Curtis’ Foes Fall Short on Recall Petitions

A preliminary check of petitions demanding the recall of City Councilman Robert A. Curtis suggested Monday that his foes are several hundred signatures short, despite spending more than $124,000 to force an election.

City officials said it is too early to predict how many more signatures will be declared valid after the petitions are reviewed more closely, but they agreed that the “first pass” turned up just 7,293 signatures, 477 short of the 7,770 needed to force a vote on recalling Curtis.

Those numbers, officials said, are tentative and were being rechecked late Monday.

Still, they are far short of those predicted by recall supporters, who turned in 12,001 signatures Sept. 28 and have confidently predicted ever since that more than 8,000 would be determined valid.

On Monday, however, City Clerk Ivy J. Zobel said county officials had tossed out hundreds of signatures because of mistakes made in the affidavits by some people circulating petitions. The exact number invalidated by affidavit mistakes is not known, Zobel said, but enough were discarded to leave the recall in doubt until county officials can scrutinize the petitions a second time.

Typically, a second run will produce significantly more valid signatures--including, for instance, registered voters who signed a petition using a nickname rather than full name--but Monday’s count left a large gap.

“We’d expect that more would be determined valid on the next run, but I don’t know how many,” Zobel said. “We’ll have to wait and see what the whole picture looks like.”

At least for the time being, those numbers cast a shadow over the efforts of the well-financed recall coalition, giving the first hint that its popular support may be thinner than previously thought.

Recall leaders were initially stunned by the low number of valid signatures. “Those numbers are very surprising to me,” said Helen Monroe, chairwoman of the recall campaign. “This is the first I’ve heard of there being any problem.”

After checking the numbers, Monroe said she is less concerned, believing that enough valid signatures will emerge from the second round to force a vote on Curtis.

While recall leaders reeled from the early numbers, Curtis rejoiced, calling the returns a vindication of his popularity and an indictment of his opponents’ efforts.

“This totally discredits them,” Curtis said. “They spent a fortune, and they’re still sweating out another recount.”

The recall coalition has raised $156,422, mostly from the Mission Viejo Co. and developers that do business with that company. Of those contributions, the campaign has spent $124,907 so far, more than $69,000 of it to circulate the petitions.

Intense interest in the recall by local developers--the Mission Viejo Co. alone has contributed $35,717 in money and in-kind support--has turned early jockeying in the struggle into a referendum about developer influence, as much as about Curtis’ performance.

Curtis has cast his struggle as a populist battle to resist the powerful influence of the Mission Viejo Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Philip Morris Cos. Inc. The Mission Viejo Co. remains an active participant in the city’s civic affairs.

“The Mission Viejo Co. is trying to dominate the local affairs of this city,” Curtis said. “If people are content with developer domination of local affairs, then they can vote my defeat.”

The company’s executives have retorted that the councilman has ignored the wishes of his constituents and used the company as a diversion from the issues prompting his recall.

In particular, company officials have condemned Curtis’ support for the unsuccessful effort to annex Aegean Hills, a pie-shaped section of unincorporated county land.

That issue is what first brought Curtis and the company into open combat. Curtis’ effort, which has since been shelved, was called by the company “both fiscally unsound and divisive to the community.”

The company repeated its support for recall Monday. Ever since the Aegean Hills annexation effort, “it has been clear to us that he (Curtis) is not representing the people of Mission Viejo,” said Wendy Wetzel, a spokeswoman for the company.

Monroe defended the outspoken role of company officials. “I think it (the recall bid) is good business for them,” she said. “I think it’s good business to show the people of Mission Viejo that they care.”

Curtis acknowledged that he may still have to fight a recall battle, as more signatures are expected to be validated. But he and other observers agreed that the unexpectedly low numbers got the recall campaign off to a stumbling start, putting proponents on the defensive before the campaign begins in earnest.

“Mission Viejo voters are not easily duped,” he said. “And they’re not going to be easily taken in by special interests.”

If the recall coalition’s signatures are determined to be valid, the City Council would be forced to schedule a date for a special election. Observers indicated that such an election would probably be held early next year, most likely in or around March.