Elections
Subject:    Webform submission from: 2021-2022 Districting Comments

The OC Register January 10 article is posted, why isn't the February 11 article posted on the District Voting News link? 
 
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/02/11/term-extensions-in-mission-viejo-…;
 
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/01/10/by-district-voting-will-still-add…;
 
That is news that the Mission Viejo voters should be made aware of in the same in the same logic or reasoning that the January 10 article was posted. 
 
Why did the City's February 17 press release suppress information on Tuesday's council meeting? 
 
https://cityofmissionviejo.org/news/important-update-mission-viejos-tra…;
 
It is important for the public to be made aware that Item # 2 on the Agenda is the selection by the Council on which districts that will be choosing for a November vote.  
 
Why is there not a staff report? How can the public participate in its government when its government is censoring its reports?


From:    Darlene Simmons 
Sent:    Friday, February 18, 2022 12:04 PM
To:    CityClerk
Subject:    Map A or Map A-1

We have lived in Mission Viejo for over 30 years. We are in support of Map A. Thank you,

Gary and Darlene Simmons 


From:    Karen Crocker 
Sent:    Friday, February 18, 2022 10:33 AM
To:    CityClerk
Subject:    City Council Meeting February 22, 2022 - Districting
  
I am unable to attend the meeting on February 22, 2022. Please enter into the record that my husband 
and I support Map A-1. We have been residents of Mission Viejo for over 39 years. Our children were 
raised here , attended public schools, participated in youth sports and we continue the quality of life 
here in Mission Viejo. We believe the Map A-1 is the best choice for districting within our City.

Thank you, Randy and Karen Crocker


From:    Gayle Grosch 
Sent:    Friday, February 18, 2022 8:43 AM
To:    CityClerk
Subject:    District Map

  My name is Gayle Grosch. I have lived in Mission Viejo since 1979. I am in support of Map A.

Gayle Grosch


From:    Nancy Silver 
Sent:    Friday, February 18, 2022 7:22 AM
To:    CityClerk
Subject:    We support Map A

My husband and I have lived in Mission Viejo since 1988. We support Map A for the boundaries.

Nancy R. Silver


From: Jodee Kalmen

Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 7:28 PM T

To: District-Elections Subject: Webform submission from: 2021-2022 Districting Comments

Comment

I am for map E-1 as I see is the most popular district map.


From: Tom Moore 
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 1:11 PM
To: Wendy Bucknum; Ed Sachs; Greg Raths; Brian Goodell; Trish Kelley
Cc: R. Moore 
Subject: At-large Mayor with a four district map

Good afternoon Council members,

In the 9 Feb. 2022 City Council meeting I asked why a five-district map as opposed to a four-district map and at-large elected Mayor. I also included my rational for this approach (four-district and at-large elected Mayor) to what we now have come to accept (district voting v. cumulative voting) as the best way to provide better citywide representation. 

When I prepared my five-district map for submittal following my attendance at the California Voting Rights Act Workshop Agenda on January 12, 2018 I utilized the City of Mission Viejo 2017-2018 Public Participation Districting Kit Instructions provided at the time. I followed the prescriptive Method 2; District scenario creation using paper map and submitted as required to the City Clerk. I never received any follow-up or commentary regarding my submittal. 

As a very long time resident of Mission Viejo I would agree with both City Attorney Curley and, evidently (Planning) Commissioner Breton regarding Latin representation in the City. It may very well become an issue in the future however at this time it is my observation that the Latin population is diverse throughout the community as are many ethnicities. 

I have attached (hopefully) a four-district map that focuses on the intersection of La Paz and Marguerite Parkway. The maximum difference between the four districts is roughly 1,300. The data utilized in preparation of this map is from the 2010 U.S. Census however I believe a map similar to this could be generated utilizing more current data. 

Please take some time to review the map and the downside of attempting to corral a clowder of five self-interested cats. 

Very sincerely,
Tom Moore


From: Barbara Casillo 
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 3:36 PM 
To: Brian Goodell <bgoodell@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>; 
Wendy Bucknum <wbucknum@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Ed Sachs <esachs@cityofmissionviejo.org>; 
Greg Raths <graths@cityofmissionviejo.org
Subject: District Maps


Dear MV City Council,

I am a 25 resident of Mission Viejo. I support Map E-1 for the new district voting.  I believe it provides the highest percentage of Hispanic voters which supports efforts for a diverse voice in the running of our community.  

Thank you, 
Barbara Casillo

 


From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Wednesday, February 9, 2022 11:10 AM
To:    CA Schlicht
Subject:    Your February 9, 2022 email

Dear Miss Schlicht:

Thank your for your opinion. If I misspoke in the moment, please accept my sincerest apology. As you regularly and repeatedly raise alleged Brown Act problems the reaction is a constant. It is the Public Records Act that presents limitations on disclosure. As you regularly assert to be knowledgeable about both laws I trust you recognized the overlap. And thank you for your ongoing interest in the City Of Mission Viejo.

From:    Cathy Schlicht 
Sent:    Wednesday, February 9, 2022 10:58 AM
To:    District-Elections
Subject:    Webform submission from: 2021-2022 Districting Comments

Good Morning, Bill.  
 
After my public comments last night you stated something close to: “Under the Brown Act it is unlawful to disclose council member addresses. So, I would suggest people exercise caution." 
 
Please identify where I referred to disclosing councilmember addresses. 
 
Also, has the Brown Act been amended since the January 9, 2018 public presentation of Map Z that identified the locations, not the districts, of the council members' homes? 
 
I look forward to your responses. 
 
It appears to me that you switched the content of my speech from districts to addresses in an effort to disqualify my comments. 
 
Again, unfortunately, this is one of the hallmarks of our city government's effort to discombobulate the public and control the public narrative. 
 
To make it easier for you to find where I spoke about identifying the addresses of the council members' homes, here is a copy of my prepared remarks: 
 
00:42:55 
Good evening Council, my name is CS from MV. 
 
February 22 is not a statutory deadline, it is a self-directed date. 
 
The city attorney seems to like to refer to children's stories or folktales when he is chiding public speakers, such as myself. Well, here’s one for you. I would like to refer the five of you or the six of you since the city attorney seems to act like a political opponent against the public, that you read the story about the The Emperors New Clothes.  
 
If the Attorney General takes up a lawsuit, you will be exposed for a corrupt process that began in September 2017. 
 
You made this FAIR Maps Act process difficult for the public to participate in. 
 
There was never the promised transparency. 
 
There was never the promised community outreach. 
 
You have re-numbered the public hearings. Tonight's Public Hearing has been re-numbered as Public Hearing #2. Why? I think the more hearings the better, but what is going on? 
 
Instead of answering legitimate questions or concerns, you attack the speaker, like Ed did last month. 
 
You are exploiting the FAIR Maps Act just like you’ve exploited the legal process of the last 4-5 years, all in an effort to maintain your seats.  
 
If the Attorney General takes action to remove Sachs, Raths and Bucknum from office because they remained beyond their two year term, we will learn if there was abuse of process,  
if the law was misapplied and if the court was misled, and just as important, was the public confounded by your lack of transparency? 
 
The city attorney has refused to identify the districts where each council member lives, he has mocked suggestion on pulling numbered tiles out of a bag to take the politics out of the process.  
 
Why? Because this is the end of the road and the last gasp to try to Control the Outcome of the Elections. 
 
Regarding Maps, there is not much that Sachs and Raths can do as all six maps have them in the same district, so they will have to run against each other for one seat.  
 
But the suggested Map A gives the other council members their own district. Just like Map Z. Whereas Map E will have Kelley and Goodell running against each other for the same seat. Maybe that is why Ed likes Map E. 
 
You won't even consider Map C because five council members would reside in two districts - and you can't have that.  
 
So as the listeners can hear, It indeed was important for the public to know the council members districts. But the public is not what is important to this council. Again, it has always been about controlling the outcome of the elections. 
 
In addition to everything else, you never gave the public its fair opportunity to determine their own Communities of Interest. A Community of Interest was supposed to be determined by the residents. 
 
Again, it has always been about controlling the outcome of the elections. 
 
For the public record, here is a list of Districts where the council members reside. 
00:45:58


From:    Judith Berman 
Sent:    Wednesday, February 9, 2022 8:49 AM
To:    District-Elections
Subject:    I want you to adopt City Map E-1

Hello,

As a long time resident of MV, I want you to adopt City Map E-1. 

Sincerely,

Judith Berman, PMP, CSM, SPHR, M.S.,M.A., Ph.D.  


From:    Shelley Kirsch 
Sent:    Tuesday, February 8, 2022 6:00 PM
To:    Michael Schlesinger
Cc:    Wendy Bucknum; Brian Goodell; Greg Raths; Ed Sachs; Trish Kelley; CityClerk; 
Bill Curley
Subject:    Re: City Attorney William P. Curley III's memo to you of February 8, 2022 regarding Racial Gerrymandering

Very interesting! You are certainly taking them on!

