Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1985-02-05 1-28-85 / 2-5-85 personnel proposals for later discussion in Closed Session. Councilman Grgas stated he would like to be on this committee; Councilman Clift deferred his appointment to Mr. Grgas. Grgas moved, second by Clift, that the committee consist of Counci1members Risner and Grgas. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I ADJOURNMENT Grgas moved, second by Wilson, to adjourn to Tuesday, February 5, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Q the Approved: 9~-~~ May r r) "'..__...__... .4~ Attest: I Seal Beach, California February 5, 1985 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brownell Counci1members Clift, Risner, Wilson Absent: Counci1member Grgas Mr. Grgas arrived at 7:07 p.m. Also present: Mr. Parker, City Manager I Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Baucke, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Risner, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by 2-5-85 all Counci1members after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I ORDINANCE NUMBER 1175 - MORATORIUM - STATE LANDS SITE - FIRST STREET and PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - URGENCY Ordinance Number 1175 was presented to the Council entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN LAND USE APPROVALS AND PERMITS RELATED TO THAT PORTION OF THE CITY LYING IN THE VICINITY OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND FIRST STREET AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF." The City Attorney reported that a public hearing was held at the last meeting, also that the report issued January 24th was received and filed, the proposed ordinance being a follow-up to that action, extending the moratorium for a period of 10 months and 15 days. He reported there are State law provisions dealing with moratoriums, as a Charter City Seal Beach is not bound by them, however the State provisions have been followed. By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1175 was waived. Risner moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Ordinance Number 1175 as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brownell, Clift, Risner, Wilson None Grgas Motion carried I It was the consensus of the Council to hold Resolution Number 3450 over until after the next agenda item. At the request of the City Clerk, the Council declared a brief recess at 7:04 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:07 p.m. with Mayor Brownell calling the meeting to order. Councilman Grgas arrived at 7:07 p.m. RESOLUTION NUMBER 3451 - HONORING ROBERT E. THOMAS - ORANGE COUNTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER - RETIREMENT Resolution Number 3451 was presented to the Council and read in full by Mayor Brownell entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, HONORING ROBERT E. THOMAS, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, ON HIS RETIREMENT." Risner moved, second by Wilson, to adopt Resolution Number 3451 as presented. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 3450 - DECLARING RESULTS - SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - JANUARY 29, 1985 Resolution Number 3450 was presented to Council entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN THE CITY ON JANUARY 29, 1985, DECLARING THE RESULT AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 3450 was waived. The City Clerk reported that Resolution Number 3450, as provided to the City Council, recites the facts of the Special Municipal Election that was held Tuesday, January 29th. Mrs. Yeo reported that the Resolution and its attachments sets forth the whole number of votes cast in the City, which was 8,815, the measures that were 2-5-85 voted upon, the number of votes given at each precinct for and against Proposition A and Proposition B, and the number of votes given in the City for and against Proposition A and Proposition B. The City Clerk reported one change in the Official Canvass was the count of four special challenged ballots that were verified after the preliminary election results, this being the only change in votes cast. City Clerk: Clift: Precincts 15 and 18. I Risner: What precinct were those in? Mr. Mayor, before we go any further, I have a statement that I would like to read if I may sir. Mayor: Okay. During our Council meeting of January the 28th the subject of a campaign mailer which appeared to be an official City document, which bore the signatures and the official City titles of three Council persons of the City of Seal Beach, was referred to our City Attorney for investigation and a finding as to its legality and the ethical use of such a document mailed in particular to voters of Leisure World. On election day, Tuesday, January the 29th, coupons detached from that mailer were observed to be in plain view of voters within at least six of the nine polling places in Leisure World. In addition, I have since received, and verified first hand accounts from Leisure World voters who had stood in line to vote and had witnessed that a majority of voters in those lines in which they were standing, within 100 feet of their polling place, were carrying those coupons, again, visible to other voters in their vicinity. The mailer expressly encouraged the recipient to take that coupon to his polling place on election day. Now, that coupon, in bold print, urged the recipient to "vote yes on Prop A". This tactic was a cause of severe and continuous violations of the law that prohibits the presence of campaign materials within polling places or electioneering within 100 feet of polling places. Mrs. Risner, I remember, at the meeting on the 27th, the Council meeting, that you publicly stated that you approved the contents of the letter. I must assume that the other two Council persons who signed it also approved that content. I Clift: Risner: The letter, not of the coupon or the P.S. I Clift: The contents of that mailer included the purported source of that material as the City Council Chambers of the City of Seal Beach, both on the transmittal envelope and the enclosed letter. Those contents included your signature and your governmental title of each of you. Those contents included a coupon which the recipient was 2-5-85 I expressly encouraged to take to his polling place on election day, and that coupon in the boldest print said to the recipient to vote yes on Prop A. All of these things, I am sorry to quote it exactly, "Yes On A", all of these things were set forth in bold print, easily readable. By contrast, in the faintest print, designed to be read only by those with the best eyesight, and this was in Leisure World, the weak disclaimers that the mailer was not printed nor mailed at City expense. There was no disclaimer, even in faint print, that this mailer was not an official City act. To the contrary, the whole thrust of it was to convince the Leisure World voter that the City itself, as their government, was urging, if not actually instructing them, to vote yes on A. The greatest mischief is that we had three members of the City Council who had supported the Bixby project with the help and financial resources of the Bixby Ranch Company who have tried, and I believe succeeded, in convincing a large block of Seal Beach voters that this was not a City election in which the voters of this City were making an internal decision, but rather that this election was a contest between the City of Seal Beach and some alien force. There was no official City "position" on this issue. Our laws and procedures include the referendum process, and a referendum election is not a contest between the City and somebody else, it is part of the process of self-government and of self-determination. The foreseeable result of this mailer was to confuse Leisure World voters, why else, voters who are especially vulnerable to misleading campaign material, not because they aren't nice people, not because some of them are older than I, but because in the manner in which they are insulated from the political process. They don't hear both sides, as in this election, they tend to be exposed only to the side which some areas in Leisure World support. They are loyal to their City, and this mailer was designed to exploit that loyalty by suggesting that the City of Seal Beach, their government, had an official position on this Proposition. It did not have such a position and it could not. The people reserve the ultimate power of government, and when they exercise it through the initiative or referendum process, there can be no official government position on the issue, for that process is part of government itself, not a foreign element. To certify this election is to give official sanction to your own participation in this contamination of the democratic process. That process must be fair, and it also must always appear to be fair. In this case I don't feel that we can address this as appearing to be fair. At a minimum, you should disqualify yourself until the matter I I 2-5-85 has been fully investigated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, our City Attorney, and the Orange County District Attorney. Your moral obligation must be to recognize in lieu of the enormous disparity between the vote on this issue in Leisure World as compared