Anaheim Council Votes 3 to 1 for Firing : Planner Ousted Just Before Her Term Ends

The veteran Anaheim planning commissioner who lost her bid for a City Council seat in a bitter election earlier this month was removed from her post by a divided City Council Tuesday--two weeks before her term was to expire.

Charlene La Claire’s “abilities to perform (as a planning commissioner) were substantially impaired” by her acceptance of several large campaign contributions from developers who could have projects come before the Planning Commission for votes, charged Councilman Fred Hunter, who was a major critic of La Claire during the campaign. Businessman William D. Ehrle won the June 2 special election and was seated on the council last week.

But the move was opposed by Councilman Irv Pickler, one of La Claire’s campaign supporters.

“Because of a campaign, things were said and things were done,” Pickler declared, urging the council to wait until La Claire’s term naturally expires June 30. “I still think this is a little premature. . . . Someone who has served 12 years deserves a little consideration.”

The vote to remove La Claire reflected the deep split on the council that preceded the election. Hunter and Mayor Ben Bay--who both backed Ehrle in the campaign--joined with the new councilman to oust La Claire. Pickler voted against the ouster and Mayor Pro Tem Miriam Kaywood--who with Pickler campaigned for La Claire--abstained.

Hunter had called for La Claire’s ouster last week, the first council meeting after the election. But he was thwarted by a provision of the state’s open meeting law, which requires councils to place non-emergency matters on public agendas before a vote can be taken.

Hunter on Tuesday repeated his charges that La Claire had improperly received campaign contributions of more than $250 from developers, that she had “politicized” the Planning Commission by printing its endorsement of her on campaign brochures and that her credibility had been undermined by running “one of the worst, gutter-smear campaigns in this city’s history.”

La Claire was not present at Tuesday’s meeting and reportedly was on a camping trip. Last week, she denied Hunter’s charges, saying that she had been careful to accept contributions only from people who did not have business before the Planning Commission. She also said all of her campaign brochures were truthful and that planning commissioners, in past elections, had endorsed council candidates.

City Atty. Jack L. White told the council Tuesday that under the state government code, members of council-appointed commissions cannot vote or try to influence a vote involving a contributor if they have received $250 or more within the preceding 12 months. Further, a commissioner may not accept more than $250 if a matter involving the contributor is pending or if fewer than three months have passed since a decision was made.

White did not review La Claire’s record to determine whether she had violated the law.

But Hunter charged that because La Claire accepted contributions “from almost every major developer in Orange County . . . her abilities have been substantially impaired.”

He also criticized her campaign consultants’ tactics, apparently referring to two controversial La Claire mailers. One contended that Ehrle suffered from a “permanent psychiatric disability,” based on a worker’s compensation stress claim he won a few years ago, and the other claimed that Ehrle was connected to “big-time bingo” interests.

Ehrle--who beat La Claire by 8,556 votes to 4,889--remained silent during the council debate but afterwards said he decided to oust his former opponent “basically because I do not feel she possesses the integrity” to sit on the commission. He cast his vote “not for myself” but on behalf of the people who voted for him and against La Claire, he added.

“I think that it is a message for the future, that candidates are not to politicize a commission in the city of Anaheim,” Ehrle said.

But Pickler, during the meeting, said that by removing a veteran commissioner after an election, “we’re politicizing it.”

Kaywood said later that she was “disappointed with the vindictive method of punishing your enemies” exhibited by the council majority. During the meeting, she pointed out that the Planning Commission has only one more meeting before the terms of La Claire and one other member expire. She suggested that the council should postpone action, let La Claire’s term expire “and let it be done properly.”

“It is being done properly,” the mayor retorted. All commissioners, Bay said, “serve at the pleasure of the council,” which has “no necessity” to explain its reasons for removing a member.