Letter Response to Opinion by Katherine Daigle
Letter submitted by Kevin Trussell, Community Services Commissioner for Councilmember Mike Carroll.
Dear Irvine Watchdog,
The letter you published from Katherine Daigle regarding Mike Carroll’s communication program crossed the line of what could be considered opinion into the realm of complete defamation and fabrication.
Ms. Daigle, who has been little more than an election spoiler since 2012 and has never earned enough votes to be considered a serious candidate, has joined the group of people who use political rhetoric to make it appear that something insidious has occurred by a City Councilmember using the mail, during a global health pandemic. Since City Hall was closed and Town Halls were canceled, these mailers benefited our residents with timely information on testing centers and food distributions. Not content to allow facts to get in their way, they have argued that the communications were the equivalent of campaigning. To the extent that elected officials are elected by the residents they serve, this slippery slope argument would allow almost any conceivable communication to be viewed as a campaign communication.
Fortunately, the law is very clear on this issue and according to the law and the State Agency responsible for investigating allegations of violations of the Fair Practices Act, Mr. Carroll’s communications were 100% appropriate.
This fact does not serve their narrative, so people like Ms. Daigle (and others who have coordinated a public comment onslaught at Council meetings) have increased the harshness of their rhetoric (and decreased the truthfulness) and called for Carroll to step down and warned of potential jail time. Neither of these remedies is remotely available and if the FPPC had found a violation, the remedy would be a fine. The rhetoric is out of touch with reality.
Finally, the Irvine City Council voted to approve a budget adjustment (which Carroll requested months earlier) which formally ratified the movement of funds from the staffing budget (which were never spent) to the communications budget. No new dollars were expended and the issue has been put to rest.
Kevin Trussell
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of Irvine Watchdog or any of its volunteers. If you would like to submit an Opinion article, please review our guidelines and send it to us here.
15 Comments
Branda Lin
December 29, 2020 at 12:48 pmThe legality of the mailers are not at question but the amount of money spent by Councilmember Carroll. Each councilmember was given $10k for mailers. Carroll spent over $70k on mailers with only his name in unusually large font for a city-wide COVID testing program, while campaigning for a city council seat, and his argument was, he stopped paying his Council Executive Assistant in July 2020 so he could use that money instead on mailers, which is in clear violation of the Council Executive Assistant Program Resolution No. 19-57, Section 7 which states “the transfer and/or expenditure of Council Executive Assistant funds for other City programs/projects required City Council approval” — approval he did not receive before spending the money. That is the issue. Mike Carroll misappropriated funds.
And FPPC investigation or not, the fact that Carroll sought a budget adjustment after the fact speaks volumes.
sheacl
December 29, 2020 at 1:11 pmWell Kevin what Mike Carroll did was violate our budgetary approvals to start
He spent 70 k of our budget mail budget to push his election success
All Councilmember, which Mike Carroll approved, in our budget for 2019, was $8000 per year for mail distribution for all 5 members of Council
He had no right to use my mail money
Our mail room hires developmentally disabled staff that wouldn’t understand why Mike Carroll was showing up in the mail room to send 1st class mail out when we use bulk mail rates
I was on Council for 26 years and never stepped a foot in our mail room which we are not to be doing as members of Council
No we don’t use our staff budget to fund mail to promote ourselves before elections
That’s what was going on
I am more frustrated you as a conservative serving this city defends this practice
And Mike Carroll turned on our Republican team with the help of Patrick Strader, lobbyist for Fivepoints, to create a tv ad and mailers promoting himself with Farrah Kahn as a team two weeks before the election
He was endorsed by the Republican Party
I was fine stepping aside as being Mayor, it is very difficult on our finances ….Kevin you are just wrong …for supporting this unethical activity
I wanted to be elected as anyone would, but to use our taxpayers dollars on a political scheme to break down the fair balance of an election, (goes on I know) but my Republican colleagues need to stand for something, like ethics, honesty and it’s just not happening here.
Honesty, fairness and equity must be the hallmark of our actions and thinking as electeds remember we take an oath
I don’t agree with Katherine Daigle often, but she isn’t wrong here.
Mike Carroll needs to pay the taxpayers back the full $70 k and hopefully move forward with a bit of integrity, if it can be found to exist any more
sheacl
December 30, 2020 at 4:28 amBranda
Correction: each Councilmember isn’t awarded $10,000 per member The annual budget allocation is $10 k in total not $50 k
All five members share the $10 k, with each receiving $2000 per year allocation.