to the rest of the City, including your own voters who live outside of Leisure World, that this election should not be certified. That , , completes my statement. Risner: I would like to say something, I didn't come with a prepared speech, but I assumed tonights opposition would be out in full with prepared speeches. I think you are wrong in interpretation of governmental processes, there is an official position on this issue with the City because three members of the Council did support the passage of the Bixby Old Ranch Business Park. Cli ft: Please refer that question to our City Attorney. Risner: I am making a statement and I will refer, when I am ready to refer, to the City Attorney. There is a position because we voted on it, and three members of the Council said they supported it, under, I might say, extreme duress and name calling. And we are talking about misleading campaign materials, what I indicated at the last meeting on that mailer, we did not approve the "City Council Chambers" in any way as a return address on that, what we saw was a plain piece of paper with a letter and the additions and corrections that we made to that letter, and had no idea that the coupon was going out. However, it is legal, that piece of campaign material was legal. Now, lets talk about misleading Leisure World residents. I doubt that people who have lived a lifetime of experiences can be mislead, in fact, I am very proud that Leisure World people were not mislead in this election. They were told by one of our Planning Commissioners on Group W that there would be airplane crashes in that area, that they would perhaps lose all their life savings and they don't have enough time to earn them back again, that ambulances, for heavens sake, would be unable to go through the intersection, I mean, talk about scare tactics, that to me is scarry. What the people that were proponents of Proposition A did was say yes, the City Council studied this issue and we would like you to support the City Council's position, a very upbeat kind of campaign, there was nothing negative nor did we attack the opponent. I don't feel that the opponents of this Proposition were fair to us, especially me, and I will be very frank about it, you know, I have been accused of almost everything by the opponents. I have never turned around and done that I I I 2-5-85 Clift: to you nor to any member of the opposition. And I think it is kind of ridiculous for us to sit here and say, now let's not certify the election. I mean, the opponents went through the trouble of getting petitions, which was great, and you have a right to do that. What you said to us then when you brought us the petitions was that you didn't want us to set an election, you wanted us to change our vote. We said now wait a minute, we studied this for a long time, went through all of the documentation, and I don't think that we, I don't think that I have to change my vote. If you really want it, and the process is a referendum process, then let's go and ask the people what they think. The people came back and said it's alright with us, so what are we waiting for, name calling to keep this issue going or can we finally bury it and go on and solve some of the problems facing this City, problems that we need to solve. May I ask th City Attorney, do you consider sir that in this election and a referendum process that the City does have a position, and would you please answer Mrs. Risner. I I City Attorney: Once the referendum petition was filed and certified there was no official City of Seal Beach position on the Specific Plan because it would then be submitted to the voters for their approval or disapproval. But in terms of positions taken by Counci1members in a referendum or initiative campaign, clearly members of the Council could express their official position. The majority of the Council, in this case, could express their official positions as Counci1members, and the two members who voted against the Specific Plan also could express themselves as Counci1members in their official capacity opposed to the project, but there was no City of Seal Beach position on this plan until the voters either approved or disapproved the plan. Clift: Okay, now you are telling me in one place that a personal opinion held by the ladies and gentleman here was not an official position but it had an official position, it wasn't a City. Now, Mrs. Risner tells me that it was an official City position. I understand that it was not an official City position as she stated, and I would like that for the record, correct sir? I City Attorney: I think we are using the terms differently here. I think that in terms of a statement being made by a Counci1member, being stated in their official capacity as a Counci1member, that can be done. Clift: The document then as put forth and as it appeared is an official document of the City, is that right sir? 2-5-85 Risner: It is a document... City Attorney: No.. Clift: It is to anyone who read it sir. Mayor: May I ask a question...is there anything on there that said this was City of Seal Beach that indicated it was the City of Seal Beach on there. I think we are quibbling, in my estimation, about minor things like this, I don't believe that it showed that it was the City of Seal Beach stationery or the City of Seal Beach approved. It was a beautiful job of art, let's put it that way. And of course, on the envelope, City Council Chambers, City of Seal Beach. I can think of no reason other than to confuse and mislead voters. Clift: Risner: I think the proper thing to do if you have questions about it is file it with the FPPC, that is where it belongs, and let it gO from there, and get on with the business at hand. Clift: Mrs. Risner, I have made my statement and I stand by it, I did it because I feel that....l know that there are forty percent of the registered voters in the City of Seal Beach who have, generally speaking, been denied the right to hear both sides of an issue. Invitations to a side that perhaps may disagree with some of the hierarchy behind those walls.. Risner: Let me tell you that I was not asked appear before the League of Women Voters when they took a position, we were not asked to appear before the Seal Beach Residenial Association that took a position, don't tell me Leisure World denied... Clift: You were invited to the Seal Beach Homeowners Association on the same evening that I appeared and.... Risner: You are wrong sir, you are wrong sir. Clift: I was advised that you had accepted and... Risner: That is not true... Clift: With the same thing on the debate on television when only two people from your proponents showed up, not because of that, I feel it was because no one else seemed to know as much about it that they were ready to argue the issue, or debate. Wilson: May I say something Mr. Mayor. If there were irregularities, the opposition contributed their share. For instance, I believe it is illegal to post signs on utility poles, and I understand there were I I I 2-5-85 I vote "No" signs posted on all the utility poles over in College Park East and the Hill and in other spots. It is illegal to distribute or post literature in Leisure World without a previous permit, and this was done and found allover Leisure World, and especially with the inaccuracies and hal~ truths that they contained about the high-rise, the air danger and traffic escalation. If Proposition A had lost I would have felt very badly because I would have felt I had let my people down, but I assure you I would have accepted the vote of the people which was forced by the referendum at great expense to the City and the landowner. Now, we talk about taking that little slip to the polls with you, I have often taken the Press Telegram recommendations with me, every election they put a list in the paper with their recommendations and say take this to the polls with you, which I have done, and there has never been any comment about that. Bixby is trying to develop their land and I think they have a right to do so without having to go through all of this, and I am a little tired of the remarks that I have heard, made several times, well, I can hold my head up, and I think that we can all hold our heads up high, we have all done a good job of settling this and developing whether or not we felt it was good or bad for the City, and I certainly feel that it is a good thing for the City. You had just as much opportunity to speak in Leisure World as anybody else, the opponents or the proponents. Most of the clubs that I asked about speaking to said they did not want to get involved period. The Republican Women have their own pOlicies, which I have nothing to do with. Both sides spoke to the Democratic Club and both sides spoke to the Kiwanis Club, the Lions cancelled me out, they had set me up to speak to the Lions Club but then they decided they did not want to get involved in the political thing, they knew how they were going to vote, they said they had their minds made up and didn't want to bother to hear anything more. But the literature was distributed throughout Leisure World, blue sheets, green sheets, or whatever, with great big letters that said "do you want high-rise in Seal Beach". I think that you were treated just as fairly as anybody else in Leisure World. I I Clift: I just wanted to say one thing about this, in this same letter that was printed here from the City Council, from the City Council Chambers, City of Seal Beach, it states "as a result the developers will pay for more than 2-1/2 million dollars in local road improvements and invest more than 1 million dollars in landscaping on the project." In this very piece of paper that you have all signed your names to, that is not true. Mr. Ron Bradshaw says that the 2-1/2 million dollars includes 1 million dollars worth of landscaping. 