Good work Frank. How the heck did this ever get passed in the light of day? Do any other cities have this?

I will be watching how Reavis votes on this one. This is an election year issue for sure!

Adam.
During the 2006 city council election Councilman Frank Ury raised this issue yet waited until now, just before he files for re-election, to put it on an Agenda. Therefore his concerns for Mission Viejo taxpayer dollars appears to have been dormant until he prepares to throw his hat in the ring. Nice re-election campaign issue.

As of now former council members Bill Craycraft, Susan Withrow and current member John Paul Ledesma are the only members of the Mission Viejo city council to participate in this benefit. As this was approved by a prior city council, the only currently sitting member to cast a vote on this issue is John Paul Ledesma. Perhaps Frank Ury can explain the delay which I recall dates back to our effort to elect a non incumbent in the 2006 race. He was very vocal on this health care benefit from the summer of 2006 through Nov 2006. Do the math. Even after that election how many city council meetings were held between Nov 2006 and May 19th 2008?

Bottom line. I do agree that this health care benefit for members serving part time should never have been approved by that former council, most of whom we removed from office at the ballot box.

Adam. I was one of several activists/supporters in 2006 that frequently heard this concern directly from Frank Ury. Larry. It's called politics. Timing is everything.

Adam.
I just received a call from Bill Barker, Mission Viejo candidate from the 2006 city council race. Bill tells me that he suggested this idea during his 2006 campaign, mentioned it in one of the candidate forums, and believes he even had a Letter to the Editor published in the OC Register/Saddleback Valley News where he objected to the potential high cost of this health care benefit. Bill said he also had this concern included in his web site data that he promised to find and give to me for my files.

Great idea Frank! Sadly while you assisted Bill Barker in the race you were not the first to talk it up.
Adam. I go back to my prior comment. Why did he wait until 2008 to place this on the Agenda? Was he afraid that he lacked the votes to approve this valid modification? If so, what has changed since our last election? Just a few questions for your readers.

Yes! I would like J.P. Ledesma to immediately stand up in support of ending this outrageous giveaway! (He's been in there ten years!) What say you, J.P.?

Benefits for life?! Swine!

Didn't JP vote for it back when it was put in place? And he certainly will vote for Ury's proposal because it exempts him. Lets see if JP has the guts to propose an amendment to Ury's plan and remove the benefit for "past", present and future.

As far as Frank Ury, I have to agree with Larry. It appears he is pandering for votes for the November election. Too bad for Frank that the the MV citizenry have already seen through his smoking mirrors.

Larry-
Your arguement that Frank 1) didn't think of it first and 2) waited two years to bring it up aren't realivant to this discussion. And don't forget, he was slapped with a 10 million dollar lawsuit when he first took office by your gal-pal Gail Reavis for actions that took place before he was even sworn in to office. Perhaps he was so shocked by that behavior, he was gun shy. Your point?

Now, John Paul has indicated publically that he didn't mean to vote for it so I hope we can count on him to do right by his error. I hope Gail provides Frank with the needed third vote. If not, I am sure someone will remind voters about her pattern of self-serving behavior in November.

MV Voter.

If you cannot see that Frank Ury is "pandering" than you are not up to speed on "strategy and tactics" of elected officials. I never supported this decision and have told JP that he was wrong in joining the majority who voted for it. While some are quick to attack Gayle, who had no role in this policy that was approved before she took office, let's wait until the meeting on Monday to see and hear her comments. To interject her legal battle with the city is a lame attempt to misdirect the debate. This was NOT an original idea from Frank Ury and, more disappointing is that he knew of this suggestion for two years yet never Agendized it.

MV Voter. Perhaps you can ask him why not and why now? Is that too tough for you to handle?

Larry-
I could care less who, what, when gave birth to the idea to reject it. The fact of the matter is Frank is the one to move it forward. Not JP, nor Gail, nor Lance nor Trish.

Why not the same outrage over JP? Not only did he admit he didn't realize all the bad unintended consequences, but he was running for the 71st AD during the time the council was mute. If pandering is the #1 reason to reject the payoff, then certainly JP would have taken it up last year.

Your axe grinding at Frank, is obviously a personality conflict between you and him. But to attack him for doing the right thing but begrudge his timing is about as transparent as Saran Wrap.

While I agree that this current health care policy for part time council members was very misguided, to tone down my thoughts, and whereas Frank is bringing it forward now, while the right thing to do, I still must open your eyes as to his timing. Once elected did he have to sit on the sidelines for two years and see if he can count to three before suggesting a policy idea? There is nothing to be ashamed of if you present ideas for consideration and not get a second from your peers. A few years ago Mission Viejo hired a facilitator from Lake Mary, Florida who told them at an off-site workshop that I attended that if you are always voting 5-0 you are not representing all of your constituents. Perhaps you can ask Frank why he waited for two years which is the crux of my comments.

Larry-

I don't care how long Frank waited. I don't care if he is doing it to bolster his re-election efforts. All the others waited and instead of using your influence to get Frank two more votes, you are wasting it on muddying him up on timing.

And we are in total agreement that 5-0 councils are worthless.

MV Voter.

While you run off at the mouth this weekend I already lobbied for support of this proposal. In fact I received a call from a very well known conservative Republican after church today and told him the same thing. Furthermore, my prior comments clearly indicate my thoughts on supporting this change in benefits. Unlike some members of our city council, who claimed to be conservatives when we helped them get elected, I am consistent. Your hero voted to support $300,000 for a Rose Bowl Float where our tax dollars for this self serving city council project will float down the toilet. And speaking of toilets he also voted to spend close to $450,000 for an outhouse in Melinda park with one toilet for men and one for women. He was also hitting the YES vote on every CIP Change Order for our $5.5 million dollar expansion of the Murray Center to it's most recent Change Order bringing the "known" costs to over $15 million.

Folks. Perhaps I need the new Republican dictionary definition of "conservative." I know several Democrats who cringe when I share these recent expenditures, all of which occurred on his watch.

In closing. This is one vote that should go 5-0 tomorrow night.

Great idea Frank! Sadly while you assisted Bill Barker in the race you were not the first to talk it up.

Geez, Larry. You have an axe to grind against, Frank. We get it. But enough with the "He wasn't the first to think of it!!" whining.

Jubal is right, Larry - enough already on the insurance thing and who said what, first.

OTOH, Larry's comments certainly illustrate the pitfalls in city government for the would-be conservative. There are always city staffers and community interest groups trying to get city councipersons to pitch public money into their own special ratholes.

Redperegrine.

Thank you for acknowledging that our city council, where each member claims to be "conservative Republicans" in their campaign speeches and literature, for being the big spenders which they become after the election. A sad commentary for sure!

And Matt. I am pointing at ALL five of them whom I assisted in their campaign victories since 1998.