Fight over Newport Beach ballot arguments escalates to lawsuit

A coalition of former Newport Beach City Council members has filed a lawsuit to try to force the city to use their argument against a local ballot proposition in place of one they contend isn’t an opposing argument at all.

Former Mayors Keith Curry, Rush Hill and Mike Henn and former Mayor Pro Tem Jean Watt wrote a statement against an as-yet-unnamed measure slated for the November ballot that will ask voters to approve an amendment to Newport’s city charter to require 55% voter approval whenever the City Council wants to spend at least $50 million on capital projects using a financing method known as certificates of participation, or COP. They submitted their statement for publication in an informational pamphlet that the city and the Orange County registrar of voters office will distribute in print and electronic formats in advance of the election.

But local activist Bob Rush also handed in an opposing argument, and because he had written it on behalf of Newporters for Ethical Government, his city-registered “association of citizens,” or political action committee, City Clerk Leilani Brown pegged his for the pamphlet. Brown said she was following state election code, which gives citizen associations priority over individual voters such as the former council members.

The rival quartet’s lawsuit, filed July 19 in Orange County Superior Court against Brown, Rush and Rush’s PAC, follows up on a written protest the group sent the city last week.

The group’s attorney, frequent council critic Phil Greer, claimed Rush’s argument contains factual inaccuracies and that flawed organizational paperwork for Newporters for Ethical Government means it isn’t a “bona fide association of citizens.” He also said Rush isn’t a true opponent of the ballot measure because he had made some approving statements about it and has supported Councilman Scott Peotter, who wrote an argument favoring the proposition with Councilman Kevin Muldoon and Mayor Marshall “Duffy” Duffield.

Rush’s argument “was not created or supported by a recognized, authentic or genuine group of citizens but is the creation of an individual whose sole purpose is to mislead the public by filing an incomplete, inaccurate and misleading statement by an unqualified organization in an attempt to eliminate a true discussion of the issues involved from being presented to the voting public,” Greer wrote in the lawsuit. “As such, the entire argument should be stricken.”

Newport Beach City Attorney Aaron Harp declined to comment Wednesday. Greer did not respond to messages seeking further comment.

Rush said Wednesday that he had followed proper procedures for submitting an argument and that the rival opposition’s issue is more with the city clerk’s decision and less about him.

“We’ll see how it washes,” he said.

Rush, who has feuded with members of the group in the past, added that he didn’t mean to include Watt when he said last week that the group “can kiss my ass.”

In his argument, Rush stated the proposed charter amendment “is a good first step” but doesn’t go far enough.

“We should reject it and send it back for a higher two-thirds voter approval threshold and lower $25-million debt ceiling,” he wrote.

The argument by the former council leaders urges voters: “Don’t be fooled; this measure may sound good, but consider that no other city in California has adopted this restriction. That should tell you that it is not a good idea. … Do you really want to vote on a new police headquarters building or vehicle replacements? Do you want to have to raise campaign funds to get a new park near your home?”

In a certificates of participation arrangement, the city creates a revenue stream by essentially leasing its own facilities to itself — technically, as a different public facilities corporation — with the facilities offered as collateral to bondholders. When the debt is repaid, the facilities become the agency’s — unencumbered by a lease.

Certificates of participation do not require voter approval like general obligation bonds, which lead to increased local property taxes.

The lawsuit is set for a hearing Aug. 3 in Orange County Superior Court in Santa Ana.

[email protected]

Twitter: @Daily_PilotHD