Foothills Sentry May 2021

Foothills Sentry May 2021 Page 8 Circulation … 41,750 Published on the last Tuesday of each month and distributed to residences, businesses, libraries and civic centers. 714-532-4406 Fax: 714-532-6755 foothillssentry.com 1107 E. Chapman Ave., #207 Orange, CA 92866 © Foothills Sentry 2020 Publisher/Editor Anita Bennyhoff 1969-2013 Editor Tina Richards editor@foothillssentry.com Sports Editor Cliff Robbins sportseditor@att.net Graphic Designer Aimee Armstrong graphics@foothillssentry.com Advertising Sales Andie Mills advertising@foothillssentry.com 714-926-9299 Office Manager Kathy Eidson officemanager@foothillssentry. com Letters continued from page 7 Guest Commentary District 3 should be allowed to vote By Arianna Barrios and Ana Gutierrez On a cold February morning, at a time when Americans across the country are having serious con- versations about voter suppres- sion and protecting the democrat- ic rights of our fellow citizens, it is almost incomprehensible that a brazen act of voter disenfran- chisement would take place in the City of Orange. With little attempt to hide their hypocrisy, the council major- ity moved swiftly to make an ap- pointment to fill the vacancy left by Councilmember Mike Alvarez in District 3, after a judge declared him ineligible for re-election due to the city’s term limits ordinance. It wasn’t city staffers or the prior city council that fought to up- hold our overwhelmingly voter- approved term limits ordinance, it was District 3 residents fighting to protect their rights. In making this appointment, those same citi- zens, and all the voters in District 3, were essentially told that they could not be trusted to elect their own representative. Orange residents had no op- portunity to review potential ap- plicants or their qualifications prior to the orchestrated appoint- ment. No financial information or potential conflicts of interest were requested from applicants, as required for electoral candi- dates. The council majority, indi- vidually, held private interviews behind closed doors, designed to ensure there would be no public participation. There was not even a semblance of debate or a seri- ous discussion about the selection process itself. The public was not permitted to learn who the appli- cants were, what their policy po- sitions are, what their community connections might be. As new council members, we decided we would not hold secret interviews, but instead send a questionnaire asking applicants about their position on important city issues. We made it clear that their answers would be made public so the voters could get a better understanding of who these applicants were, and what they stood for.While several applicants replied, Kathy Tavoularis, the individual who was appointed, did not. (NOTE: copies of these replies are available with the online version of this article.) None of this is to say that Tavoularis will not make a good council member. She may be the best choice and perhaps even the candidate the voters of District 3 would like to represent them. But she was done a disservice by the council majority, who hid her positions, her policies and her viewpoints from the public. The reason the council major- ity gave for snatching the vote away from the electorate was the $150,000 cost of a special elec- tion. Two years ago, that same majority told us that we “couldn’t put a price on democracy” when they called for a city-wide special election to the tune of $450,000. With some magical thinking and very fuzzy math, we are now be- ing told that the cost of a District election, at 66% lower cost, was suddenly too high and not an ap- propriate way to spend Orange’s tax dollars. Meanwhile, rather than pay for democracy, the coun- cil majority bestowed upon one individual the priceless gift of in- cumbency. Adding to the insult, every council member knew prior to the meeting that the City of Orange will be receiving its first check from the federal government next month for $14 million to start backfilling the city’s losses during the pandemic. All told, the city is anticipating $30 million from the American Recovery Act. Yet the council majority proclaimed, by its action, that the voters of District 3 are not worth one-half-of-one percent of their own federal tax dollars. District 3 is facing some of the biggest decisions to come before the council in the next year, in- cluding the fate of the Village at Orange. Silencing the voters in District 3 now, after failing to protect their rights and the integ- rity of their last election, is a dou- ble whammy on those residents. Orange is changing into a di- verse, vibrant city of residents who want to participate in the public process to keep Orange special. Yet, again and again, there is a sad and tired pattern of closed doors and secrecy. As elected members to your city council, who worked hard to safely meet with voters during a pandemic to discuss the impor- tant issues, we believe strongly that allowing the people to choose their own representatives is a core tenet of our democracy. Like many of you, we are angered at this audacious move by our col- leagues to rule by fiat rather than in collaboration with our com- munity. We urge our fellow resi- dents not to be disheartened, but to stand with us to bring transpar- ency and partnership back to the people of Orange. Arianna Barrios represents District 1 on the Orange City Council; Ana Gutierrez repre- sents District 5. a mistake. We know in 2020 our city council (Mark Murphy, Chip Monaco and Kim Nichols) looked the other way when Mike Alvarez decided to run for a third term; some of those council members even endorsed him. Now that the court has confirmed our term limit ordinance must be followed, one