We Deserve Better Than Lies

At the last meeting of the Mission Viejo City Council, . Since Reardon has often voted the same way as Schlicht, that particular condemnation is particularly damning. It’s about time this honesty issue surfaced in a way that will be hard for the average Mission Viejo voter to ignore.

For the last three years I have sat in the council chambers and watched Schlicht lie to the public time and time again about issues as varied as the city’s budget, low income housing, and the proposed dog park. After she sued the city for $40,000 while seated on the council, she sat on the dais and lied about winning the lawsuit, repeatedly, and even engaged the city’s attorney in what can only be labeled a bizarre conversation about the law.

At the council meeting the other night, after being accused of lying, Schlicht retreated, as she often does, to insulting the residents as being unable to understand the issues before the council. If you have attended just one council meeting, any meeting, you will have seen multiple examples of Schlicht not understanding the issue before her. And if there was a break in the meeting chances are high that you would have seen Schlicht in the back of the Council Chamber in conversation with Larry Gilbert. And from Gilbert’s animated behavior he is angry and telling Schlicht what to do next. And whatever that is, it includes lying.

Take a look at her ballot statement: “On 6/6/11 received unanimous support from council, along with Nadadore(sic) Coach Rose and Mission Viejo Olympian Chloe Sutton, to repair the Nadadore Swim Complex(sic) decking.” Okay besides not knowing about how to use the possessive correctly, Council Candidate Schlicht clearly implies in that statement that both the Nadadore’s Couch and Chole Sutton endorse her. That is a lie.

Lying through implication is something her campaign manager Larry Gilbert excels at, having learned that trick from the Orange Juice Blog’s Art Pedroza. Schlicht’s campaign “newsletter,” available only at The Mission Viejo Dispatch blog, always features unexplained and, at best, tangental photographs. In this month’s “newsletter” there’s a photo with John Campbell, another with Diana Hughes of the Nadadores’ foundation, and another with Council Member Leckness. The reader is clearly meant to think that these people endorse Schlicht. None of them endorse her. These photos’ entire purpose is to mislead; Schlicht’s newsletter is posted on a blog that exists solely to mislead the public. The blog’s owner has even gone so far as to advertise businesses and service clubs for free just to appear as if his blog is legitimate and has lots of community support. It doesn’t.

The truth about Schlicht’s endorsements is that she’s having trouble finding creditable people. Gail Reavis, who filed a $10 million lawsuit against the city while she was on the city council has endorsed Cathy. Connie Lee who was recently endorses Cathy. Schlicht’s campaign manager, Larry Gilbert, has reportedly been calling people who have endorsed other candidates and threatening them with absurd legal action. Gilbert knows all too well that most people will back down rather than fight. It’s the classic case of if you can’t win legitimately, then you bully, cheat, and lie your way to victory.

In her ballot statement Schlicht claims her big accomplishment was to get the rest of the council to adopt her approach to lifetime medical. Here’s the deal: Council Members Kelley and Ury were behind the repeal of lifetime medical; the issue had already been resolved when Schlicht put it back on the agenda. She also says she "voted for pension reform," attempting to take credit for that. In fact, the group that backs Schlicht was responsible for a raise to city staff that wasn’t sustainable, and it was, once again, Ury's and Kelley's leadership that straightened out that mess.

After four long years on the city council, the actual accomplishment by Cathy Schlicht boils down to . This law is Constitutionally questionable and completely unenforceable. It’s a “feel good” law that makes it appear as if she wants to protect your children. Her actual record shows the complete opposite. Schlicht wants to reduce the number of school resource officers, she wants to reduce the Kids Factory, she doesn’t think parents should be held responsible for serving alcohol to minors, and during the 2010 March Against Drugs, she stood on the corner of La Paz and Marguerite with a “No Incumbents” sign. Rather than working to mentor kids about the dangers of drug use, she was being political.

When it comes to Cathy Schlicht, we should just say no.