On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 12:01 PM Michael Schlesinger <mikeschles123@gmail.com> wrote:
To the City Council: 
 
Reference is made to Mr. Curley’s memo to you dated February 8, 2022 wherein he states that “[a] concern arises when a districting (sic) map is primarily based on the race of the residents. This issue is call (sic) “Racial Gerrymandering” and is Constitutionally prohibited. We must be attentive to relying on statutory criteria , and not primarily focus on race in the evaluation of proposed districts.” (copy of Mr. Curley's memo attached) 
 
I resent the “racial” implication Mr. Curley has made in his February 8th memo. It is repugnant and not necessary, especially if Mr. Curley knew the law.  He would better serve you if he provided you with correct information about race and the Hispanic community residing in Mission Viejo, namely: The U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS)  https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI725219. States that: The U.S. Census Bureau adheres to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) definition of ethnicity. There are two minimum categories for ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. OMB considers race and Hispanic origin to be two separate and distinct concepts. Hispanics and Latinos may be of any race. Thus, the percent Hispanic should not be added to percentages for racial categories. (Emphasis added) 
 
Definition 
 
Hispanics or Latino refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. This includes people who reported detailed Hispanic or Latino groups such as: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican Republic.

Michael Schlesinger
a resident of Mission Viejo


From: Cathy Kadison  
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 5:26 PM
To: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>
Subject: city maps

   
I am a Mission Viejo resident and I support Mat E1 as I feel it most complies with the judge's ruling on our move to district voting

Cathy Kadison
Mission Viejo


From:    gwdewitt
Sent:    Tuesday, February 8, 2022 4:53 PM
To:    CityClerk
Subject:    New District Map

Map A is my choice and recommendation.


From:    Gary Disney 
Sent:    Tuesday, February 8, 2022 4:49 PM
To:    CityClerk
Subject:    Remapping

We support map A for the new redistributing. It divides the area by school and roadway and makes the most sense.

Thank you Gary and Ann Disney


From:    Bob Ruesch 
Sent:    Tuesday, February 8, 2022 4:10 PM
To:    CityClerk
Subject:  Choosing the best district map

As a resident on Mission Viejo I wish to ask council to support Map A as the best way to plan out our new districts. It divides the city with clear lines based on major roads and areas 

Bob Ruesch
Mission Viejo resident 


From:    Catherine Palmer
Sent:    Tuesday, February 8, 2022 4:10 PM
To:    Brian Goodell; Trish Kelley; Ed Sachs; Wendy Bucknum; Greg Raths
Cc:    CityClerk

Subject:    Support for District Map E1

Dear Mission Viejo City Council Members,

I attended the January 25, 2022, City Council meeting where six different district maps were presented for consideration by the council.  I was impressed by Mr. Ari Vela’s persuasive 
argument that his map E, the Latino Opportunity Map, now modified to become Map E1 was best suited to address the original lawsuit that was brought against Mission Viejo in 2017 which found that the at-large voting system used by the city disenfranchised Hispanic Voters.  District 1 on Map E1 creates with a Hispanic Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) of 21.6%, the highest percentage of Hispanic CVAP of any of the maps presented, including the City’s Map A.  The majority of the residents who spoke at the January 25 meeting supported Map A.  

Now, it seems that our beloved city attorney, Bill Curley has continued in his pattern of providing biased and inaccurate legal advice to city council members.  In his memo dated 
February 8, 2022, he implies that Map E1 engages in “Racial Gerrymandering” which is “Constitutionally prohibited.”  He also recommends removing all the other maps from 
consideration without giving any reason for their removal.  It is worth pointing out to Mr. Curley, and to council members, that “Hispanic” is not a “race”.   The U.S. Census Bureau, 
American Community Survey (ACS) states that:  “The U.S. Census Bureau adheres to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) definition of ethnicity. There are two minimum categories for ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. OMB considers race and Hispanic origin to be two separate and distinct concepts. Hispanics and Latinos may be of any race. Thus, the percent Hispanic should not be added to percentages for racial categories. “ (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI725219., accessed 2.8.2022, 4:00 pm)  

Map E1 gives the Hispanic population of Mission Viejo the best chance of electing a city council member who understands and will advocate for their unique circumstances.    

I suspect that city council members are looking for a reason to reject Map E or E1 because both, unfortunately, put two council members, Brian Goodell and Trish Kelley, in the same district.  I find that unfortunate because they strike me as the members who most closely model the ideals of civility and respect that I would like all of our city council members to emulate.  Both council members have a great deal of experience and much to offer.  Perhaps those talents could be put to use in other areas of local governance.  I ask both of them to exhibit the moral courage to support Map E1, which is the best district map for the diverse population of Mission Viejo.  

Yours sincerely, 
Cathy Palmer 
Mission Viejo resident since 1987 


From:    Robert Breton 
Sent:    Tuesday, February 8, 2022 3:33 PM
To:    CityClerk
Subject:    Agenda Item 1 (formation of electoral districts)

Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

I support Districting Plan A and urge you to adopt it. I believe Plan A provides the most equitable division of the City into five electoral districts for the 
following five reasons:

(1) it substantially preserves the present school district and school attendance boundaries;

(2) it obviously keeps intact the various homeowner associations and contiguous housing tract neighborhoods;

(3) it clearly delineates boundary lines that are the most easily understood and conveyed, based on well known and identifiable major arterials and geographic features;

(4) it maintains the district population spread within tolerable and reasonable limits, given the primary importance of reasons (1), (2), and (3); and

(5) it completely avoids any gerrymandering based on race or ethnicity, which would violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert D. Breton
Mission Viejo


From: Lynne Hayes   
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 12:38 PM 
To: Brian Goodell <bgoodell@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>; 
Wendy Bucknum <wbucknum@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Greg Raths <graths@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Ed 
Sachs <esachs@cityofmissionviejo.org
Subject: Support for District Map E

Council Members, 

As you contemplate the district map options that have been presented for consideration, I urge you to keep in mind one important reason this change has become necessary. Our city’s hispanic population has been underrepresented in the election process for far too long! I urge you to keep in mind the importance of selecting a map that will give our city’s hispanic population the voice it deserves, equally, alongside all other voices in our community.

When our family moved to this city 31 years ago, there were few minority families. I was pleased that my kids included children from these families among their friends. Today, as the makeup of our city has become much more diverse, encouraging playground friendships is not enough! We must do more than pay lip service to inclusivity.

I urge you to select a map that gives hispanic voting power strong consideration. Map E has the highest Hispanic Citizen Voting Age Population of the 6 maps under consideration. I urge you to select Map E1 as requested by council member Ed Sachs and approved by Map E presenter Ari Vela. Our city will be stronger and richer for doing so.  

Thank you,

Lynne Hayes 
Mission Viejo


From: Greg Butler 
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:51 AM 
To: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org
Subject: District voting maps

My name is Greg Butler and I have been a resident of Mission Viejo for 20 years. I would like to express my support for the district voting map E-1. It is my understanding that this map is the best way to give a voice to all residents in order to select council members who will represent them in their area of Mission Viejo.


From: Becky Butler  
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 10:35 PM 
To: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org
Subject: district voting maps

My name is Becky Butler and I have been a resident of Mission Viejo for 20 years. I would like to express my support for the district voting map E-1. I believe that this map does the best job of accomplishing the goal of giving an equal voice to all residents of our city. It accomplishes the goal of  giving the hispanic residents of our city fair representation as well as to allow each unique area of our city to have their issues addressed by city council.
 


From: Barbara Casserly 
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 2:26 PM 
To: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Wendy Bucknum 
<wbucknum@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Brian Goodell <bgoodell@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Ed Sachs 
<esachs@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Greg Raths <graths@cityofmissionviejo.org
Subject: Support E or E1

Good afternoon Council Members,

After watching debate and reviewing maps I am writing to support map E or E 1 for future city districts. These maps best allows all voices in the community representation.

Thank you for all you do!

All the best,

Barbara Casserly
 


From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Monday, February 7, 2022 12:22 PM
To:    Michael Schlesinger; Wendy Bucknum; Brian Goodell; Greg Raths; Ed Sachs; 
Trish Kelley; CityClerk
Subject:    RE: City Attorney William P. Curley III's memo to you of February 8, 2022 regarding Racial Gerrymandering


Thank you. Please note the many cases discussing prohibited racial gerrymandering. This 14th Amendment concept was well discussed during the County districting and in many cases. While it's clear you're trying hard to support your legal arguments, I recommend you perhaps research a bit more. Again, thank you for your opinions.