would expect there would be a little remorse at city hall for letting the citizens down. Not so – there was no shame from these folks. At the April 13 city council meeting this group offered lame excuses, became very defensive, and even second- guessed the court decision. There was no apology to the residents of District 3. Instead, in rapid speed, a mo- tion was made by Mayor Murphy to appoint “their person” with Nichols, Monaco and Jon Dumi- tru all in favor. Arianna Barrios and Ana Gutierrez objected and reiterated that a special election would provide the needed trans- parency. We cannot allow those that caused the problem to now select who will represent our commu- nity. This simply cannot stand. Steve Palumbo Orange, District 3 Dear Editor: I want to thank Orange City Councilmembers Ana Gutierrez and Arianna Barrios for standing up for District 3 residents by sup- porting a special election, which would have allowed voters to di- rectly elect our council member. Barrios was spot-on when she pointed out the double standard of the council members – Kim Nichols, Mark Murphy and Chip Monaco – who in 2019 were willing to spend $450,000 for a special election, but now balk at $150,000 for District 3. Barrios asked several times, “What has changed?” Kim Nichols claimed that nothing had changed, and that she was an advocate for, and believed in, democracy. If that was the case, why was Nichols silent when Mike Alva- rez ran for a third consecutive term in 2020? She could have stood up for District 3 voters and demanded that the term-limit or- dinance be enforced. Why didn’t the city attorney require Mike Al- varez to prove in court that he had the right to violate term limits? The burden belonged squarely on Alvarez. After all, two consecu- tive terms are two consecutive terms, whether you’re voting at- large or by district. Why did residents have to take legal action to protect our term- limit ordinance? I believe it all comes down to development issues such as the The Village, Chapman University expansion and high-density housing. District 3 voters have no elected representative to voice and protect our concerns regarding these issues, which could have a tremendous negative impact on our immediate community. Alvarez’s indiscretion to try and sneak in a third consecutive term and the council’s refusal to hold a special election to fill the District 3 vacancy have disenfranchised all the voters of District 3, and relegated us to having a non-elected representative who already seems to not have the interests and well- being of District 3 at heart. It’s a shame some council members have cast aside their duties and turned their back on a fundamental cornerstone of democracy by refusing to hold an election so voters can decide who their representative should be. In 2019, Mayor Mark Murphy stated that you “cannot put a price on democracy.” He left out telling us that didn’t apply to District 3. Gary Ehnes Orange, District 3 Dear Editor: It’s important to note that the District 3 council seat vacancy was caused by a Superior Court ruling that the “Nov. 3, 2020 elec- tion for the Third District in the City of Orange is annulled and set aside.” The judge did not declare an elected seat holder. The judge ruled that there was no election. The expression “special elec- tion” is a non sequitur. There is nothing “special” about this. It’s a “delayed” election. It is the November 2020 election as pre- scribed by City of Orange Mu- nicipal Code 2.02.030 (A) and af- firmed by the judge in his finding. This is the only option available -- to have an election. Everything else is a violation of the city’s municipal code. If our city attorney denies this, remember that it was he who caused this embarrassing situa- tion by allowing Mike Alvarez to run for a District 3 seat, when Al- varez was clearly ineligible. In America, final decision makers are to be elected. They are not appointed. Appointments to seats that hold final authority are the opposite of the American experience. Americans want to vote; they have the right to vote, and any other decision is not worthy of consideration. One can argue that an elec- tion is expensive. Americans of the opposite ideal will argue that elections are mandatory, and the monies required are what taxpay- ers pay for. One can also argue that if the city attorney had paid more attention to the obvious constructs of initiative law and less attention to Alvarez’s attorney and had disqualified him, there would be no delayed election needed. Since the council chose to ap- point someone, it should have been John Russo. He came the closest to appearing in an election and finished second. Had Alvarez not run, he might have won. This opinion, however, fails to over- come the people’s will to vote for their representatives. Also, appointing someone to the Third District seat leaves the Third District, the Fourth District and the Sixth District without elected representation. That is one-half of the elected city coun- cil. This outrage will last for the better part of the next two years and is completely unacceptable. If the strongest argument in favor of appointing a Third District council member is the cost of an election, be advised that this decision will result in a recall and a VERY special election to restore our republic. Peter Jacklin Orange Dear Editor: On April 13, the mayor and city council clearly demonstrated that they are the worst possible group to represent the citizens of Or- ange. Despite an overwhelming outcry of support for an election to determine who should fill the Third District seat vacated by Mike Alvarez, this group decided to appoint a relatively unknown person to the seat. Although legally allowed to “appoint” someone, this group