Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Policing Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on protest policing and question fuel-reduction contract awarded on consent calendar
Summary
Public commenters told the Mission Viejo City Council June 24 they believe a motorcycle officer issued a politically motivated parking ticket at a rally and accused the city and sheriff's department of inconsistent protection; another commenter urged the council to rebid a nearly $2 million fuel-reduction contract to ensure competition, which staff said was not possible because other bids were disqualified for missing paperwork or licenses.
At the June 24 meeting of the Mission Viejo City Council, residents used the public-comment period to raise two separate concerns: how police have handled local rallies and procurement practices involving a long-term fuel-reduction contractor.
Carolyn Gatto, who identified herself as a Mission Viejo resident, described an incident in which a sheriff's motorcycle officer issued a parking ticket to a colleague who had briefly stopped to unload American flags for a weekly rally. "I believe the officer could have given the driver a warning rather than issue a ticket," Gatto said, adding she called Captain Jason Ivins (who had previously provided his number) and that the call went to voicemail; she said she left a message that remained unanswered six days later. Gatto said the group has requested police protection at every rally and that an attendee previously reported an on-scene threat.
Separately, Kathy Schlicht criticized the recommendation on the consent calendar to award the city's fuel-reduction project to West Coast Arborist. Schlicht told the council the staff report was "misleading," that only three firms submitted bids of which two were disqualified, and that West Coast Arborist had historically received multiple contract amendments without competitive rebidding. "This process reeks of cronyism and nepotism," Schlicht said, and she urged the council to rebid the work.
Councilmembers and staff responded in the meeting record: procurement staff explained the apparent lack of competition was due to technical deficiencies in the other bids (one bidder failed to attach addendum No. 1; another lacked required contractor licenses, specifically C-27 and C-49), and staff said the third bidder held the necessary licenses and therefore was the only qualified bidder for the project. Councilmember Goodell noted that staff had confirmed only one bidder was technically qualified to do the work.
The consent calendar, which included the recommendation to award the fuel-reduction contract, was moved and passed earlier in the evening without recorded opposition.
No formal council action to rebid the contract or to open an investigation into the policing claim was taken on the record during the meeting; the complaints were entered into the public record during the comment period.