2-5-85 Risner: You are incorrect about that, I know that you got your information from a telephone call that Mr. Parker made to Ron Bradshaw, and he put down some information, there was just one little error in the transmission, perhaps you should have talked to Mr. Bradshaw directly, that the landscaping portion is 1 million dollars and the road improvements are 2.5 million, in the 2.5 million, I said this before, the trees that we added that night that we adopted the Ordinance are in the road portion. But what difference does it make, 2.5 million here, 1 million the~e, i~ still adds up to 3.5 million in road and landscaping improvements. If that makes it, sound better to you, fine, but that is not untruthful. Then call Mr. Bradshaw and ask him directly instead of going through an interpretation DE... Clirt: The fai~ Value of the land which is already part of the project being developed isn't another appropriate cost of th~!!! Risner, It's a cost...it is a cost when someone gives their land for a street... Well, I have completed my statement and I will rest with it here, there are other statements to be made. Clift: Grgas: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a few statements. First of all, I think they are in your packets, but I think that you should be aware of the fact that I have asked by letter, requesting the Orange County' District Attorney and the Orange County Grand Jury and the California Fair political Practices Commission to investigate the mailers that were sent out by Bixby. I will read the letter for the record... Risner: That was on City of Seal Beach stationery, one Councilperson did that on City of Seal Beach stationery... Grgas: Yes, and I will ask the City Attorney if that is in violation of the rules. City Attorney: In terms of any Councilmember using the City letterhead, as long as it's clear that it's from one Councilmember and it is not a statement of the City Council, that would be permissible for a Counci1member to use letterhead. But again, it should be clear in the letter that it is not an official statement of the City Council. Risner: Would it have been appropriate then for us as a member of the City Council to send out campaign literature on City of Seal Beach stationery? City Attorney: It would not be proper to spend money on a campaign expenditure... I I I 2-5-85 Grgas: I would like to read the letter if I can. Mayor: You made the statement, I do not have it in my packet... Clift: I do not have it either... I Grgas: I will be glad to get you copies. These are addressed to Orange County Grand Jury, Orange County District Attorney and the Executive Director of the Fair Political Practices Commission for the State of California. "Dear Sirs, I am writing at this time to request an official investigation into a possible violation of the Election Code with regard to the attached mailer. The City of Seal Beach held an election on a referendum on January 29, 1985. Days prior to that election, the attached mailer was sent to Seal Beach residents requesting a "yes" vote on the measure. It is the format of the mailer that I believe to be in violation of the intent of fair political practices. The manner in which the letter was distributed gives the recipient the distinct impression that it originated from the city of Seal Beach when, in fact, it did not. While I do not challenge its contents, I do challenge the method of its use. While the three counci1members who signed this mailer supported one view of the issue, they were not representing an official City position. I would appreciate your attending to this matter. If you need to contact me further, please call (213) 431-2527. Your cooperation is appreciated." For your information, I am asking them to investigate this because I think that it deserves closer scrutiny despite the intentions of any of the Counci1members or individuals invo1ed, I think that the consultant should have had more ethical standards than what they used in this particular mailer. Again, I can't help but say that I think that this hurts the political process more than anything else, more than anything else it is going to further divide this community that is already divided enough on issues like these. That is the first item. Second, what I would like to talk about is a few points, if I can. We talked about the election results and, these are my own opinions, but I am going to say, I think that the election proved a couple of things. First of all, obviously Leisure World carried this election. If you look closely at the precinct reporting it is quite obvious that all the precincts reporting outside the walls of Leisure World, a vast majority, is some cases as high as fifty-seven percent, was against Proposition A, when the exact opposite was true in those precincts located inside of Leisure World, the vast majority inside Leisure World voted in support of proposition A. I I 2-5-85 Risner: Bridgeport voted for it. I said the vast majority, okay. The question is why. Despite what these people are saying and the people in the audience are saying about accessibility, I believe that Leisure World is one of the most inaccessible areas for political forums on the face of the United States of America. And furthermore, I believe that the management of Leisure World, including the Mutual Presidents and the Golden Rain Board are acting in a concerted effort to prevent opposing viewpoints from being presented to the residents of Leisure World. On that basis, I think that Leisure World is not only acting, and members of Leisure World's management and mutuals, are acting in an unconstitutional and discriminatory way, but I think you are doing a great disservice to your own people because you are limiting their freedom of choice. There have been a few cases that have been decided against Leisure World....inc1uding the fact that Leisure World was trying to prevent competing newspapers from being distributed, including... I can tell you that I have read those cases very carefully, and I thin~ that the Leisure World people, Leisure World management and mutual presidents are treading on very thin ice when it comes to, with regard to equal protection under the law, by allowing by invitation, members from the Bixby Company and those who support, to provide information to Mutual 1 and another forum, while not inviting the opposition, I think you are violating the freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the Constitution, and by grossly limiting those individuals who have limited financial resources from being able to penetrate Leisure World, in other words those with the money can send the mailers but those that can not, can not do anything, they can not walk door-to-door, they can not drop fliers, and if they do so it is based upon clandestine activities. Grgas: Risner: But they can get permission to do that and they can also hold rallies. Grgas: I think you are discriminating against your own people, and needless to say, I think that what you are doing is a needless and pointless thing, you should be allowing these people to walk in, allowing these people to make their case on both sides of the issue, let them decide, they have been around long enough to be adults about these issues and make proper decisions about the way they want to go. I also think that the City of Seal Beach is remiss by virtue of the fact, by its unwillingness to take a contrary position to this, and by its inaction, which requires that the gates of Leisure World be open to those individuals who want to pursue the political process, I I I 2-5-85 I comes very close to being a third action in support of this Leisure World policy, and I think that if anyone challenged us on a 1983 United States Code violation that we would stand to lose some very heavy damages in that event. The City cannot prohibit, for example, political campaigners from delivering fliers door-to-door in areas other than Leisure World and also Surfs ide for that matter, although Surfside has been pretty good about letting people come in, but even there, bo a certain degree to be pointed at in terms of being unfair in that regard, and that is my own district, and I am willing to say that, but let me tell you that if the City were to prohibit people from passing fliers door-to-door in Old Town or on the Hill or College Park East, we would find ourselves in deep, deep water, and I think we are pretty damn close to that right now. I think that Leisure World is very clever, there is no question about it that by virtue of the fact that they have hired some very good attorneys who have found ways to make the courts look sideways when it comes to subject matters such as accessibility, and ability to circulate petitions and to discuss things in forums and issues, that they ride a very fine