TUSTIN : Despite Ruling, Election Planned

Officials are pushing ahead with plans to hold city elections April 10, even though Councilmen John Kelly and Earl J. Prescott won a round in their legal fight to halt the balloting next month.

City Clerk Mary E. Wynn sued the City Council last month after its four members deadlocked on a resolution necessary to plan for the election. Mayor Richard B. Edgar and Councilwoman Ursula E. Kennedy voted for the resolution. Wynn was seeking to force Kelly and Prescott to approve the resolution, which provides for the location of polling places, the hiring of precinct workers and ballot counting.

But Superior Court Judge Eileen C. Moore denied Wynn’s lawsuit on Friday. Nonetheless, key city officials, including Edgar, Kennedy, City Atty. James G. Rourke and City Manager William Huston, met late Friday and decided to proceed with the election. The deadline for setting election guidelines is Tuesday.

Rourke said the state Election Code gives the city clerk the authority to set the election.

Prescott and Kelly sharply criticized the action.

“It’s funny how they met in secret in City Hall and came out speaking on behalf of Mary Wynn, an elected official, who was not there,” Prescott said. “That’s preposterous. They cannot hold an election after the court ruled the way it did today.”

Kelly, reached at a Tustin restaurant where he was having dinner, said: “Then why did we just go through the expense of that legal exercise?”

Prescott’s attorney, Anthony Duffy, said the city’s action is inconsistent with its argument that the council must approve the election resolution.

“They’ve filed a position in court seeking authority. They said they needed the writ issued to have the polling places and other details established,” he said.

Rourke said Moore’s ruling will be appealed.

“We want to get it adjudicated,” he said. “We believe that the trial judge made an error, and we want that to be corrected by a court of appeal. I think it’s clear that John and Earl failed to perform their duties.”

The ruling Friday marked Prescott and Kelly’s first significant victory on the election issue. Since the council majority moved the election from November to April, the two councilmen have unsuccessfully challenged the decision through a referendum drive and a lawsuit against former Councilman Ronald B. Hoesterey. He resigned shortly after voting with Edgar and Kennedy to move up the elections to April.

Kelly and Prescott alleged the decision to move the election was not valid because Hoesterey was living outside of the city when he voted for the ordinance.

Edgar and Kennedy maintain that Hoesterey was a legal resident and the election date change is valid.

In a related legal development, Prescott filed a complaint in Superior Court on Thursday asking that the ordinance be ruled invalid because he claims only two legitimate council members attended the Nov 20 meeting. Prescott and Kelly boycotted that meeting on the advice of their attorneys.