From:    Michael Schlesinger 
Sent:    Monday, February 7, 2022 12:01 PM
To:    Wendy Bucknum; Brian Goodell; Greg Raths; Ed Sachs; Trish Kelley; CityClerk
Cc:    Bill Curley
Subject:    City Attorney William P. Curley III's memo to you of February 8, 2022 
regarding Racial Gerrymandering

Attachments:    Curley.memo to City Council.dtd 2.08.22.pdf

To the City Council: 
 
Reference is made to Mr. Curley’s memo to you dated February 8, 2022 wherein he states that “[a] concern arises when a districting (sic) map is primarily based on the race of the residents. This issue is call (sic) “Racial Gerrymandering” and is Constitutionally prohibited. We must be attentive to relying on statutory criteria , and not primarily focus on race in the evaluation of proposed districts.” (copy of Mr. Curley's memo attached) 
 
I resent the “racial” implication Mr. Curley has made in his February 8th memo. It is repugnant and not necessary, especially if Mr. Curley knew the law.  He would better serve you if he provided you with correct information about race and the Hispanic community residing in Mission Viejo, namely: 
 
The U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS)  https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI725219. States that: The U.S. Census Bureau adheres to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) definition of ethnicity. There are two minimum categories for ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. OMB considers race and Hispanic origin to be two separate and distinct concepts. Hispanics and Latinos may be of any race. Thus, the percent Hispanic should not be added to percentages for racial categories. (Emphasis added) 
 
Definition 
 
Hispanics or Latino refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. This includes people who reported detailed Hispanic or Latino groups such as: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican Republic.

Michael Schlesinger
a resident of Mission Viejo


From: Laura Guest Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 5:38 PM To: bgoodell@ctiyofmissionviejo.org; Trish Kelley ; Wendy Bucknum ; Greg Raths ; Ed Sachs Subject: Districting of Mission Viejo Dear City Council, I want to express my support of Map E for districting of the city. It’s important to have the city divided in such a way that it supports the Latino vote in our community. Please consider this in your vote. Doing otherwise smells of self-preservation, not what is best for our city. Thank you, Laura Guest Resident for 28 years.


From: Sally Simmons 
Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 5:04 PM
To: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>
Subject: District Voting Map Choice

Dear Ms. Kelley,

 I have lived in Mission Viejo for 6 years and love the city.  I fully support the District Voting, and ask you to vote for Map E 1.  I believe that all people need to have a voice in city elections, including our Hispanic and Asian neighbors.  I know you have several maps to consider, but I think that E 1 is the best for our wonderful city.  The city needs representatives that reflect the population of our city.

Sincerely,
Sally Simmons


From: Marilyn Schroeder 
Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 12:07 PM
To: Brian Goodell <bgoodell@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>; 
Wendy Bucknum <wbucknum@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Ed Sachs <esachs@cityofmissionviejo.org>
Subject: Mission Viejo District Maps

Dear Mission Viejo City Council,

I am a 33 year resident of Mission Viejo and strongly urge you to choose Map E 1.  This map will be the most fair map enabling the Hispanic community to have a stronger voice in decisions for our community.  I believe this map is the best one for the city.  Thank you for your time.

Marilyn Schroeder
 


From: Chuck Gruden  
Sent: Saturday, February 5, 2022 2:12 PM 
To: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org
Subject: District Voting Maps

Ms. Kelley,

Hello.  My name is Chuck Gruden.  My wife and I have lived in Mission Viejo since 1984.  We were quite fortunate to have the opportunity to raise our family here.  Currently, you and your colleagues on the Mission Viejo City Council are working to transition our city to an even more representative form of city government that relies on the election of council members by district.  On January 25, 2022, I attended the city council meeting virtually where a group of proposed district maps were reviewed and discussed.  In your role as an elected city council member, I am confident that you support common sense and proven measures that expand, reinforce, and protect representative government.  Of the proposed district maps presented at the January 25th meeting, in my estimation, Map E best accomplishes that worthy goal. For that reason, at the Public Hearing scheduled to take place on February 8, 2022, I urge you to select Map E as the district map for the Mission Viejo City Council. Thank you for your consideration.  


From: Christianne Rottenberg  
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 3:22 PM 
To: Brian Goodell <bgoodell@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>; 
Wendy Bucknum <wbucknum@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Greg Raths <graths@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Ed 
Sachs <esachs@cityofmissionviejo.org
Subject: District Voting Maps

Dear Council members,

I have lived in MV for close to 29 years and follow our city council meetings in person or online. Recently at the Jan. 25th meeting, map studies were reported out. I want to support Map E and encourage you to consider it as well.

Ari Vela submitted a plan in Map E that makes sense as it provides a district with an Hispanic Citizen Voting Age Population of 21.4%. This is the highest percentage of any of the 6 maps presented. Please put your council member addresses aside and vote for Map E which will be set for the next ten years. 

Thank you for your time and attention to do what is right for our community.

Sincerely,
Christianne Rottenberg


From: Doug Harding

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 4:59 PM

To: District-Elections Subject: Webform submission from: 2021-2022 Districting Comments

As a 32 year member of Mission Viejo I welcome the change to district voting. Based on the recent city council meeting presenting maps, I favor Map E as it best represents our Latino members . Thanks Doug


From: Tom Moore 
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 11:14 AM 
To: Ed Sachs <esachs@cityofmissionviejo.org
Cc: Wendy Bucknum <wbucknum@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Greg Raths 
<graths@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Brian Goodell <bgoodell@cityofmissionviejo.org>; Trish Kelley 
<tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org
Subject: City Council 25 January 2022 District Maps

Good morning Councilmember Sachs,

Following the close of Public Comments last evening regarding District Maps and at the end of Council input you looked towards City Attorney Curley and requested an action regarding my written commentary and attached District Map prepared in January of 2018. I believe my commentary was not the issue but perhaps the attached District Map I produced 
was. So, a clarification regarding that map. The attached map was prepared utilizing material provided following the 2018 California Voting Rights Act Workshop Agenda. Because it was stale data it was not a valid submittal to the current District Map discussion. It was included as an attachment to provide context to my comments as it is referred to in my comments. 

As I am sitting here clicking keys I will follow up on my chastising the sitting City Council regarding any participation in selecting a District Map. The same City Council sitting in 2018 is currently sitting in 2022. The same City Attorney representing the City of Mission Viejo in 2018 is currently representing the City of Mission Viejo. The same demographic firm that prepared and provided the framework for the exercise in the creation of a District Map are providing background and judgement for the current round of selecting a District Map. Whether intended or not the City of Mission Viejo Districting Plan Z DRAFT prepared by the Center for Demographic Research was distributed to the public as an example, a draft, a viable representation of a District Map. 

That map, City of Mission Viejo Plan Z DRAFT was not flawed. It was viable. 

Although the City Attorney and representative from the Center for Demographic Research tied themselves in knots last evening in attempting to distance themselves from bias the fact is that this happened in 2018. While I applaud much of what the sitting Council has done for the City of Mission Viejo It has shown, along with the City Attorney and even the demographers it/they cannot be involved in this action. Whether you acknowledge it or not you are sowing the seeds for a divisive City of Mission Viejo. 
Tom Moore


From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Monday, January 24, 2022 8:40 PM
To:    CA Schlicht; District-Elections
Subject:    Re: Webform submission from: 2021-2022 Districting Comments

Dear Miss Schlicht:

Thank you once again for your latest personal opinions. Thank you, as always, for your interest in the City. Please check your settings as you are, yet again, sending duplicate posts when you contribute your opinion. 


From:    CA Schlicht 
Sent:    Monday, January 24, 2022 1:56 PM
To:    Bill Curley; District-Elections
Subject:    Re: Webform submission from: 2021-2022 Districting Comments

Thank you, Bill.  You just validated the concerns I raised.  Where in our communications, that you initiated, did I make demands?  I asked questions; and as we know, questions are a burden.  

However, you continue to avoid answering my original question:  on September 14, 2021,  "... Mayor Trish Kelley announced that only three districts will be going out  to vote in 2022. Meaning that her term in office along with Brian Goodell will be extended for another two years. How does all this work when the district maps have yet 
to be finalized?"

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Monday, January 24, 2022 12:57 PM
To:    CASchlicht@hotmail.com; District-Elections
Subject:    RE: Webform submission from: 2021-2022 Districting Comments

Dear Ms. Schlicht:

As always, thank you for your unique perspectives and opinions. You are always welcome to contribute your opinions, regardless of the cost to the City of addressing your personal thoughts. We continue to be a City that follows the rule of law, as it actually is, and not as an individual may want to self interpret it. And as you always demand publication of your messaging, I’m sure the City will post as required so that we maintain our transparency.

Thank you, as always, for your interest in the City

Submitted on Mon, 01/24/2022 - 12:10 pm
Name 
Cathy Schlicht 
 
Comment 

Oh my gosh Bill, I just saw your post. 
 