line. But I can tell you that all the folks out there who are taking a very close look at this and may decide to take you folks on with regards to determination as to whether or not those gates should be closed to something as important and as Constitutionally guaranteed as the pOlitical process, and for one, I stand on their side. Let me tell you right now that when the next election comes up you may find me at your door asking to come in to be able to walk the district, and if you don't allow it, then I guess we will have to talk about it in some conditional basis in a legal form rather than on Leisure World streets. That's all I have to say. I Mayor: I must ask the audience please, this is not a show going on here, we are here conducting a business meeting, and please refrain from the applause and clapping, this is not a show going on, this is a City Council meeting, and we'd like to have a chance to discuss matters in an adult way and not in a childish way. Thank you. I would like to answer some of the subject matter that was brought up just now about Leisure World being a closed corporation and not permitting people in. Now, I had the pleasure of addressing two different groups in Leisure World regarding this subject, and those particular groups, the Kiwanis Club, as the Councilman from District Five, was invited, District Four was invited to be there because they wanted to have that side. I was invited to another place where I talked and Mr. Covington, representing I 2-5-85 the group that opposed, he was there. Those were the two places that I talked and I can't see where you say that we were not invited or permitted to speak in Leisure World. Clift: 125 Clubs. Risner: Do you think we spoke at 125 clubs. Mayor: I noticed that Mr. Clift had an ad that wasl in our Leisure World paper that he offered to speak at any group that wanted to hear him, and if they wanted to hear him, I am sure he would have heard from them, but the fact that he was not invited to talk before them does not mean that he was being discriminated against, because I didn't talk before them, and I don't know that any others that talked before groups on this subject. I know in my own case, when I did speak on it the opponent had a equal opportunity to state their case. In so far as the impression that Leisure World is a closed place that people can't come in, people are permitted to come in and my guests, they are permitted to come in whether they have a pass or not, I merely call, but we do have private property there and we do have rules that are there to protect the people in Leisure World who have invested a great deal in the type of living that they have and the freedom and the confidence to walk the streets without being afraid of having someone attack them, that's day or night, and the rules that they have are made by the people there by the selection of their representatives. Now, it's not a pOlice state or anything like that because the people in there make their own rules and decide what's best for them to conduct the type of community living that we have, and we are proud of it, we are happy there and very, very pleased with it. The people that I know that have moved there at first were wondering if they would like it or not, after being exposed to it and living there a reasonable length of time they say they would not want to live anywhere else because of the fact of all of the advantages that they have, of the association with people of their own relative age group and the outlet that they have of entertainment and facilities that they can use for any type of a function that they desire to use in accordance with the rules. So, I can't agree with your concept of Leisure World, as stated by Mr. Grgas, I understand that he can have his viewpoint but I can not agree with it. May I also say that I get a little tired, even before I was on the Council, I saw representatives from the Council that always seemed to divide the City, Leisure World Risner: I I I 2-5-85 Grgas: versus everybody else, and that's not healthy for the City. Leisure World, to me, has always been a vital, important part of this City, if you want to blame Leisure World, you can blame them for passing your school bond issues because they voted for every single one of them, if you want to blame Leisure World, you blame the representatives from Leisure World who have supported parks. I am telling you, I am tired of having Leisure World b~amed for everything, that is negative. I respect Leisure World for their desire to protect their property rights and privacy to the highest levels, I don't necessarily like people knocking on my door, but I can't prevent them from coming to my door. But somehow Leisure World prevents people from coming to their door and what that does is that that discriminates unfairly against individuals who don't have the financial resources to do mailers at $50,000 a crack. If we had $50,000 in our pocket we could put mailers out every week like Bixby does, then you might have a good argument there, but you know, you don't have that argument, I mean the fact of the matter is that you can not walk door-to-door in Leisure World because they are not allowed to do that. The fact of the matter is that not everybody in Leisure World has representation by virtue of their mutual presidents and the Golden Rain Board Foundation, because in order to be a member of the Mutual you have to apply, and I bet you that there are people out there who are not represented by mutual presidents and the Golden Rain Board Foundation. And that was proven, and I think very strongly in the case that was just decided against Leisure World with regards to the ... publishing company. I mean, you know, I am very serious about this, I think that, despite how you vote whether for or against, the fact of the matter is that you should have equal access to the political process, and I think that the theories that's presented here by virtue of Leisure World restricting access to their community is not being fair, that's all I'm saying, they are not being fair, in those places where people could walk door-to-door and cases could be made, the outcome was entirely different than it was in Leisure World. I I Wilson: Well Victor, that was set up as a retirement community and it was set up with those regulations. I think that the City of Seal Beach is getting a fair share of tax money from Leisure World and Leisure World is pretty much taking care of its own streets, etc. and everything. I Grgas: I would say that is definitely a company town, and that is not necessarily meant to be derrogatory, but if there is anything that comes close to being a municipality 2-5-85 Risner: Mayor: G. Telford: in and within itself, that is it. And I would say that by virtue of that action, Leisure World comes very close to condoning, on a stated official basis, the fact that they do not want people to have equal access for political purposes to that community as well. I think you guys are on a very, very fine edge again because of discriminatory practices and violations of equal protection and civil rights under the Federal and State Constitutions, I think you should take some very serious considerations of allowing people in, and I'm not saying you have to open doors, but you should definitely allow people to register at the front door and say hey, I'm going to walk on behalf of this political candidate or on behalf of this issue on either side, just give us access, that's all I'm saying, because right now I don't see that happening. I I don't see that that's prevented, in my district in Leisure World my opponent was certainly walking through that area with a resident of Leisure World, I could have done the same thing with a resident from Leisure World, it's not prohibited, all you have to do is abide by a few laws and rules that are set down by the Golden Rain Board, and they're not difficult to fOllow, and they're not difficult to understand. Let me just say this too, you know if Leisure World had gone the other way we probably wouldn't be hearing all this tonight, but we are hearing it tonight because Leisure World felt, and they are the ones that are really impacted by this project, they are the ones that are in Edna Wilson's district, they supported it, they liked it, this is sour grapes as far as I am concerned. And I want to say one other thing, well, I want to say this, you know in good political campaigning you have strategy and if you know that forty percent of your voters happen to be in Leisure World then a good strategy would be to try to get the vote of that forty percent of the voters. You know, I don't think your strategy worked and our strategy did. Well, I think that everyone on the Council has had a chance to express themselves, is there anything further that anyone would like to add? I I am a resident of Leisure World, I'm Dr. George Telford, I've lived there for about eleven years. I've been president of a political club there on four different occasions. About the rules that were made there, we have an anti-solicitation rule, it is enforced very selective, it is enforced against enemies of the Golden Rain Foundation Board but not against what they do, and that's the whole thing. I thought I was staying within their rules by distributing I I Mayor: G. Telford: