As readers know, there is a "grass roots" effort is underway to recall Mission Viejo Mayor Pro Tem Lance McLean.

The recallers laid out eight offenses in their j'accuse against McLean in their recall pettition, and one of the signers of that petition if McLean's fellow councilmember John Paul Ledesma.

While there's been a good deal of coverage of this recall both in print and online, what's remarkable is no one has pointed out that Ledesma is guilty of half the charges he for which he believes Mclean should be recalled:

1. "Self-dealing when you voted to double your council salary during our current economic crisis."

Ledesma also voted to double the council stipend. By signing the recall petition, he is ipso facto accusing himself of self-dealing. [It bears mentioning the Mission Viejo council stipend hadn't changed since the city's incorporation. like or oppose it, to call this "self-dealing" is absurd.

2. "Greed and corrupt priorities when you voted to give yourself lifetime medical benefits at taxpayer expense after only 12 years of part-time council service."

Ledesma voted to create this benefit more than ten years ago. Mission Viejo Mayor Frank Ury persuaded the council to abolish it in May 2008. The council later re-instated it in order to avoid the very real prospect of legal action from the litigious Gail Reavis. Ledesma voted against re-instating it, although I don't know whether he is backing up that vote by refusing the benefits.

So if voting for those benefits constitutes "greed and corrupt priorities" then Councilman Ledesma has been guilty on that count for more than a decade.

3. "Financial mismanagement when you voted for budget items leading to $11.8 million in deficit spending."

Ledesma voted for that budget, as he has for every budget, and yet he beleives Mclean should be recalled for the same vote.

And it bears noting the accusation of deficit spending is illusory. The $11.8 million in question is for a senior center, and the council has been saving up for it by adding to the reserves over several years. While one can claim the existence of a deficit fromn a strict accounting standpoint, there was none in the real sense that Mission Viejo was short twelve million dollars. The cost was covered from the reserves, which still stand at $27 million.

4. "A tax increase when you authored and promoted Measure K, which was rejected by Mission Viejo voters."

Ledesma voted to put Measure K on the ballot --a strange thing to do if one considered it something meriting a recall.

5. "False promises when you voted to increase housing density leading to more traffic congestion.”

This is an interesting accusation for Ledesma to sign onto. Every city has to meet affordable housing targets set by the state, or risk legal action and sanctions.

A few years ago, the council voted 3-2 (with Ledesma in the majority) to approve an affordable housing project, but since the units for for-sale rather than rentals, the city wound up in litigation withh the state. Councilmen Ury and McLean had favored going the rental route for that very reason, but they were on the wrong end of that 3-2 vote.

In the end, the council wound up having to re-zone three parcels from recreational to R-30 (up to 30 residential units for acre) for a total of 700 more housing units.

In other words, Ledesma's vote led to "increased housing density leading to more traffic."

There are several possible conclusions to draw from this situation:

• He was oblivious to the fact he had committed many of the same acts for which he was demanding his colleagues recall from the council, or...

• Ledesma he knew perfectly well he as equally guilty and signed the recall petition in a demonstration of incredible chutzpah and double-standards, or...

• maybe...just maybe...Councilman Ledesma knew perfectly he had done most of the things the recall is ostensibly based on, but his signing the petition was a "cry for help," a silent plea to be recalled, as well.

As for those behind the recall, this situation makes it even clearer there are no principles at stake; their recall campaign is about personalities and grudges. If the offenses they enumerate really troubled them, they would have served Ledesma as well. The fact that they instead asked John Paul Ledesma to sign the recall and thereby indict himself, speaks volumes about them.

UPDATE (4/3/2009): Recall proponent Larry Gilbert has sent out one of his mass e-mails pimping his response post on the-blog-that-shall-not-be-named. Larry claims Point 4  is untrue. I would direct Larry to the minutes of the June 21, 2004 Mission Viejo council meeting (available online), which shows that not only did Councilman Ledesma vote to put Measure K on the ballot, but he made the motion to do so.