Mission Viejo swimmer and coach will be recognized for outstanding efforts on July 12

Please do not renew the permit to allow shooting rabbits in Palmia. The residents were not give a voice or a vote on this decision made by three members of the Palmia BOD. It was made during a meeting when residents could not speak. There are 901 homeowners and many more residents. Three votes by BOD members should not be allowed to speak for all homeowners and residents.

Can the City Council continue the two year staggered vote and communicate clearly everything that has happened the past few years in terms of voting, the law suit, redistricting and extending their own terms?

I would like to keep staggered voting

I want City Council elections every 2 years! The skunks on the current council want to delay district voting because they want to remain in power. Our city needs to have the option to throw them out every 2 years if they are not serving our community. We need to take back our country and it starts at the local level. God Bless America!

When discussing the fall election it is important to remember that we, the residents of Mission Viejo, support the two year staggered elections. Honesty and transparency are key to any election and the “people” did not and have not voted to change it to anything other than that. Thank you!

The two-year staggered terms should continue to be pet of our election process.

Once again, this city council puts election and city property decisions on the agenda while most people are on vacation and out of town.

Too bad we are now paying attention to this council and the power grab for all members. You all need to run for reelection in November and staggering elections helps the community eliminate this behavior to stay in power no matter what.

What has happened to the "big master Oso trail plan" to utilize the Stein Mart building ?? How about this moves forward without giving the property to yet another church. Stop this madness and actually do something to help the city.

On July 12 agenda, ITEM NO. 20:

When authorizing the next City Council election, please maintain the staggered voting schedule that has been followed historically. Please ensure that three council seats will be up for new four year terms in November, and two council seats will be up for new two-year terms in November to ensure this democratic process. The two seats that would be elected for a two year term in November would be up for four year terms at the next election in two years.

Having all five council members elected simultaneously for four year terms would deprive the citizens of necessary options to possibly change the Council makeup more frequently than once every four years. The staggered elections are more beneficial to the citizens of Mission Viejo than electing the entire City Council once every four years.

Thank you. Mildred Summerlin

My comments in response to the City Attorney:

Bill - you continue to play word games. You continue to try to control public opinion.

This council has NOT had any public discussion on this issue. When he was Mayor, Greg Raths had tried to have a public discussion on the status of voting rights, but you would not let that happen. You stated that "it" was not yet ready. We have heard NOTHING from the Voter Education Ad Hoc Committee.

The agenda VERY specifically is calling for four year terms, which eliminates staggered terms.

The public is VERY specifically participating in its government with the message: maintain staggered elections.

Has the council also given you the authority to chill public participation?

The Staff Report states: "The City is now, as agreed to with the Court’s Order, calling the election for all 5 seats in the 5 new districts. The terms will be four years."

The Resolution calls for four year terms: "SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Mission Viejo, California, on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing five (5) council members for the full term of four years."

That Resolution, UNLIKE PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS, has noted and thereby giving public notice that the 5 districts might be reduced to 3 districts going out for vote: "At present, and as conditionally called for pursuant to an interim injunction, all five (5) electoral districts (1, 2, 3, 4 & 5) in the City of Mission Viejo are hereby called and ordered to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022. However, further judicial action in September 2022 or thereafter, may remove only districts 2 and 4 from requiring election and so no final vote tabulation would occur and the district 2 and 4 incumbents would remain in office. The Registrar of Voters will be informed of the final outcome of the question on districts 2 and 4. It is definite and certain that districts 1, 3 and 5 will be up for election on November 8, 2022."

So, if you are following the rule of law, and you inserted cautionary language into the current Resolution, then since the prior Resolutions DID NOT carry any conditional language that two year terms could be extended to four years, then, DEFINITELY, the council illegally and selfishly, extended their terms in office.

The Council in 2018 authorized you to protect the "status quo". You have done that with great agility. And with the consequences of maintaining the seats for the council members, you have brought two lawsuits, with the first one being endorsed by the State Attorney General along with the Chair of the Senate Elections Committee.

There was NEVER a pathway to cumulative voting. In 2015, a judge ruled against cumulative voting. Ranked Choice Voting was vetoed by the Governor in October 2019.

For almost five years, you gamed the system. We have now come to the end of the game. It is time to cry Uncle and let the citizens voices, finally, he heard.

We are to have 5 positions up for election on Nov 8. This system makes it very difficult for incoming new council members and getting appropriate items handled. Too bad there are adults who are so concerned about their ability to be re-elected on their own merit they change the rules. Some people never change regardless of their age. I am really amazed at the catty, surly and grumbling of adults in council and hired by the city. Do your job honestly and effectively and you will be rewarded.... otherwise you loose.

I believe it is a mistake to allow all five city council seats to be elected at one time, notwithstanding the 2 year term election in 2020 that caused the current situation.

There are multiple reasons for not electing all offices at once in a city:
1) Allow some 'institutional memory' and knowledge to be passed from incumbents not up for election to newly elected members;
2) Allow better feedback from voters who will replace members that are not performing as expected;
3) Slow down the rate of change in officeholders so that wild swings in policies do not occur overnight.

Tonight, the city council should decide to hold elections in November 2022 for three district seats for a two year term and the remaining two seats for a four year term. The two year districts should be selected by random drawing for numbered slips of paper from a jar in full view of the public. The drawing should be conducted by someone who is not employed by the city nor is planning to run for office.

I lost my cool at the podium last night because once again, this council crafted a process for their desired benefit.

The Council lost in Court and now they think they can fool the voters into believing that they are the heroes.

NOW they want to create a process for the public to participate in AFTER the November election.

They have had 5 years for a public process.

Voters have spoken in favor of staggered terms. The reality is, this council do not want a public process. Everything they have done on this election process has been done behind closed doors.

But it was a huge victory for the voters as all five council members will now have to go out for vote in November 2022.

If staggered elections were a benefit for them, the council would have voted for staggered elections.

Instead, they voted against the voters. Now it is the voters turn to vote!

Even though we only get to vote for one council member every four years, if the council had allowed us to have the benefit of staggered elections, districts would have had the opportunity every two years to change the make-up of our council. But it is not to be.

Our city is being run by con artists who are continuing to game the system for their own benefit.

And let's talk about creating a predetermined outcome: the City Council last night adjourned at 9:04 and by 9:30 had a press release posted on the City's Facebook page, probably by the city attorney.

Wow - talk about crafting a process for a desired outcome... Way to go city council!