Again, you deflect, mischaracterize, exaggerate, and show your contempt for public participation as evidenced by the character of your comments during public meetings as well as your posts and emails. It appears to me that you even controlled public participation in the election process and exploited the 
statutes of the FAIR Maps Act. 
 
You berate and ridicule those who do not walk lockstep with the conjured up public narrative or who dare to challenge your opinion. What we receive from the city council is group think. 
 
You are a contract employee, not an elected official. You are now a Mission Viejo resident, so is there a bias in your positions? But our elected officials allow your behavior so I guess I can add City Council Spokesman to your list of duties. 
 
Does the Council not even realize that you have made yourself greater than they are? At this rate, will you soon overshadow the city manager? Or have you done so already? 
 
You have strayed far beyond your title of city attorney as legal advisor and have become the self-appointed Director of the City Council and have now expanded your role as the Administrator of Propaganda and Disinformation.  
 
Do you do all this to make the public believe that you and the council are working with the consent of the governed? Do you attack as a tactic to discourage speakers from coming forward and question or add comment that does not support the agenda of city hall? Are you trying to discourage public participation?  
 
Why are you and the members of the city council seem so opposed to the idea of Public Disclosure Public Consent? 
 
It is my opinion that you make a mockery of open and transparent government. 
 
So, to the members of the public, when the words do not match the actions - trust the actions.
 

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Thursday, January 20, 2022 8:27 PM
To:    CA Schlicht
Subject:    Re: Your opinion as to how City voting operations should be run.

Dear Miss Schlicht:

The City is always transparent and always attempts to respond to a resident communications. You personally send in 1 to 10 demands, requests, scolds and public records act requests oer week, and we try to respond to them all. Just as we do for any residents who communicate with the City. Your ongoing communication and discussions of rehashing years old matters is given the same prompt  response as every person receives. You are not special, nor get any special attention as to getting replied to, except 
perhaps the extraordinary cumulative cost the taxpayers bear to fund staff time to to respond to your steady stream of communication.

Everyone is addressed as soon as is possible, even those who sometimes exercise unusual and extraordinary efforts as to asking staff questions, sharing your personal opinions or the City needing to clarify your misinformation.

As always, thank you for your ongoing interest in the City. And, per your standing request for City publication of your communications, I ask the Clerk/Elections  Official to add this to your dozens of inquiries on the Districting web page.

From:    CA Schlicht 
Sent:    Wednesday, January 19, 2022 4:31 PM
To:    Bill Curley
Subject:    Re: Your opinion as to how City voting operations should be run.


Bill, what have I done to deserve such special attention from you all the time?

I trust my comments will be posted to the city blog, or are you trying to limit public 
discussion in order to control YOUR narrative?

Thank you for your interest in my comments - cathy

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Wednesday, January 19, 2022 3:59 PM
To:    CASchlicht
Subject:    Your opinion as to how City voting operations should be run.

Dear Miss Schlicht:

Thank you for your opinion on how the City should implement district voting. You and others all 
contribute your personal opinions, which we appreciate. Your opinion will certainly join in with  those 
who suggest other ways for the City to proceed. We appreciate hearing what some other cities do, and 
don't do, and the different ways that the law can be properly implemented. Thank you for taking the 
time to suggest we copy other jurisdictions. While your suggestion is a very seldom used approach, we 
appreciate your efforts to help us proceed.
Thank you for your interest in the City.
 

Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 3:10 PM 
Subject: New Comment 

The following comment was posted on http://cityofmissionviejo.org/node/10635 by user 
CASchlicht 
 
Before the council starts its discussions on district map selections, they need to first publicly discuss why 
it was determined that only three districts will be going out for a vote in 2022. The excuse of not going 
out to vote on all five districts to maintain staggered elections is another false narrative. The public is 
already rightfully suspicious of the process. To maintain staggered elections, and to keep politics out of 
the process, here is a solution used by many other cities when it switched from at large to district-based 
voting: You put five tiles numbered 1-5 in a bag. The first three numbers drawn will be the districts 
designated for the four-year term. The remaining two tiles will represent the districts that are for a two-
year term. On September 14, 2021, under Item # 22, the council again extended their terms in office. 
You will not find any public record of this action. There was not a Staff Report and this is what is in the 
Official Minutes: "Received update from City Attorney Bill Curley and City Clerk Kimberly Schmitt." This 
action was the last business item on the agenda. If you were not in the audience, or were not up late 
watching the council meeting or did not review the video of the September 14, 2021 council meeting, 
you would not know that then Mayor Trish Kelley announced that only three districts will be going out 
to vote in 2022. Meaning that her term in office along with Brian Goodell will be extended for another 
two years. How does all this work when the district maps have yet to be finalized? 


From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 9:26 PM
To:    CA Schlicht
C
Dear Miss Schlicht:
Yet another duplicate post: Please check your settings.

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 9:25 PM
To:    CA Schlicht

Dear Miss Schlicht:
Thank you for your opinions.
Thank you for your interest in the City.

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 9:23 PM
To:    CA Schlicht

Dear Miss Schlicht:
Thank you for your opinions.

From:    CA Schlicht 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 5:20 PM
To:    Bill Curley

Yes, the City's usual course of business apparently is making it up as you go along. 

From:    CA Schlicht 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 5:18 PM
To:    Bill Curley

The voters would be well served if you responded to questions instead of deflecting.

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 3:49 PM
To:    CA Schlicht; District-Elections

Dear Miss Schlicht:
This is again a duplicate post. Please check your settings.

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 3:48 PM
To:    CA Schlicht; District-Elections
Cc:    Robert Schick

Dear Miss Schlicht:
Thank you for this public record act request. It will be processed in the usual course of business.

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 3:47 PM
To:    CA Schlicht; District-Elections
Dear Miss Schlicht:
This too reflects a duplicate post. Please check your settings.

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 3:47 PM
To:    CA Schlicht; District-Elections

Dear Miss Schlicht:
This too reflects a duplicate post. Please check your settings.

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 3:46 PM
To:    CA Schlicht; District-Elections

Dear Miss Schicht:
Thank you for your opinions. You will very well served to visit the City website as to your thoughts 
Thank you for your interest in the City 

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 3:45 PM
To:    CA Schlicht; District-Elections
S
Dear Miss Schlicht:
You're sending duplicate posts again. Please check your settings.

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 3:44 PM
To:    CA Schlicht; District-Elections

Dear Ms Schlicht:
Thank you for your opinions.

From:    CA Schlicht 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 3:25 PM
To:    Bill Curley; District-Elections

Who changed the original deadline of January 6?

Everybody should have the same deadline, regardless of your explanation, which 
EVERYBODY should reject.  

The next public hearing is January 25.   Your excuse is hollow.    

From:    wcurley
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 3:11 PM
To:    CASchlicht; District-Elections

Dear Ms. Schlicht:
The form of submittal us in the control of the person submitting a recommendation for a map. Manual 
submittal forms are more time intensive to review, hence the different deadlines. No rights are 
imperiled as you can choose the form that you wish. 
Thank you for your interest on the City.
Again, thank you too for your settings sending only single posts.


Name 
Cathy Schlicht 
 
Comment 
Is it legal or proper to create a two tiered system for the submission of District Maps? 


From:    CA Schlicht 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 2:30 PM
To:    Bill Curley; District-Elections
.
Bill- this is from the FAIR Maps Act:  Section 15 - 21601.2(b) The council shall adopt 
council district boundaries that comply with the United States Constitution, the California 
Constitution, and the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. Sec. 10301 et seq.).

This is from the Loyola Law Website:  California Constitution:  Article XXI, section 2(e), 
in drawing maps, districts may not be drawn to favor or discriminate against a candidate 
or party.  Candidates residences cannot be considered in drawing district lines. 
 

So, since, "Candidates residences cannot be considered in drawing district lines", and 
since the City produced MAP Z, that you stated was defendable, and was in fact illegally 
drawn considering candidates residences, and MAP A, also produced by the City also 
appears to be gerrymandered.  If the council members residences were noted on MAP 
A, it certainly would be evident to the public what is going on, again. 

It appears that once again, you are trying to distract away from producing information 
that helps to build an informed public.

When, where and who produced MAP A?

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 12:45 PM
To:    CASchlicht; District-Elections

Dear Miss Schlicht:
I was remiss in not thanking you for causing your post to now be a single send, rather than the double 
send of late. I appreciate your assistance.

From:    CA Schlicht 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 12:00 PM
To:    Bill Curley; District-Elections

Bill, as you are aware from the workshops, the public is not trustful of the process.

Disclosing the block numbers of the council members will help to give confidence - you 
do not have to put names to the block numbers.  

Why are you continuing to follow a four year old council directive to protect the status 
quo?

It is time that as the city's legal advisor, that you stand on principle instead of politics.

