Recalls: Retribution or Democracy?

* In your Aug. 5 article (“Pros Enlisted to Aid Allen Recall”) the [Assembly Speaker] Doris Allen recall advocates enumerate five reasons for backing the recall. Only one of those, that she has hurt the Republican legislative agenda, is related to how well she might be serving the constituents in our district. The other four items are strictly internal party issues. With respect to the agenda, it appears to me that she has supported the items that the majority of voters in her district would want to see enacted by the Legislature. The one exception here might be her concerns about the OCTA funds diversion, but that was not an issue when the recall was launched. Given that four out of five are unrelated to representation, and the fifth is weak at best, the voters of a bankrupt county should not be asked to pay for this internecine warfare.

There are other events that support my premise that this recall is strictly for retribution. One sees posters that say, “Stop Brown, Recall Allen.” By all accounts, [former Assembly Speaker Willie] Brown has already been stopped. Several Sacramento pols, including prominent Republicans, have stated that one of the reasons the budget was late is that Willie Brown no longer has the clout with the Democrats that he once had. Doesn’t that mean he’s already been stopped? If so, why continue the recall? The only apparent reason is for retribution.

The Republicans also made a strong statement that they wanted Jim Brulte to be the Speaker. Now Brulte says that he’s pulling back on his Assembly duties to prepare for a Senate campaign next year. All of this so Brulte could have a two-month term as Speaker?

Do we voters in Allen’s district have no say in our representation? The recall of [former Assemblyman Paul] Horcher did not gain momentum until outsiders were brought in to do the door-to-door canvassing. Now the same is happening with Allen. This suggests that there is neither enough interest nor support from within the district to effect a recall.

BRUCE CRAWFORD

Fountain Valley

* Interestingly, your editorial “Recalls Single-Issue Politics at Its Worst,” July 16, states the Fullerton recall “cost Fullerton residents $300,000 or more, a waste of money.” It’s amazing how magically that total jumps $50,000 every three months! I expect this time next year we will probably read in The Times that the infamous Fullerton recall cost well over a million!

Assuming you did not have time to properly research your editorial, I am supplying you with copies of the invoices from the office of the registrar of voters. The final tally which the city of Fullerton paid for the recall is $140,426.69.

The registrar of voters informed me that had City Clerk Anne York (who was also targeted for recall) requested a random signature verification rather than insisting on verification of all signatures, it would have saved the city an additional $47,770.37, lowering the total to $92,656.32.

So for the public record, and to put to final rest further inaccurate reporting, let it be known to the staff and readers of The Times, the actual cost for the Fullerton recall was $140,426.69. Where else can a “onetime” investment of $140,426.69 be made and reap a continuous monthly return of a quarter-million dollars? And you said the recall was a “waste of money.”

MARILYN DAVENPORT

Fullerton

* Official documents from the Orange County registrar of voters and records of the city of Fullerton clearly identify the actual cost of the Fullerton recalls at approximately one-half the $300,000 or more figure you quoted. That cost is also seriously inflated by the city’s waste of tax money by its insistence on a full verification of voters’ signatures rather than a random sample verification that is often employed.

Additionally, the cost reduction, by the repeal of the utility tax, far exceeded the cost of the recall election! In the interest of good, unbiased reporting, a published correction appears to be warranted.

It is truly time to have long since put the Fullerton recalls to rest. Yes, it was divisive, and yet it was the will of the people. Isn’t that what democracy is all about?

MARV GONSIOR

Fullerton