Mayor: G. Telford: Mayor: I G. Telford: Mayor: G. Telford: I 2-5-85 leaflets in a political campaign. The president of the mutual came out and told me that the mutual did not permit that and he was going to report me to Mr. Davis, the land user and I was told by Mr. Davis, I wrote a letter to him and asked him to tell me what I was doing that was illegal or wrong and tell me to stop it. And the thing went on and on, I was threatened over the telephone by numerous people who said they were going to have me thrown out of Leisure World because I was soliciting, putting the leaflets in the door of various people. .No there is no freedom of election there in Leisure world, there never has been, and under present conditions there won't be. Mr. Brownell, you know that, and you people of the City Council representing Leisure World... May I ask you a question, was that in connection with this election that you were prohibited from distributing... It was a partisan election... Was it at this election... No it was not. Some previous election... Yes sir. Thanks, I just wanted to clarify that. But I will say this, that members of this City Council that was running with endorsement of the Golden Rain Foundation Board, went out door-to-door and asked for money, I wouldn't think that....that was a violation, but you should know there is no freedom of ~olicitation. Now, what concerned me so much, and this is what is relevant, when I get a letter from the City Council, here's your letter, with the return address on it is City council Chambers, City of Seal Beach, Orange County, California. NOW I've been in office in...lowa and even been active in politics here in Orange County, as well as in Des Moines, Iowa, and when I opened this I was outraged because there is no question in the minds of people, that it gave the ideas to those people, those 65 years of age, many of them are senile, that this was an official announcement of the City Council, and then it's signed by two members of the City Council who live in Leisure World, and then I don't have any objections to the contents of the letter, but down below it says, and I think this is the official letterhead of the City Council, it says City Council Chambers, City of Seal Beach, Orange County California, Oscar Brownell, Mayor, Joyce Risner, Mayor Pro Tem, Edna Wilson, Counci1member, the other 2-5-85 F. Laszlo: Risner: F. Laszlo: two members were not on there at all, I wonder why they didn't put them on, and it represents to these people that this was an official letter. Well, I think the law of California says that no election materials can be placed on the election precinct, any materials, posters or anything of that nature. At the bottom here it says your polling place is the El Dorado Clubhouse and vote yes on A election day. So, I went down there about 10:30 in the morning, there was a long lineup, and everybody had one of these slips in their hands, and women behind me said well, I see they want us to vote yes on this, and of course we are supposed to go the way according to what the Golden Rain Foundation wants. When they went up to the election official they gave this for identification, and the talking right there in line was well, if the Leisure World representatives want us to vote yes, why, we will vote yes. That was the whole idea. Now I am saying, what I am saying, what I am pointing to, in very faint letters here it says not printed or mailed at pUblic expense. Well, many people in Leisure World can't see very well and can't even read that, and that's the reason that's no significance. So, the thing that I'm saying is what you people did was to invite the people of Leisure World to disobey the law and stack those polling places with election materials which I think the ... code says, its illegal to have them there, so I hope that you don't corrupt the City, the people of Leisure World any more, and put a stop to this nonsense. I I I wanted to ask some questions on this, and I wanted to ask the City Attorney, but I heard some Counci1members make some statements, one that Joyce Risner made that when she used to visit the Council she used to feel that Leisure World was picked on, Council divided the City. When I was on the Council I heard George Supple make a motion for Leisure World to deannex, I heard Chi Krede11 second it, I saw Willy Vanderstaay approve of it, passed three to two, I tried to keep the City from being divided. The City, and Leisure World itself, wanted to leave. After they were lambasted by the City Council... I will say now though, the City is divided. This election hasn't ended here, and I am sorry that Mrs. Wilson is tired of the remarks, because this is just the beginning. I don't know whether I heard her say that, Mrs. Wilson was saying that we could go into Leisure World, I wrote that down that she said we could, and I don't know if that is true or not. I would like to ask our City Attorney if under the Constitution I 2-5-85 I of the United States and California that we citizens representing some ballot issue that we are allowed to go into the Marina Hill area and leave our campaign literature. I would like to know if that's legal, are we allowed to put campaign literature in the doors or are we allowed only to mail it in. I City Attorney: Well, there is no prohibition of someone placing campaign advertisements or brochures on private property, again a private property owner, at least it seems under present court rulings, could prevent someone from coming onto their property to place something there in control of their property. Now, Mr. Grgas has just mentioned litigation involving Leisure World down in Orange County, I know that that particular case went up and down, Appellate Court, Trial Court, back and forth, I don't even know what the final ruling was in that particular case in terms of access, I think that the Court at one point even got away from dealing with the issue of access to Leisure World, so I couldn't comment at this point what the law is at the present time with respect to private residential communities such as Leisure World or such as Surfside. But again, as long as the property owner does not prevent someone from coming on their property, surely anyone would have the right to use the pUblic streets and leave campaign literature on a doorstep. F. Laszlo: Under present law then, we are allowed to distribute campaign literature everywhere else in the City except for Surfside and Leisure World as closed communities. City Attorney: You could leave your materials at the entrance to those facilities, I don't think there would be any prohibition of that. In terms of access to those communities... F. Laszlo: I am saying outside, what I am saying is outside. I just want to make it clear that whether we were within the law when, I personally delivered materials to certain houses on the Hill area, election materials. By the election process are we prohibited from doing that... Risner: No. I F. Laszlo: I am asking the City Attorney, Joyce. City Attorney: In terms of leaving materials at doorsteps at the entrance to properties, other than in a mail box for example, I do not see that there would be anything wrong or illegal about doing that, you have the right to do that. Risner: Unless you put it in the mailbox, then it is illegal. 2-5-85 F. Laszlo: We are familiar with that. Then, you are saying that it is legal for us to do that. Now, my understanding then is that it is illegal for us to put election materials in Leisure World door-to-door. City Attorney: I am not sure what the Leisure World rules are with respect to access into the community I and leaving literature at individual residences... F. Laszlo: What I am talking about is concerns of taxpayers of the City that have a stake in this, that they are prohibited from seeking all citizens of the City, presenting their side, and giving them their material, and that's what I am asking you, is that prohibited right now under the State law that we, that taxpayers with election materials that we are not allowed in these kind of communities to have their side explained...I am asking the City Attorney. City Attorney: In terms again of access to a private residential community that has a guarded gate or closed gate, the law in the past has been that the private property owner has the right to control his property and access to that property. Now there is a conflict in principles between the access for distribution of campaign literature or first amendment rights being exercised. First is the right of a property owner to control their property and restrict access to that property and again, as far I as I know, I am not aware of any particular case that has clearly decided where the law is going to come down on that issue, and again, I am not familiar with the final decision in the Orange County case, so I can't comment upon that at this point, and I have not researched this question recently to know if there is any more cases that have been decided or not. F. Laszlo: I am concerned about our right of free speech and other considerations in this whole situation, that may have been a cause of the Leisure World vote that went against the rest of the City by a vast majority. The other question, the legal question I have is, well, I hear conflicting statements, but I see the