The City Council's Self-Serving Term Extensions

The incumbent Mission Viejo City Council members voted unanimously to extend one another's terms of office—not once, but twice. They were caught by a Court each time, with taxpayers on the hook for untold legal fees.

In the 2018 City Council elections, Ed Sachs, Wendy Bucknum, and Greg Raths were each re-elected and sworn into a two-year term of office, expiring in 2020. But, as the 2020 elections neared, they decided to extend their own terms for two more years by deciding not to place their expiring seats on the ballot. This was unanimously approved by Sachs, Bucknum, Raths and their incumbent colleagues Trish Kelley and Brian Goodell via Resolution 20-25. The City quietly updated the website profiles for Sachs, Bucknum, and Raths, changing their term expiration dates from 2020 to 2022. (See the Guardian's Voting Issues Timeline for more details.)

Thus, in the 2020 City Council election, only the seats held by Trish Kelley and Brian Goodell were on the ballot for re-election, also for two-year terms of office. In the 2020 City Council election, Kelley and Goodell were re-elected and sworn into two-year terms of office, expiring in 2022, as reflected in Resolution 20-54.

People v. Sachs, Bucknum & Raths: Members of the public took notice, and began raising questions about why Sachs, Bucknum, and Raths remained in office past their two-year elected terms. They (and the City Attorney) told the public and the press that the Court had approved their term extensions. Amid continuing outcry, the California Attorney General's Office authorized a lawsuit against Sachs, Bucknum, and Raths for illegally extending their terms—with the City paying for the personal defense of each council member. The Court rejected their assertion that it approved of their term extensions, and found each guilty of usurping the office. (See the Guardian's Coverage on the Court Decision and the City's Delay Tactics.)

Kelley & Goodell Ordered to Stand for Reelection: Even while the Attorney General's Office was investigating Sachs, Bucknum, and Raths, the incumbent council members also tried to extend the terms of Kelley and Goodell. As the 2022 elections approached, along with the deadline for the City to implement district-based voting, the council unanimously voted to extend Kelley's and Goodell's terms by deciding not to place their expiring seats on the ballot this year, as reflected in Ordinance 22-343. This term extension was challenged in a second lawsuit, in which the Court declared that effort illegal, and ordered Kelley and Goodell to stand for reelection this year. (See the Guardian's prior coverage for more details.)

In the meantime, Trish Kelley also quietly moved to a different neighborhood before the City adopted its districting map. Likely no coincidence, the incumbent council members unanimously adopted a map that put Kelley in her own district so that she would not have to run against any of her colleagues. (See the Guardian's prior coverage on this issue.)

Taxpayers On the Hook: Of course, taxpayers were on the hook for the City's defense costs, which are paid by the hour to the City Attorney, who actually works at an outside law firm. The City also decided to pay the City Attorney to represent council members in their individual capacity, which also raises serious conflict of interest concerns. The City was also ordered to pay the legal fees incurred by the Plaintiffs in holding the City accountable—although the details on the amounts owed remain to be seen.