As I understand your response, you initially voted to re-instate lifetime medical benefits for council members in November 2008 because Gail Reavis was making a stink about the Council not being able to take benefits away from current council members. I have seen the correspondence, and I would agree that Reavis was pestering staff and the City Attorney for answers. The City Attorney in November 2008 stated arguments both for and against re-instating the benefits. On the pro side, it stated that the benefits program allowed it to be changed, and Attorney General decisions supported that. On the con side, it said that no court case had yet addressed the decision, so it was unclear how a court would come down on the issue. The City Attorney then did what nearly every City Attorney does – it recommended the most conservative approach, which was to re-instate the benefits. While I disagree with your vote, I am always happy to hear your reasoning. However, in 2010, Reavis was no longer on the Council and no longer eligible for lifetime medical benefits, yet you still twice voted against rescinding the lifetime medical benefits. You appear to state that this was “sideshow theater” and rely on the affidavit you submitted. That’s fine. I also am happy to hear if you have any other justification for voting against rescinding lifetime medical benefits for council members. Trish Kelley also signed the affidavit claiming no right to benefits, but she also voted the second time to rescind the benefits. If you just wanted to vote against Cathy Schlicht’s motion, that’s your right as well. As I stated in my post, I cannot agree with any vote that would allow lifetime benefits to part-time council members.

Regardless, this is what I like so much about this blog. There was far too little time at the Endorsement Committee to flesh out all of these issues. My point was that I felt you were misleading the Committee on your votes and I wanted them all out there. I still don’t know why you wouldn’t vote to rescind lifetime medical benefits, even if you believed it was purely theater, but I welcome your response.

All the other votes put forth since have been sideshow theater, which you have obviously bought in to. You will note in my comments at those meetings that I do not support “symbol over substance” in my voting. If if makes you feel better, have Schlicht put it on every agenda, it will still carry less weight than me declining it myself.

And the reason for rescinding the previous vote was the squealing that Gail Reavis was doing via email that the council could not take away the benefit from other council members. Send me your email address, I will forward her emails on to you. After months of sparring, the city attorney told us it would be better to revoke the prior vote and decline individually, which we have all done.

No current or future city council member will ever receive lifetime medical.

And since you are an attorney, please confirm for all that my turning down of the benefit is valid and legal and that I will never receive this benefit. This is pretty simple, a direct answer is easy. If you are unsure, I can have the city attorney assist you.

Frank Ury
Mayor, Mission Viejo