DeeDeeFox
December 30, 2020 at 8:56 amChristina Shea cost the Irvine taxpayers over $100,000 because she couldn’t control herself on social media. When will she be paying the City back for the legal expenses and the settlement fee? Her comments above about Carroll “abusing” developmentally disabled staff is defamatory because she knows it is false but keeps repeating it on social media. When she gets sued next time she won’t have the Irvine taxpayers to bail her out. Carroll has four years in office, like it or not, but these stupid claims don’t change that. Shea should Pay!
deefox
January 1, 2021 at 1:24 pmThe reply from DEEDEEFOX was NOT from me. Someone else is using my name. I never use DeeDee as my first name and I would never defend Mike Carroll by saying he didn’t abuse taxpayer funds.
Another Irvine Voter
December 30, 2020 at 1:17 pm“….the realm of complete defamation and fabrication.”
That’s completely not true. She did not make up a single fact and to defame a council member means she knowingly published something false with intent to harm his reputation. She did not. The fact that she runs for office and garners a decent chunk of votes shows she does care about the community. And she was spot on.
I joined a number of friends and neighbors to file a formal complaint with the city council; additionally, I have re-filed a failed FPPC complaint against Carroll featuring more evidence of signs and fliers, plus the city code violations. That was done Monday. Here’s the letter:
Re: November 24th City Council Vote on Agenda Item 3.15 — Demand to Cure or Correct Violation of the City’s Agenda-Setting Policy, FY 2019-2021 Adopted Budget Guideline, and FPPC Conflict of Interest Rules
Dear City Attorney,
Please accept this letter as a formal demand pursuant to Government Code Section 54960.1 to correct the Irvine City Council actions taken at the City Council Special meeting on November 24, 2020.
Agenda Item 3.15 to “approve a budget adjustment to the City Council Budget” was passed 3-2:
YES: Farrah Khan, Mike Carroll, Anthony Kuo
NO: Christina Shea, Melissa Fox
However, there were three procedural violations:
Violation of the City’s agenda-setting policy requiring two councilmembers to approve agenda items.
Violation of the 2019-2021 FY Adopted Budget Guidelines for budget adjustments.
Failure of Councilmember Mike Carroll to recuse himself on an item involving his misappropriation of tax dollars.
Violation #1 – Violation of City’s Agenda-Setting Policy
In 2019, the Irvine City Council approved an agenda-setting policy requiring two councilmembers, or the mayor’s, approval to place items on the city council agenda. However, based on the staff report for agenda item 3.15, this item was placed on the agenda “at the request of Vice Mayor Carroll” alone. Placing item 3.15 on the agenda was in clear violation of our city’s agenda-setting policy.
Violation #2 – Budget Adjustment Proposal Did Not Receive Necessary Approvals Prior to City Council Vote
Per the City’s FY 2019-2021 Adopted Budget Guidelines, page 557, “adjustments to the adopted or adjusted budget must be approved by the City Manager; Department Director; Manager of Budget and Business Planning; and Manager of Fiscal Services, reviewed by the Finance Commission (except when previously reviewed and approved by the Orange County Great Park Board of Directors, or when direction for the budget adjustment originates from a majority vote of the City Council) and approved by a majority vote of the City Council, unless the budget adjustment falls under one of the exceptions below.”
As the budget adjustment originated with the request for City Council Action by Interim City Manager Marianna Marysheva, having not been approved by the Manager of Budget and Business Planning, the Manager of Fiscal Services, nor reviewed by the Finance Commission, the action taken shall not stand.
The Interim City Manager was the only one who approved this budget adjustment request. Notably, this procedural violation remains unacknowledged and unaddressed by the Interim City Manager, who is responsible for ensuring procedural integrity.
Violation #3 – Councilmember Mike Carroll’s Vote Posed a Conflict of Interest
At the November 24th council meeting, multiple public comments preceding the vote stated the need for Mike Carroll to recuse himself due to his obvious conflict of interest in this matter.
Per the California Fair Political Practices Commission Conflict of Interest Rules:
Under the Act, a public official has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a governmental decision if it is foreseeable that the decision will have a financial impact on his or her personal finances or other financial interests. In such cases, there is a risk of biased decision-making that could sacrifice the public’s interest in favor of the official’s private financial interests. To avoid actual bias or the appearance of possible improprieties, the public official is prohibited from participating in the decision.
Mike Carroll did not recuse himself and proceeded to vote on the matter. The budget adjustment was in direct response to Mr. Carroll’s misappropriation of tax dollars, and therefore the decision on agenda item 3.15 had a direct impact on Mr. Carroll’s “personal finances or other financial interests”. Without this budget adjustment, Mr. Carroll would have been personally responsible for paying back over $70,000 of misappropriated tax dollars.