I know you want the public, and me, to forget about Map Z, that you often stated was 
defendable.  It was a gerrymandered map, giving each council member their own 
district, including the creation of an illegal island for Trish Kelley.

Map A is gerrymandered by extending beyond a boundary to keep Wendy Bucknum out 
of either Brian Goodell's district or Trish Kelley's district.

You are setting up keeping Goodell and Kelley's districts out of the November 2022 
election.

The lack of transparency on how decisions are being made out of the view of the public 
is not only alarming, but illegal.  


From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Thursday, January 6, 2022 11:37 AM
To:    CASchlicht; District-Elections

Dear Miss Schlicht:
You know that incumbent place of residence is not an element of gerrymandering. It has been publicly 
stated that no residence was  con sidered in the formation of Map A. Your suspicions regarding district 
formation, oft repeated, are baseless.  Please review the online criteria that describes the legal aspects 
applicable to district and redistricting formation. It has been available since August, 2021. 
Thank you for your interest in the City 

Name 
Cathy Schlicht 
 
To guard against more gerrymandering or the potential of gerrrymandering, please identify the block 
group boundary numbers of the council members. No names necessary - just the block number. Thank 
you. 
 
PS - please do not evade responding to my request by deflecting or marginalizing request. 


 

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Wednesday, January 5, 2022 2:53 PM

Dear Miss Schlicht:
Please check your settings as I continue to receive duplicate posts.
Thank you for your interest in the City.

From:    wcurley 
Sent:    Wednesday, January 5, 2022 2:52 PM

Dear Miss Schlicht:
Thank you for your opinions.
Thank you for your interest in the City 

From:    CA Schlicht 
Sent:    Tuesday, January 4, 2022 11:36 AM

Bill, history is never irrelevant.  Are you concerned that Map A shows pattern and 
practice when compared with Map Z?

From: wcurley 
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 9:52 PM

Dear Miss Schlicht:
We are again receiving duplicate posts from you. Please check your settings on your computer again. 
Thank you for your interest in the City.

From: wcurley 
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 9:50 PM

Dear Ms Schlicht:
Thank you for your opinion. As we are transparent and follow the rule of law, we will consider your post as a public records act request for long the long obsolete and irrelevant sample map Z and will also respond to your repeat inquiry pursuant to that protocol.
Thank you for your interest in the City.

From: CA Schlicht 
Date: 1/3/22 2:23 PM (GMT-08:00) 

The public is not stupid, Bill.  You are continuing to manipulate the process for a desired result.

Who created Map A?  Who created Map Z?

From: wcurley 
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 2:07 PM

 
Dear Miss Schlicht:
As we have previously noted to you, this site encourages proposed map submittal. We will forward your broad request to the City Public Information Officer as a public records request.
Thank you for your interest in the City.


Submitted on Mon, 01/03/2022 - 2:00 pm
Name
Cathy Schlicht

When was the District website last updated?

When was the Districting Maps link updated with the addition of age and school district boundary maps? https://cityofmissionviejo.org/departments/city-clerk/districting-maps

When did the December 16, 2021 Districting map workshop audio link become available or hot?

The January 6, 2022 deadline for the public to submit district maps has been extended to January 7, 2022. Who made this decision? What were the circumstances to extend? And when was this decision made?

Inquiring minds want to know. Thank you. 
 


Bill Curley City Attorney  

Dear Miss Schlicht,
Thank you for your opinions. They continue to be inapplicable to the present mapping process but are noted. You need to focus on the mapping issue and stop trying to have a dialog. The project is mapping, as you know.
Thank you for your interest in the City.
 

Cathy Schlicht

Again, Bill.  You deflect.

I must be too close to the truth that you are again gaming the system.  

Cathy Schlicht

Bill, you are no doing the members of the city council any favors with your rhetoric.

All my questions that I submitted through the City's district link were based on information that you caused to be posted and from the October 30 workshop.

Stop gaslighting the public.  

Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Ms. Schlicht, 

I'm sorry that you don't feel your personal interest is addressed. We don't waste City time and resources on queries that are not relevant to the current law and census data. Your interest in off topic matters- other than using the online data to configure current districts, is not relevant, as you've been repeatedly told. Asking repeatedly will not change the answer- sorry. 

Your partner Mr. Gilbert reported that maps can be done in 4 hours. There then is much opportunity for you to use current resources to configure current district proposals.

If you choose to explore prior, non-applicable to current mapping questions, please submit public records request for that historic information.

Thank you for your interested in the City.

Bill Curley City Attorney 

Dear Ms. Schlicht,

Contrary to you personal opinion,  all information applicable to the current district mapping process, under new law and census date, not the irrelevant historic data you focus on, is on the website. The website does not focus on outdated information or the personal wondering you note, but focuses on the current law, process and census data.

Thank you for you interest in the City.

Submitted on Mon, 12/20/2021 - 12:05 pm

Cathy Schlicht

The website, nor you, are responding to concerns generated not only by myself but by many members of the general public.  

Your response is an example of the culture of city hall that you and the city council are perpetuating:  When the words do not match the action, trust the action.  

My questions and concerns are based on documents that you produced.  The general sense of the two workshops is that the public does not have confidence in the process.  From watching how this process has been manipulated for a desired outcome, I think we are right in not trusting the process.

Instead of answering questions, you deflect and ridicule and chastise as well as create false scenarios.   

So, let's try again to find some answers:

You refused to answer a previous straight forward question - what is the statutory deadline - not the one that you created - for a district map to be finalized?  Why did you decide to have public meetings scheduled over the holiday when you cancelled similar meetings in 2017?

Was "delay" a tactic in 2017 and today "rush" is the tactic of choice to protect the status quo?

During the October workshop, you referenced school districts as being a community of interest.  Utility and school district boundary maps were made available for the 2017/18 map process.  At the December 16, 2021 workshop I asked the panel to reinstate those boundary maps - there was an indication that they would.  So far, the maps have not been made available.

The December 16 workshop is not yet posted.  

Are you censuring comments to the District website?

Where are the 2018 maps?  Why have they been removed?   The population target in 2018 was 18,663/district.  Today's population target is 18,725. 

Besides Casta del Sol, where have the "meetings in diverse locations to cover the whole city" been held?  Where are the maps for the school district boundaries?

As I previously communicated with you, Mr. Shenkman preferred maps created using school boundaries.  

It is important to know where the council members live.  Other cities indicated the locations of its council members on draft maps, as did Map Z.  

Are you trying to protect the voting process or the members of the city council? 

You have mentioned that the public is smart and you want to get people activated and involved.  Yet the timeframe and the timing and lack of workshops precluded that from happening.  Maybe you did not like being challenged by the public?  

With the timeline that you created over the Christmas holiday, the council being on winter break, city hall being closed from December 24 - January 2, and the elections official starting her vacation on December 20, there is not much opportunity for the public to become activated and involved.  

What is best for the community is for all five districts to go out for a vote.  You do not have to reinvent the wheel.  Other communities have done it this way:  five numbered tiles into a bag.  The first 3 tiles to be pulled are for the full 4 year term, the remaining 2 tiles are for a two year term.  

Building yourselves up as heroes is not going to cut it with the public.  Voting is an emotional issue - it is a sacred right that belongs in the hands of the voters and not the desires of our public officials.

Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Miss Schlicht:

Thank you for your thoughts. All will be given due consideration. Please refer to the on-line information for the process and relevant information, pursuant to the Fair Maps Act, statutory law (Federal and State) and common law, that is being adhered to in the Citys process. You will find the information that is responsive to your queries.

Submitted on Mon, 12/20/2021 - 10:19 am

Cathy Schlicht

Comment
Words means things.

Where are the 2018 maps? Why have they been removed?
Besides Casta del Sol, where have the "meetings in diverse locations to cover the whole city been held? Where are the maps for the school district boundaries?

The above questions are based on portions of these city documents:

NOTE: Previously submitted districting maps will not be included in this current process. The 2020 census renders previous 2010 census-based maps obsolete. All prior map suggestions are available on the City’s District Election pages on the City website.

2. City meetings to be held in diverse locations in the city (to cover whole city).

C) Communities of interest that are present in the City: A “community of interest” is a contiguous population sharing common social and economic interests. These are not defined by a rigid formula or by a specific methodology. These may be defined in any way that you perceive a community of likeminded or similar interests. These can include philosophies, common characteristics, or any fact or factor that you feel has importance. Examples can include similar economics, common goals, schools/districts, park use, common problems, language, race, common needs and/or desires, or anything reflecting a group.
 


Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Miss Schlicht, 

Thank you for your personal opinions. They are always insightful into understanding your undertakings. I note again, that your opinions are not applicable or relevant to mapping activities or process.

Thank you for your interest in the City.

Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Miss Schlicht,

Thank you for your thoughtful opinions. Although they are inapplicable to mapping, your thoughts are noted. Thank you for your interest in the City.

Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Miss Schlicht,

Thank you for your opinions. While your comments are inapplicable to mapping, we do note them.

Thank you for your interest in the City.

Cathy Schlicht

Bill, your responses are for political fodder, nothing more.

You are trying to control the public narrative, distracting public attention away from your manipulating the process for a desired outcome.

Here is another question for you.  As the demographer stated at the December 16 workshop that CDM did not create Map A, who created Map A.

Thank you - cathy  

Cathy Schlicht

Bill, I believe in a large part through you and other city administrators, you have created a culture in city hall where you expect voters to worship government.  

So again, instead of responding to valid concerns, true to form you deflect, ridicule, chastise and create a false narrative.  

Good luck to the council in the next election.  

Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Ms. Schlicht:

I note a typing error on my part. My apologies, as phone screens are small. Rather than "hood", I intended "good".

You have had nothing good, or civil, today to or about the City, the Council, tbe staff and all City projects. It's amazing that we can do nothing right in your eyes. Fortunately your position is not mainstream and the majority of residents quite like the City as it is and as its planned.

Again, my apologies for poor finger tip typing.

Thank you for your interest in the City.

Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Ms. Schlicht,
Your opinions, based on nothing, are noted. Despite complaints about your actions, we tolerate all behavior and opinions, as we follow the rule of law and respect everyone's right to say anything. You have had zero hood to say about anything in the City since you left the City Council. That reality is well recognized and accepted, as the First Amendment allows such public conduct  But your right to be aggressive, accusatory and uncivil does not immunize you from receipt of a reply to your opinions.
Thank you for your interest in the City of Mission Viejo.
 

Cathy Schlicht

Bill, your responses are very unprofessional and are beneath the title of city attorney.

I am not circumventing anything.  The observation is evident when compared to the prior public hearings that you postponed in December 2017.

It is a straightforward question - what is the statutory deadline for a district map to be chosen by the city council?    I am NOT referring to the deadline that you selected.

To put it another way, are the dates you selected arbitrary or a function of a state statute?

Was it necessary for the city council to have initiated this public hearing process during the Holidays?  Is that how to maintain the spirit of the law?  

Bill Curley City Attorney 

You may submit this as a public records request so we carefully follow the rule of law. You well know the process and yet continue to try to circumvent it. I ask you to submit your records requests properly. Otherwise you waste City time and resources that have better uses.

As to timing, please respect and rely on the schedule that's been put forth since August. Nothing has changed. It's available on the City website in the District Election section.

And, Miss Schlicht, as you well stated last night, the Elections Official, not the City attorney has jurisdiction so please properly address your posts so as to not waste City resources.

Thank you.  Bill

Submitted on Fri, 12/17/2021 - 9:59 am

Cathy Schlicht

Comment
Bill - in December 2017, you halted or postponed public hearings on the CVRA because of the Holidays.

So why did you schedule two public meetings during the Holidays?

What is the statutory date for finalizing the district map?

Thank you, cathy

 


Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Miss Schlicht:

Thank you for your opinions. We note them all. 

Please you note that your system continues to send duplicate posts. Please try to correct your settings so as to send only one of each of your posts. We will appreciate that.

Thank you for your interest in the City 

Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Miss Schlicht:

Thank you for your opinions. For transparency, which you regularly demand, we respond to all of the posts we receive, including your abundant supply. We do not harass, we respond. We do hope you will focus on the mapping project before us and not all your personal inquiries.

And you are continuing to send duplicate posts: please check your settings.

Thank you for your interest in the City. 

Cathy Schlicht

go away Bill - the problems seem to be on your end, not mine.

Cathy Schlicht

bill - you are the creator of trouble...good luck to you and stop the harassment.

Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Miss Schlicht:
This again is a double post. Please correct your system or take care to ensure you only send one of your several posts. One is adequate, our system doesn't need double sends. Perhaps adding to the problem is that you admit to being advised that your system has performance issues but you don't seem to be willing or able to correct the issues. 
Please see if you can both get your system checked out and please, your efforts to be familiar and engage me personally, rather than professionally are inappropriate. 
Thank you for your interest in the City.
 

Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Miss Schlicht:

The only admission, as you deem to reference is that your system is sending duplicate posts. Please correct your settings.

Thank you for your interest in the City.

Cathy Schlicht

Bill - are you ok?  You send me an email at 7:59 admitting that something is amiss and then you sent this - one minute later?
So just to repeat my 7:35 email response to you - I was responding to each and every email you had forwarded to me.  
I thought it was odd that you were repeating the thread but as you seem to believe you control public input, but I believed you were trying to maintain an agenda and a narrative.
wcurley <wcurley@harperburns.com>

Mon 12/20/2021 7:59 PM

Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Miss Schlicht:

Yet another duplicate send from you.

Please check your settings.

Thank you for your interest in the City.

Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Miss Schlicht:

I shall check out all the duplicate posts that came in over time from you. And please be assured I answer each of your messages, in order received, without researching the send times. But I shall now that it is clear something is amiss.

Thank you for your interest in the City.

Cathy Schlicht

Bill.  Check the time stamps on your emails.   I was responding to your comments you forwarded to me today.

 As you have immersed yourself into city politics, I thought for political reasons, you were taking a second bite of the apple.

Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Miss Schlicht,
You are sending two copies of your opinions. Please correct your sending to avoid such duplication and waste.
Thank you for your interest in the City.

Bill Curley City Attorney

Dear Miss Schlicht,

Thank you for your endless suspicions and opinions. Please note they are inapplicable to the present mapping project and present nothing more than a waste of City resources and, honestly, a somewhat bizarre effort at familiarity that is not applicable to the current mapping process.

Thank you for your interest in the City. 

Cathy Schlicht

Bill, Bill, Bill.  I do not blame you for wanting to forget the past...however, school district boundaries, as you indicated on October 30, are a community of interest.  

In regards to workshops, it is apparent to me that the "spirit of the law" was not followed.  Did you bring concerns raised at the October workshop into the creation of Map A?

Bill Curley City Attorney  

Dear Miss Schlicht:

Despite you knowing that a nearly half a decade old process, done under outdated census information and old statute has no application to the current process, you continue to cling to it. As its not relevant to the current process I recommend you submit public records act requests for the old and inapplicable information you seek.

Cathy Schlicht 

i hope your  response is posted on the website - it is most telling...

Bill Curley City Attorney

Map Z is irrelevant, even as to Council residence. Be assured all incumbents will know what district they are in. If you review the Tuesday meeting it was spelled out no council member residence was known or considered in preparing Map A. By the way, even if it was done so, which again, it was not done so for Map A, that has been held to be a legal action. The rule of law is what we follow, regardless of some not liking it.

I was very disappointed to hear of your attitude and conduct towards staff last night. You have the right, if course, to say what you will and however you chose to do so. You can chose to be as rude and aggressive as you personally deem shows you and what you are, best. The right to do that doesn't mean it's civil, respectful or decent to do it in such a manner. I'm embarrassed and disappointed for you.

Your requests will be assessed for utility in the process.

Thank you for your interest in the City of Mission Viejo.

Submitted on Fri, 12/17/2021 - 9:36 am

Cathy Schlicht
Comment

Bill - please cause to have the school district boundary maps for the Saddleback and Capo school districts posted immediately.

Ironically, the district maps drawn up using those school district boundaries was the map chosen by Mr. Shenkman. 

Why were the 2018 maps removed? 

Also. As drawn on Map Z, please indicate the locations where the council members reside. That is an important piece of public information. As you are fully aware, the public is suspicious of the process and are concerned with council member bias when they vote on "the" map.

Thank you, cathy
 


 

From:    CORINNE AKAHOSHI 
Sent:    Wednesday, December 8, 2021 11:12 AM
To:    Bill Curley
Cc:    District-Elections; CityCouncil
Subject:    Re: District Elections

Bill,

Thank you for your response.  I am NOT advocating on-going complete district elections.  This would impact only the first district election.  Instead of establishing the staggered terms by extending two seats outside the voting system, an alternative is to elect two council members for two years and the remainder for four. 
 
Frankly, the districts seem rather small to me, but since that has already been decided, we all must work for what is best with what we have.

Thanks, 

Corinne

On Dec 8, 2021, at 10:41 AM, wcurley  wrote:

Thank you for your thoughts, they are appreciated. No California City using districts does a complete district election and all are staggered terms. In 2017\2018, when districts 
were first considered, the staggering of terms was a clear part of that voting structure. Full district voting applies to district voting as a functioning protocol—which I still believe would be best for the City. The City statute was and is unchanged as to 4 year terms and the only override would be converting to districts. We hope people understand that precedent, reliable process and function, instead of emotion, guide the legal process all cities follow. To deviate from the established norm and be the only city of over 480 California cities, would be a risk factor that is not recommended.

Thank you again, we appreciate your thoughts very much.

Best regards,
Bill
  
From: CORINNE AKAHOSHI 
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 10:23 AM 
To: wcurley@harperburns.com 
Cc: districtelections@cityofmissionviejo.org; citycouncil@cityofmissionviejo.org 
Subject: District Elections
 
Good morning,
 
Thank you for conducting the redistricting sessions.  Returning to Mission Viejo in late 2020 I appreciated the background provided.
 
As I understand it, three of the five districts are included in the 2022 election with the remaining two held by incumbents whose terms are being extended, a decision justified 
by the fact cumulative voting was not approved.  I believe you mentioned council continuity as part of the rationale for that extension.  The city website clearly indicated 
all terms expire in 2022, no conditions mentioned.  Why not follow through and elect five council members in 2022? 
 
Some continuity risk may exist with the election of an entirely new council, however, if no incumbents are re-elected, the voting public has spoken.  Cumulative voting also held 
that risk.  I would expect Mission Viejo’s staff know the “corporate history” and can support any council member with that knowledge.  In addition, meeting minutes and other documents are available for reference. 
 
As the City implements a new representation process, it seems desirable to have as full participation as possible.  By taking away that opportunity from 40% of the voters, I 
think the risk of creating indifference at best to hostility at worst towards local elections and the local government increases.   The decision is one that I believe raises a lot of 
questions that are avoidable.  Perhaps it is legal but it just doesn’t feel right.
 
Establishing new staggered terms beginning with the 2022 vote is much more transparent than declaring extensions for elected officials.  I know I would not be happy 
to find out I am not allowed to vote in the City’s first district voting because the decision had been made for me.
 
I believe there are options superior to the current plan and would urge the City to ensure all Mission Viejo voters are able to participate in Council elections next year.
 
Respectfully, 
 
Corinne Akahoshi
 


Dear Mr. Bobsin:

Valid and thoughtful comments indeed Sir. However the very low bar set by the California Legislature has created a standard whereby communities are judged by technical criteria rather than the real life functioning of a community. In 2018 the Legislatures law, when applied to Mission Viejo, determined that we are in violation of the States racially defined voting laws. Those standards, when applied to the City, concluded we are “racially polarized” and so need to change to become consistent with State law. This was vigorously opposed by the City Council but the State law prevails and we must change to district voting. The City Council strongly prefers to keep the status quo on a philosophic basis, but honors the law given to us by Sacramento and is now following that law, as is our duty in a nation of laws. The choice to change is not a local choice but the direction from the legislature in Sacramento.

Bill Curley,

City Attorney

Submitted on Fri, 10/29/2021 - 9:13 am Ralph Bobsin

It sounds to me like Mission Viejo is the ideal American Community. A true melting pot community where people of all colors and cultures live together and are not living in segmented groups. Why would we want to change that? Why would we wish to divide the community by race or culture? Are you suggesting that the elected officials we have now don't give fair representation to everyone in their district? Are they ignoring input from some of their constituents? If so produce some examples so we can understand why all this time is being to devoted to changing something that seems to be working quite well. It seems to me that if more of America was following the Mission Viejo model of all living in harmony with one another we would be in much better shape in this country.


Thursday, October 28, 2021 10:51 AM Cathy Palmer

Will this workshop be recorded for those of us who won't be able to attend? Will the workshop be focused on factual information about the districting process? I understand that Mr. William Curley has been turning these workshops into rallies against the California Voting Rights Act. I did not elect Mr. Curley. He is an contractual employee of the city. If he wants to share his personal, not legal, opinions with residents, he can run for office. Otherwise, his role is to provide legal counsel, and even that is suspect, in my opinion.


Sat 9/25/2021 6:49 PM

From: wcurley 
To: Barbara Hosmer
Re: Thank you for your CVRA comments!

That is not a correct legal conclusion. The court agreed. It's been publicly discussed several times. The 2 year term only applied to a cumulative voting system. The City did not do that. I'm sure you don't want to continue to cling to misinformation and a defective conclusion. All laws, including the 4 year term remain in place. Just because an article said something, which the law, municipal code and a Superior Court judge disposed of as not applying, we trust you will understand the facts. If not, that's your choice, but its an unusual choice.
Best regards 
Bill Curley.

From: BARBARA HOSMER  
Date: 9/25/21 6:30 PM (GMT-08:00) 
To: wcurley <wcurley@harperburns.com
Subject: Re: Thank you for your CVRA comments! 

thanks for being quick, but just to confirm...my answer is...it's been too long and we're starting form scratch.  right? 
and you made the assumption i figured you'd make in that long second point. but what i was referring to was this:
https://voiceofoc.org/2020/06/mission-viejo-city-council-extends-their-…
it's given ed and greg raths soft places to land when their bids for higher office fell thru.  and it kept our 5...who stand in lock step...together as long as possible.
respectfully,
barbara hosmer

From: wcurley 
To: rbhosmer 
cc: Kimberly Schmitt; Renata Winter; Robert Schick 
Subject: Thank you for your CVRA Comments 
Date: Saturday, September 25, 2021 5:29:17 PM 

Dear Ms. Hosmer: 

We appreciate regular commenters like yourself providing us input on important issues in the City. Citizens who thoughtfully participate help the best results to be achieved. To respond to your comments I offer you this response: 1. As to the number of maps that suggest proposed districts, we hope we to receive many. The resident provided maps give voices to all residents and we respect that citizen input. The more public comment, and more map proposals we receive, the better the final result will be! 2. As to delay in seeking the most viable remedy to correct the voting polarization violation, we appreciate you apparently being in the majority of residents (adding you to the friends that you referenced) who understand the City Council was trying to achieve the best result for the greatest number of residents. As you and friends understand, the law and the form of multiple options to satisfy the law, was being carefully analyzed and pursued and that took some time as numerous involved parties exist. And I know you and your friends want the best, fairest and most inclusive process to be achieved for all residents. That was done!! I'm sure you appreciate the City Councils hard work on the issues. The City Council has determined it is best to now give focus to the court authorized option of districting after pursuing the other court authorized means to give the effective voting franchise to all Mission Viejo residents. We applaud you and your friends interest in achieving the best outcome possible for the City and each resident in it. You appear to be supporting the best interests of the minority residents in Mission Viejo and that's commendable. You can help reach out to your Latinx friends and encourage them to participate too! Again, thank you for your interest in seeing the best interests for all residents of the City advance. Your ongoing support for all the City Council hopes to achieve is very much appreciated! We post all the comments and responses given on the Citys web page regarding the Districting process, so your post and my response will be publicly posted. Best regards, 

Bill Curley City Attorney 

Submitted on Sat, 09/25/2021 - 4:07 pm Name Barbara Hosmer 

Comment years ago when this issue first came up, there were several (actually to my mind...too many!) maps put out to us to choose what we thought best. as i suspect there won't be much change, tho i could be wrong, will that input be taken into account? or have we put this off for so long (for reasons quite obvious to lots of us) that we must start from scratch?


Submitted by Cathy Schlicht on Tue, 09/14/2021 - 10:06 am

The following were my public comments to the City Council on August 24. Instead of fighting for our values, the city council, behind closed doors, withdrew its support of an amicus brief that was submitted to the SCOTUS.

Good evening Mayor and Council. My name is CS of MV

The California Voter Rights Act, aka the CVRA, became law in 2001. It gives enforcement authority to private attorneys and apparently our own city attorney, who are making financial fortunes.

The only element a plaintiff has to establish is that a city's at-large voting system creates polarized voting against a protected class - a purely mathematical formula.

Like many other cities and jurisdictions with at-large voting systems, Mission Viejo was served a demand letter in September 2017 from attorney Kevin J. Shenkman on behalf of his Texas client, . The letter claimed that "voting within Mission Viejo is racially polarized...," which is all it takes to force a city to scrap its at-large voting system.

To bolster his Mission Viejo claim, Mr. Shenkman stated in his demand letter: "Joe Chavez, largely supported by the Latino minority, ran in 2000 and again in 2002, but was unable to secure a seat on the City Council due to the bloc voting of the non-Latino majority."

Here is the rest of the story about our Latinos’ voting success in Mission Viejo elections.

The facts are that there were two Latino candidates who ran in the 2000 and 2002 and in each election, one Latina won and one Latino (Chavez). In 2002, one Latino won re-election and one Latino (Chavez) lost.

Latina challenger Gail Reavis spent about $18,000 on her 2000 campaign, and she beat out the incumbent, who spent an outrageous amount of about $80,000.

Having won his first race in 1998, Latino JP Ledesma won his re-election in 2002.

Joe Chavez did not run a formal campaign in 2000 or 2002 and he never filed a Ballot Statement.