return address in big bold letters on this envelope, the City Council Chambers, City of Seal Beach, Orange County, California. Now, that's a return address, and that's the thing that bothers me, I mean, if this was any other thing and not sponsored by the City Council, then why wouldn't there be another address. Now, I don't know, I maybe we should consult the postal authorities on this one, because, is it legal for them to put addresses that are not correct on envelopes... City Attorney: I, today, discussed this particular flier with the staff attorney in Sacramento of the FPPC, as to whether or not there is any violation of the Fair Political Practices City Attorney: Whether or not there is any violation of any postal regulations, I have not looked at that, I do not know. Again, the issue that we have looked at, at the request of the Council at last meeting, was whether or not there was a violation of the Fair Political Practices Act or the State Elections Code, that is the reason why we contacted the State to get the State's position with respect to this mailer. Well, my concern is if there was a violation with the federal law on something like this, that it would, maybe, reflect back on the election, and who knows what could happen with the results of this election, I was thinking that perhaps, in all good efforts, that perhaps we should wait until we get confirmation from the postal authorities before we okey the final results of this election, of course I know that, considering the ethics of this campaign, that this would not happen. However, the question is on this coupon, are you allowed to bring these into the polling places and exhibit them. I F. Laszlo: I F. Laszlo: I City Attorney: 2-5-85 Act by this particular mailer, and this is not an official position that they have taken but in terms of what was told to me over the telephone, was that there was no violation of any of the Fair Political Practices Act regulations by this particular mailer, including the coupon that was attached to the mailer, that in fact, these type of issues have come up before and that has been their position, and the State is now considering possible regulations dealing with campaign advertising, but at the present time there is no violation of the State regulatiohs on campaign literature with this type of mailer, including the coupon that was attached to the mailing. We ourselves, in our role as City Attorney did, independently review the Fair Political Practices Act and under the present law we could find no violations of the State law with respect to this type of mailing, and that also includes the State Elections Code. Now, the other question, I think I should probably address the entire... No, now, on this question, on this particular return address, was the postal authorities considered, are they allowed, is that fraud, or are they allowed to put incorrect addresses on envelopes, on thousands of envelopes. The coupon itself, and that fact that the mailer said on it that you should take that to the polling place would not in itself violate the State Elections Code or the Fair Political Practices Act. Where a violation could occur is if someone engaged in electioneering. Then the question becomes what is electioneering. The State Elections Code does not define what electioneering is nor, oddly enough, 2-5-85 F. Laszlo: City Attorney: there is no reported case in California that deals with what is electioneering, so then it becomes a question of what would that be, and the best we can say is that it probably would be that someone was actually campaigning within the polling place or within one hundred feet of the polling place, using this type of coupon. I believe that I would constitute electioneering. However, if someone simply walked into the polling place and had that in their hand and took that into the poll to actually vote, or even handed it to an election official so that the election official could see their name on this, that would probably not constitute electioneering. The next question is whether or not any precinct officer did not carry out their duties in controlling possible electioneering on the premises, and again, if people were handing these things out at the polling place or they were handing them to another voter or leaving them in a prominent place, that could all constitute electioneering. To the extent that the people working at the polls were telling people to remove these items or in fact, destroyed them themselves, that would be proper action taken by the precinct officers to control electioneering within the premises. And again, one thing that we have done here was, right after the election, we had requested the City Clerk to contact each of the precinct I officers to have them prepare a written report as to what actions they took if there were, in fact, any of these coupons on the premises, and from those written reports what we gathered was that whenever these had appeared, and again, these are the reports of the precinct officers, that whenever they observed any of these coupons either they stated to the person that had a coupon that that coupon should be removed or they, in fact, themselves destroyed the coupon. Again, that was the report we received from the actual precinct officers. There were reports and witnesses and I believe it was filed on the date of election, that these particular coupons were left on the table where you signed in, many of them, and there was no attempt to remove them, and they were laying there constantly. Now, again, I know that this comes under the electioneering code and I thought I just heard you say that that appeared to be electioneering. My question is, when these coupons are allowed to lay without any attempt to remove them, is that a violation of the State electioneering code. I There are two answers to the question, there are two issues that you really are raising. The first thing is, electioneering itself is a misdemeanor, it is a criminal offense by the person engaging in electioneering, and it would seem to me that to be convicted 2-5-85 I of electioneering the person would have to have the intent to be there for the purposes of campaigning for a particular measure, for or against that particular measure, before anyone would ever be convicted of electioneering. Someone who simply went to the polling place with this in their hand and either just simply handed it to the election official for that official to see their name, or took it with them to the polling place would not be engaged in electioneering. If someone went into the polling place with this in their hand and gave it to another voter or posted it on the premises, they would be engaged in electioneering. The second part though, is what about the conduct of the precinct officers because that really is the more relevant question with respect to the validity of the election, because under the State Elections Code there are only limited grounds for contesting an election, and for all the grounds that are listed, several are not relevant in this case, the only one that is relevant in this particular situation is the provision that states that a grounds for contesting the election is that the precinct officers engaged in what is called malconduct. Again, malconduct is not defined by the Code but we would determine that would be dereliction of duty on the part of the election officer in controlling the election place. Again, from the reports that we had received the precinct officers, they stated that when they observed a coupon they picked it up and destroyed it or they told the person that had the coupon to put it away so that no one else could see it. Again, the only way this would ever be resolved though, would not be by the City Council this evening, this Council would have no power under the Elections Code or under the City's Charter to determine whether or not there was electioneering or whether or not the precinct officers engaged in malconduct. The procedure again is election contests which must be filed within thirty days after the election, or after the canvassing of the results of the election which takes place this evening, and then it is up to a court to determine whether or not the results of that election are valid or not. As City Attorney I can not make that determination nor can a District Attorney make that determination, it would be up to a court to decide whether or not, number one, there was electioneering, and number two, whether or not precinct officers really, through dereliction of duty, engaged in malconduct by allowing electioneering to take place. For that reason, if I could just add one more point, the role that the Council plays tonight is simply to certify the votes cast at the election, and the Council does not have the authority to decide whether or not there was violations of the State Elections Law, again, only a court can decide that. I I 2-5-85 F. Laszlo: Mayor: Considering the vote with eighty-five to ninety percent in Leisure World it would be hard to believe that those officials that were conducting this election were not in favor of this proposal and that is why they did not fulfill their duties. We have witnesses stating that they have seen this left here and I am sure that the affidavit is filed. Perhaps after this election is certified