Remedy
Based on the above violations, the City Council’s vote taken on November 24th on agenda item 3.15 must be deemed invalid and a re-vote must take place by the City Council upon meeting the criteria stated in the Adopted Budget Guidelines, and with Councilmember Mike Carroll recused. If the City fails to cure or correct as demanded, such inaction may leave residents no recourse but to seek a judicial invalidation of the challenged action pursuant to Section 54960.1.
At a minimum, Carroll spent 7X the city council budget for mailings while he was a candidate so he can’t be considered a fiiscal conservative. Secondly, he’s not ethical. He should have recused himself from a vote on his own violation. But I suppose Mr. Trussell, you’d be OK with President Trump pardoning himself too.
Rather than attack Daigle, you’re defense of Carroll’s information campaign for the city — made redundant by federal, state and county information campaigns — is laughable. And you’re a community services commissioner? What a joke. Pay better attention to services that actually benefit the community instead of Mike Carroll’s re-election bid.
DeeDeeFox
December 30, 2020 at 4:55 pm“She did not make up a single fact and to defame a council member means she knowingly published something false with intent to harm his reputation.” Nice try.
From above:
“He had no right to use my mail money” Carroll did NOT use HER mail money. She knows this, so it is a reckless disregard for the truth. In fact, he spent the City Manager budget and the money was re-allocated from his Staff account. SO, since the time the Council voted on the allocation, Shea is defaming him by repeating this false statement.
“Our mail room hires developmentally disabled staff.” If you have evidence that Carroll ever spoke to one of these Staffer as part of his communication program, provide it, otherwise, stop alleging that he “abused” developmentally disabled Staff. Shea knows that this didn’t happen, but keeps repeating Newgent’s false statements in order to make the whole situation sound worse.
“I was on Council for 26 years and never stepped in the mail room” Shea never did a lot of things including govern the City well. her statement isn’t evidence of wrongdoing. Maybe she should have stepped into several of the City offices instead of sitting at home on social media costing the taxpayers over $100,000 for her violation of their civil rights.
“We don’t use our mail budget to promote ourselves before an election” Christina, did you use the City Staff to produce Mayor’s corner videos? Did you use City Staff to produce the “Mayor’s Mask Giveaway.” How many taxpayer dollars did you use to promote yourself as the Mayor? Carroll mailed people to communicate about town halls. You can repeat a lie again and again, but it doesn’t change the facts. Please provide the budget line item for the production of Mayor’s Corner videos.
“Mike Carroll turned on the republican team …(more Shea nonsense)…” Show the facts. Show how these people did what you say or stop repeating false statements. The Council race is a non-partisan race. Show how MIke Carroll and Patrick Strader produced a tv ad for Carroll and Khan without violating election laws. If that is true, prove it, if not, stop defaming these people.
“I was fine with stepping aside as Mayor” You didn’t step aside, you were voted out.
“Mike Carroll needs to pay the taxpayers back…” You first. Your actions on social media cost the taxpayers of Irvine over $100,000. Before you “throw stones” you should pay back the City for the money you cost the taxpayers by not being able to control your behavior online. You have no credibility on this topic, the voters wanted Carroll for four more years and you for zero.
Branda Lin
December 31, 2020 at 8:18 amThank you Christina Shea, for your correction. Knowing the entire City Council had $10k to spend on mailers, with each Councilmember allotted $2k, makes Mike Carroll’s spending of $74k on mailers all the more egregious.
sheacl
January 1, 2021 at 12:25 pmDee
You really are all over the board with your comments
At City Council under ecomments you stood against this mail room practice of member Carroll
Now you defend it .. and attack me with misinformation
Yes, we approve a budget for Council mail of $10 k annually
For all members to share equally, and just because a City manager back fills that budget against Council annual budget approvals and then we aren’t informed, doesn’t make it right and yes it takes my allocation and compromises my budget funds.
What’s the point of Council approving annual budgets or for us to show up at all to approve budgets, to have management staff override Council directives… something is very off and it needs fixing
Larry Agran and Tammy Kim appear to be our only hope to ensure Council approved budgets are adhered to or if a change needs to be made, it’s brought back to Council for review, as our present policies direct and require.
On your other point about the frivolous lawsuit filed against me by
Lamar West working with my political oppositions, in this past race, I chose to block him and a few others when I was threatened multiple times by folks during the protests in June on my private Facebook page… they dropped the injunction one week after filing the claim, as we showed it was and would remain a private page
Then they continued the case for damages but as we saw in the settlement, no damages or fault was settled on … clearly he wanted Taxpayers money and political notoriety
We get multiple lawsuits filed against our government agency every year
Two members of our present Council have been blocking folks too as reported to me over the past many month, so tossing stones at me is quite unfair
Mr West was out to take our taxpayer money and make a claim, I harmed his first amendment rights which again was a frivolous claim and had no merit
There was no fault decided on or settled in this case
Mr West never asked me to settle this final agreement with admittance to any fault because they knew they had no case and I would never and I repeat never would admit to any violation of his free speech rights
He had multiple ways to communicate with me and they knew this to be fact
My attorneys believed we would easily win if we pursued the case and based on the settlement terms they were correct
For your information, I didn’t settle this case
The City Council settled the case and I wasn’t in the room and I didn’t weigh in at the meeting
If a loss to the city budget was realized, it’s because a settlement was decided on by others not me and that loss was attributed to their decision not mine.
We needed to defend this to the end in my opinion, after speaking with the legal team and we would have won
So whatever loss took place, Mr West, in my opinion, filed this suit for political reasons working with some folks who want to make this loss mine and it’s just very transparent what has been going on here abs shameful
So if there was a loss of taxpayer money and it wasn’t $100 k,
it wasn’t because I removed a threatening post
it was because a settlement was agreed upon and I was leaving office and so others determined this conclusion
Allowing residents to file frivolous law suits to grab free tax payer money is wrong and we need to oppose these type of cases or we will see more of these frivolous cases trying to harm our taxpayers
I know one member of the Council agreed and opposed the settlement and the political move to waive privilege which was just that, a political move to attribute blame to me when even the opponents didn’t win on that point
It’s just fraught with more irrational and false implications from former colleagues who are embroiled in their own questionable
activities being investigated at the State
Not surprising however …..if Council members make decisions such as wearing City Council “matching pjs” in public at a City Sponsored public event, representing a sophisticated City of 300,000 constituents, ….
What else really needs to be said ?
Happy New Year !
deefox
January 1, 2021 at 1:34 pmCalm down Christina! It was NOT me who posted that comment. Obviously it was someone using my name although, I never use DeeDee as my first name and, as you can see I have a picture. I do know that you have made anonymous public comments at city council meetings stating my comments about you on social media are all lies and you use the reference of my name the same way, DEEDEEFOX. It’s hard not to spot your words as coming from anyone but you.
sheacl
January 1, 2021 at 12:32 pmBy the way you are welcome Branda keep up the good work !
sheacl
January 1, 2021 at 1:57 pmThanks Dee
It just seemed out of character
I know a lobbyist close to members of the
council-members, who I stopped communicating with months ago
has a wide network of folks he calls on as “attack commenters “
To push his agendas
Thank you for the clarification
Pretty clear it’s coming from the camp that doesn’t want accountability in regard to the “Mail Room” Issue
I hope we can find a way to identify these fake posters
It isn’t what true communication should be about here or elsewhere
Again thanks for follow up
sheacl
January 1, 2021 at 3:35 pmJust a follow up Dee
I never have been anonymous at Council Dee as we are live in the air and just to reference I don’t ever recall calling you DeeDee if you are in som3e way implying I am writing these nonsensical DeeDeeFox posts, probably time to cut this conversation off
It’s a new year a beautiful day !
deefox
January 3, 2021 at 12:37 pmCHRISTINA SHEA you have gone beyond the scope of lowering yourself. The proof is when you have been caught lying, trying to taking down two candidates that were running against you, costing the city of Irvine thousands of dollars on false audit reports, threatening the Irvine Police Department, condemning private citizens from the dais, all the while rolling your tongue hoping you won’t be seen as a fraud! Most recently you stated you could not bring Mike Carroll’s allegations of theft before the City Council when in fact it took only your approval to do so and NOT two council members. Remember, it was either the Mayor could bring forth an item OR two council members. You were the Mayor and lied about not being able to do anything. It seems you cannot face the reality as to why you were not re-elected. These are the many reasons why and you brought it all upon yourself. Stop trying to get back at people that you think had an influence in you not getting re-elected! Anything you post using any variation of my name and paints you in a good light will be seen as coming from you, especially when you reply right after your fake comment.
sheacl
January 3, 2021 at 4:16 pmSo Dee
I actually think you are DeeDee Fox after reading this most recent post
You use multiple names on your posts all the time and have for years
After the election you sent me a message that you were the reason I lost
It is over Dee I lost, I am fine and moving on , maybe you should as well
Your accusations are your right, but you have engaged me for years threatening me, filing multiple claims against me, that are never justified or go anywhere, accusing me over, and over falsely …..well it is is time to let it go Dee Dee
Please find someone else to obsess about It is a New Year!
I won’t again respond to your obsessive, irrational comments