Often, a candidate would lose their first campaign and then run again two years later - winning on their second campaign. Both JP and Gail won their elections as first-time challengers and both served as Mayors.

Our City Attorney, took the position that the City violated the CVRA. But Mission Viejo could not draw districts that guaranteed a “Latino seat”.

But the truth is, IF IF IF, our City Council had approved district-based voting in 2018, three of those council members would have resided in the same district, competing for one seat.

Our city attorney, in doing the work on behalf of the Plaintiff's attorney, and the state legislators, has continued to bill the citizens of Mission Viejo on his quest to shoehorn cumulative voting and weighted voting onto unsuspecting voters.

So, in addition to the attorney's, - who are the real winners under the regulations of the CVRA?

The winners are Ed Sachs, Greg Raths and Wendy Bucknum who extended their terms in office by buffaloing both the judge and the voters.


From: William Curley
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:16 AM
To: Trish Kelley; Dennis Wilberg
Subject: RE: District voting boundaries

And—the general maps will be available in January- only the final selection will occur in February. People can start campaigning based on the draft maps, which will all be generally similar in nature.

From: William Curley
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:15 AM
To: Trish Kelley; Dennis Wilberg
Subject: RE: District voting boundaries

Well, we really cant accelerate the process. We must await the entire new census data package and start over. The prior mapping is no longer proper to use as its outdated under the new census. We also need time to have thorough public input and that will likely result in more than a few maps. State law and common law requires a certain process and we are carefully following it, lest we get challenged for a defective process. As candidates don’t pull papers until mid-year there is not a substantial impairment of any candidates rights. As they will be outreaching to 1\5th of the City the issue is not an impediment that cannot be overcome.


From: Trish Kelley
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:09 AM
To: Bill Curley; Dennis Wilberg
Subject: FW: District voting boundaries

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Harding 
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:04 AM
To: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>
Subject: District voting boundaries 

Trish , 
I hope all is well with you & you had a pleasant Labor Day weekend. 
I am writing to you regarding the District Voting MV 5 area boundaries. I realize the MV population has changed in the last 3+ years since the Council had over a dozen 5 district maps developed but why should it take until mid Feb 2022 to present the map boundary options ? This appears drawn out & non beneficial to any candidates that need to get organized for the 2022 Primary & General election cycle. Maps may need minor adjustment for pop growth or decline ( which will be minimum) but generating 6-8 potentials will not take much time. I request that you instruct attorney Curley to revise & expedite his schedule. 
This is an exciting time for Mission Viejo & I thank you for your continued guidance. 
Doug Harding 


Submitted on Mon, 09/06/2021 - 12:25 pm

Name Kathleen Kelton 

Comment It’s time for this. Thank you


Submitted on Fri, 09/03/2021 - 10:33 am
Name
Concerned citizen, MV resident and homeowner


carterslauson

Comment
This is not democracy when a sleazy attorney the likes of Kevin Shenkman dictates how our city votes. The CVRA is unconstitutional and needs to go to the supreme court to be ruled as such. Someone needs to stop this shyster lawyer from getting his "fees" and all the other shysters that will follow. This is bullying and needs to be stopped. Please fight this all the way to the supreme court. 
 


Submitted by Carole Weidler on Thu, 09/02/2021 - 6:38 pm


Too bad.


-------- Original message --------
From: Douglas Johnson <djohnson@ndcresearch.com
Date: 9/1/21 9:11 PM (GMT-08:00) 
To: bill curley <wmcurley3@gmail.com
Cc: Dennis Wilberg <DWilberg@cityofmissionviejo.org>, CA Schlicht 
Subject: Re: Mission Viejo districting 
 
Thanks for the heads-up. I wondered what was the story behind those questions. So far the questions were just things about our process that are in the public record from any of our clients, so I did not see any danger in responding, though the requests were odd to get from a resident of a non-client jurisdiction. I did not know that the City had the Center for Demographic Research (or anyone else) on contract -- I wasn't even aware that the city had made a decision to move forward with by-district elections. So I wholeheartedly confirm that I have no intention to get into conflict with the City or CDR. (We're no longer taking on additional clients with only a few exceptions, so we definitely not looking for any angle here.) I have not heard anything for a while, so hopefully the questions have stopped. Best wishes to you and CDR as you work through this important process!
 
- Doug
 
P.S. Out of curiosity I just checked out the video from the Mission Viejo Aug. 24 Council meeting. Just in case the first public speaker did not give you the actual emails, what she said about NDC is false. We are not "ready to go" right now -- as you hopefully saw in my actual email, I discussed how quickly we are prepared to move after the official redistricting data are released (as you know, for the first time, the 2020 Census data are not the official redsitricting data in California). But that data will not be released between Sept. 9 and 23, so obviously we are not "ready to go" right. I am happy to share the actual email exchange with you if she did not provide it.
 
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 8:26 PM bill curley <wmcurley3@gmail.com> wrote:
Good evening Mr. Johnson:
I serve as the City Attorney for Mission Viejo: we have spoken in the past to see if we could coordinate services. You are being queried by a resident as to timing for processing census data for districting of a city converting from at-large to districts . The resident is passing your responses on to City officials apparently as facts to contradict CDRs timing. The redidents purpose seems to be an effort to discredit the provided services of the Center for Demographic Research, which the City has contracted with. This is part of this residents multi year effort to second guess and critique the Citys CVRA remediation program.
I ask only that you be thoughtful in your responses, understanding that they may have to be scrutinized in a very public manner. I know you are a responsible professional and would not intentionally undermine a peer who has detailed knowledge of our specific facts. I know we all want to avoid unnecessary distractions in this time of busy process. I am familiar with your firm from my tenure with Richard's, Watson & Gershon and quite respect your services.
I'm happy to discuss this further with you should you wish.


-- 
Douglas Johnson
National Demographics Corporation
djohnson@NDCresearch.com
phone 310-200-2058
 


 
From: CA Schlicht 
Date: September 1, 2021 at 10:20:41 AM PDT
To: Douglas Johnson <djohnson@ndcresearch.com>
Cc: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>, Wendy Bucknum <wbucknum@cityofmissionviejo.org>, Brian Goodell <bgoodell@cityofmissionviejo.org>, Greg Raths <graths@cityofmissionviejo.org>, Ed Sachs <esachs@cityofmissionviejo.org>
Subject: Re: New submission from Contact Us form
 
CAUTION: This Email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments.
Thank you.  I will forward this communication to the Mission Viejo City Council.  
 
Have a great day.  cathy
 
________________________________________
From: Douglas Johnson <djohnson@ndcresearch.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 10:10 AM
To: CA Schlicht 
Subject: Re: New submission from Contact Us form 
 
For our clients we are hoping to have that done in about a week, though that is dependent on what format the state uses to release the data. If the state’s data are a mess, it may take longer.
 
- Doug
 
On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 10:06 AM CA Schlicht <caschlicht@hotmail.com> wrote:
Wow.  Thank you for such a speedy response.
 
What is the turn around time for NDC to process the data for a population of about 95,000 with less than 35,000 housing units?
 
________________________________________
From: Douglas Johnson <djohnson@ndcresearch.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 10:18 PM
To: CASchlicht
Subject: Fwd: New submission from Contact Us form 
 
The timeline is dependent on the City's districting consultant and how fast they can receive, process and calculate the numbers for the city once the state releases the official redistricting data sometime between Sept. 9 and Sept. 23. I do not know who the city's consultant is (if the city has one) and I cannot speak for them regarding how fast they will be able to get that done. 
 
- Doug
--
Douglas Johnson
National Demographics Corporation
djohnson@NDCresearch.com
phone 310-200-2058
 
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: ryder
Date: Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 4:47 PM
Subject: New submission from Contact Us form
To: <djohnson@ndcresearch.com>
 
Name 
     Cathy Schlicht 
Email 
     CASchlicht

Message 
     I am a former Mayor for the City of Mission Viejo, Orange County, California.

What is the timeline to digest the 2020 census data to equip a city to draw 5 districts for the first time?

How long will it take to breakdown the 2020 data into census tracks for a city with a population of about 95,000? 

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/missionviejocitycalifornia…

thank you - cathy 


From: dandsmathes 
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 2:30 PM
To: Trish Kelley <tkelley@cityofmissionviejo.org>
Subject: Re: Elections/Voting in Mission Viejo

Hi Trish:

Just heard you on the radio in re MV voting.  We really hope you all stand firm and not allow them/others to create problems or divide us and make false accusations about the citizens or the City.  All of the neighborhoods in MV are diverse and not fake racist garbage...we are all doing more than fine here.  Don't fix what isn't broken.

Plus, if you all permit them with any authority to mess or monkey with our elections or voting on the state or federal level, it will purposely be made chaotic, confusing and create or increase fraud or illegal voting. 

Thanks.