the Council would vote that we appeal it to have the air cleaned in Seal Beach on this election to whatever agencies that you just mentioned and let them decide since we have thirty days, maybe there would be, as a member of the Council that would like to clear the air. Some people have said this is the most disgraceful election that has ever been held in the City of Seal Beach. And I can remember one in '72 where the United States Supreme Court had to rule on the Seal Beach election material, and this is by far, many people believe that it is the worst. Three thousand citizens did sign this petition, everybody outside of Leisure World voted against it except for two very minor areas and it seems that it would be appropriate for the Council to follow up with an investigation of these election practices that have occurred. Just one last comment. This City is divided and it's, let's face it, it's divided and it's against Leisure World now. You have succeeded it...when I was on the Council the downtown area wanted to throw Leisure World out, I feel now that residents in other areas of the City have the same feeling, and if you think that this is the last step, I think you're going to be foolish. Thank you. I 1. I would like to answer a few of those remarks. In the first place, the fact that the aspirations or whatever you call it, the insinuations about the people who conducted the election boards there, I don't think that you can say that they were favorable and were acting out of their regular duties in favor of it. I have heard that remark several times that we on the City Council are dividing the City. Now, a majority of the City Council have voted on this thing after hearing all of the testimony and reading volumes and volumes of stuff, and getting answers to the questions that were raised before a decision was made, and also making many adjustments to the original plan, the Specific Plan, so it was actually agreed to, and it met many of the problems, the traffic problem, and other problems that were brought up as part of the reasons for voting against it, that we finally did approve it, and now a majority of the Council did that. Now, I know of two or three people in one section of the City who, by very active solicitation of people there apparently have generated an election because they I 2-5-85 I weren't satisfied with what the majority of the Council felt. Now, if you are going to say that the three people on the Council are dividing the City, I think you are mistaken, I think that the people, the group that feel that the Council should go contrary to what they felt was right, because they felt that they wanted to take opposite side, I can't feel that anybody but those who circulated the petition and have forced the City to this election, are the ones that are attempting to divide the City, and I don't think that Leisure World is trying to divide the City, but I think that Leisure World is a large part of the City, the population is about one-third of the City, and I believe that they have the right to express their opinion in connection with any election that comes up, and I know that there are a lot of potshots being taken, and any excuses to try to find some reason that somebody is doing something wrong because it is allover now or you must be right and we must be wrong because you don't think the way we do about these things. I just want to express myself that way, I feel that this election was unnecessary, it should never have come about, but it did come about, so that those of us on the Council who felt that we had done the right thing and it was best for the City, to bring some money in to the treasury and to improve property that has been vacant for a long time, and we felt we did the right thing, so, I'm just answering some of the things that were raised. I Risner: I would also like to say something to Mr. Laszlo. We did have some complaints filed by members of the referendum group. Our Chief Election Officer in this City is Joanne Yeo, it is her responsibility to make sure that the people that work the elections are properly informed, she does investigations if there are complaints and she has interviewed, to my knowledge, all the people that worked at the polling place and she has some letters on file relative to the allegations made by those apparently that filed the complaints. Now that is as far as we go when it comes to investigating complaints, and if you don't like what is happening here, if you don't like the results of the election, if you want to throw it out you've got to take it to court, now, if you are willing to do that go ahead, that's the next step, you've got thirty days after the certification to take it to court. And if you don't think that that will upset some of the people in Seal Beach who have spent twenty thousand plus on attorney fees, and then we'll spend another so much with the City defending the election, because that's the position that the City will take, they will defend the election. I 2-5-85 Wilson: F. Laszlo: Risner: F. Levy: May I say something. Mr. Laszlo admitted that he wanted to throw Leisure World out ten years ago and it was divided then... I voted against it... But you sent a letter to the Golden Rain Board that wasn't too highly respected over there. I Fran Levy~ College Park East. I was one of those people in those precincts and I witnessed those "Yes On A" pieces of paper on the tables. Alright, we spoke to the precinct operators and inspectors and half of them couldn't understand why they were permitted to use them to take the names off, in fact, we had one inspector who said to us "I don't know why they needed them here, we didn't have them on the Presidential election, why did they need something to remove the names during this election." And as for that piece of paper, those people saw as a heading City Council Chamber, they didn't see Oscar Brownell's title at the heading, they didn't see individual letters from these three people, what they saw was the Chamber title heading on that piece of paper, that's the fraud, defrauding the voter into believing that that came as an official City Council document. If Mrs. Risner had sent it with her name on the heading that is one thing, if Oscar Brownell had sent it with his name on the heading that's another thing, and Edna Wilson also, if they had sent three separate letters that would be even one thing, but sending one letter with the City Council Chambers on the heading is defrauding the voter into believing that it came directly from this Council Chambers. That's number one. Number Two, thinking that it came from this Council Chambers they then said, oh, my City government wants me to take this down to the polling place, thinking they were instructed, shrewd, that's really shrewd of Bixby, right? I hope that this is going to bounce right back in your lap because what you have done is do damage to your own people. You may .... looking like fools, you really did. They expected that that was an honest piece of paper from you people here at this City Council and instead what they got was a bogus piece of paper. They all brought it down there, there were thousands of them there over the day, they were all bringing them down there, we saw them standing in line with them in their hands. Those precinct operators were given instructions to remove the names from it, tear it up and throw it away, but they forgot, they left them laying there, and there were two or three of them laying on the different tables. So, I don't care what letters they wrote to Joanne Yeo, when I called Joanne Yeo there was a definite problem there, and it was witnessed by numerous people... I I Risner: F. Levy: I Mayor: F. Levy: Mayor: I wilson: F. Levy: R. Smiley: I 2-5-85 And did they take care of the problem? No. No. No. The pOlice woman came and when she called the City Hall here to speak to Joanne Yeo, Joanne had gone home, so therefore, it was not taken care of and it continued throughout the rest of the day. We were there for three hours, not a half an hour, not ten minutes, not one hour, three hours in two different clubhouses, so stop telling me, because I don't want to sit here and listen to all your gab over and over again.... Please, I would like to say... Mr. Brownell, you are a party to all of this, you mislead your people, I am sorry, no please any more. I object to the continuing discussion in that light on a matter that has been thoroughly discussed with the attorney and he has given the answer to it. Now if there is anything further other than the rehashing of that issue over again I would be happy to hear anybody that would like to make a statement, we would like to hear what you have to say, but if you just want to belabor that one issue we will be here all night and I am not going to sit here all night, we stayed until one o'clock in the morning twice because of the fact people wanted to talk long and loud and you did, but I am not going to do it tonight, so if there is any other issue other than that that you would like to bring up we would be glad to hear it. May I make one remark. Fran, I don't think that the people in Leisure World needed that piece of paper, they had their minds pretty well made up how they were going to vote... As a matter of fact they didn't. I have spoken with numerous people and they told me they were going to vote no but that the City Council said to vote yes...numerous people...enjoy yourselves... My name is Robert Smiley and I live in Leisure World and I love it, I'm at 13360 A1derwood Lane, I've been there for three years, and I wish I had been there ten years, I just love Leisure World and I like the people there and I like the Bixby project, and I have never heard so many misstatements as I have heard here tonight, I don't know. They say, if you want to divide, they're divided, it seems like they are the people dividing, it seems there's a lot of bad losers here it would appear to me, seems like they are sore, and I think we should go ahead with the Bixby project, and I think these people here, I am really afraid of them, frightened of some of these people 2-5-85 here tonight, I'm scared of Mr. Clift and Mr. Grgas here, they frighten me, and Mr. what's his name, what's his face that gets up here and acts as though he owns the City Hall, Laszlo or whatever his face is, and old lady Roundhouse, whatever her name is. I think they are off base, I think people in Leisure World are smarter than they were, we voted that project in, we need it, I think we need the taxes, I think we need the employment for people here, and I'm for the project and I'm still for it and I think we ought to go ahead with it. I City Attorney: At this point Mr. Mayor we are not discussing the merits of the project, we are discussing the election itself and the certification of the election, so discussion should be limited to the certification of the vote and the adoption of the Resolution before the City Council. Mayor: If anyone has anything further to speak on the subject we are discussing, whether or not to adopt this Resolution or not, they may speak, but if it is on other issues, I will declare the discussion closed on other issues. G. Telford: Mayor: G. Telford: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council, remarks that I feel I have to reply to, I don't feel that I'm a stupid person, I'm from Leisure World, I have a PhD in political science, I taught political parties in colleges, I taught constitutional law for many, many years, I think I know some of the issues involved here. An issue involved here is the purity of the election process, and what the Code says that there be no election materials in the election booth, now....to apply that, and there's no question about it. Now, what you people have done, you have asked these people in Leisure World to bring in these election materials into a polling place, right, now hear, alright, you are going to have to have the Sergeant at Arms take me out, I have a right to speak to this issue... I We are here discussing an issue of whether or not the City Council should certify this election or whether the count was wrong. Now, we are certifying the count of the election. Now, if you have anything further on that I would love to hear it, we have heard you before, you spoke on the other issue... I The fact is that people behind me and in front of me and everyone were handing these papers. A woman behind me talked to me and said well I came here and I was going to vote no but now they say that I should vote yes, and shouldn't I vote yes, now here, you are the elected officials of the community, this is a democratic process, 2-5-85 I and democracy is on trial here tonight. Now, if you want to defeat the will of the people by these subterfuges, this is not the first one to happen in Leisure World, I've been there for eleven years, its been one subterfuge after another but I won't talk about them because they're not relative to this question, but you used sUbterfuge to win this election and used a lot of money by the Bixby Corporation. We can't compete against that kind of money, its disruption of the democratic process in this community, and that's the issue that's before this Council, and you know it, and you know it, and you know it. Wilson: Mr. Mayor, I move that we certify the vote of the Special Municipal Election of January 29th and adopt Resolution Number 3450. Risner: Second. Mayor: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the Resolution Number 3450 certifying to the election. AYES: NOES: Brownell, Risner, Wilson Clift, Grgas Motion carried City Clerk: The vote is 3 to 2, Mr. Clift and Mr. Grgas, no. I Risner: I would also like to ask that the investigation that the City Clerk has done be made public, is that possible? City Attorney: Well, the reports that were received from the precinct officers are public documents and they are on file with the City Clerk, therefore, they are available for inspection by anyone who is interested in reviewing those documents. Risner: I would like a copy of those documents and each member of the Council should have them. City Attorney: There is no problem with that at all, that is fine. F. Laszlo: Could I speak for one second, I would like to compliment Joanne Yeo, I know it was a difficult job, and I think she did an excellent job on this election and these other matters that were inside Leisure World were beyond her control and I know it was difficult. But I also want to ask if maybe one of the Councilmen could make a motion and asking the courts to look into this issue because our citizen group only had contributions of about somewhere near a thousand dollars while the other group had contributions probably close approaching a hundred thousand dollars. I Grgas: I make a motion not only to include that the courts evaluate the validity of this 2-5-85 Risner: Clift: F. Laszlo: Mayor: Wilson: Clift: election and the alleged inproprieties that took place, but I want to go one step further and ask that the City pursue legal action with regards to determining whether or not Leisure World has a right to prohibit from entering the facility for purposes of electioneering and campaigning from door-to-door on a constitutional basis. I I will vote against both issues, and I do appeal that this City Council in any way can ask a court to review the election that the City held. If the opponents of this project, this opposition, wish to take it to court that is their perogative, but the City is in no way in a position to go to court to defend the election and also to say we oppose the election, that's ridiculous, and I think they have every right to go to court and we'll just have to do it without the City's assistance. Victor, I am very much in sympathy with what you've put in of course, however, I believe that your letter to the District Attorney, the Grand Jury, the Fair political Practices Commission, should bring the results and should those results be positive of the side that you and I represent, then I feel that we will have no difficulty whatsoever raising the funds necessary to proceed. But we only have thirty days to do this in court and I think something like that takes a little bit longer for the Grand Jury and the District Attorney to investigate. I Was that motion seconded. No one seconded it. Victor, I am going to let this die on the vine, some of my friends here present may disagree with me on this, but I believe the point about the City fighting itself is well taken, and I would like to ask the City Attorney if that is correct. City Attorney: That is correct. The way the Elections Code is worded it states that any elector may bring an election contest, which means any elector, or voter in the City, may bring contest, it doesn't provide for the City to bring a contest against its own election, which would seem to be a contradiction in terms there, for the City to do that. I don't believe that the City Council itself I could authorize, to bring on its own, an election contest, it would have to be brought by a voter in the City. Then I would ask that a legal opinion be rendered by the City Attorney as to the question as to equal access and constitutional protections for electioneering in Leisure World. Grgas: 2-5-85 Clift: I would second that. Mayor: I would vote against that. I think we spent a lot of money on this election so far, we spent over twenty thousand dollars to have the election and a lot of people have spent a lot of time and money, and we have had a lot of questions asked of our attorney to research for us, I think that the additional expense that we are talking about now I am not in favor of it. I Clift: You ~re not in favor of having a legal opinion as to... Risner: I am not in favor of it either, we've spent enough money... Grgas: Then you are running away from the truth, and you can quote me on that one... F. Laszlo: Could you repeat the motion please, I could not hear it. Grgas: The motion was that the City Attorney be authorized to produce a legal opinion as to the question of equal protection on the constitutional question as to the ability to electioneer in Leisure World door-to- door. I Clift: And I seconded that motion. Mayor: If no further discussion we'll call for a vote. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas Brownell, Risner, Wilson Motion failed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. ADJOURNMENT Risner moved, at 8:33 p.m. second by Wilson, to adjourn the meeting AYES: NOES: Brownell, Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried erk of the 'I APproved:-Ll~~-t./d..- Mayor .....~~ ,. .. <-- Attest: