Press Release: August 20, 2001 – for immediate release

Contact:  Leonard Kranser, CSHC Communications Director
    Bill Kogerman, CSHC Chairman

Pro-airport Supervisors "Conspire" Against County's Own Title for Park Initiative

Nine days before the County assigned a title to the Park initiative, pro-airport supervisors knew that their County-prepared title would be attacked.  They were alerted by pro-airport attorneys, but hid the fact from fellow supervisors and the initiative's proponents.  Backers of the initiative say this "smacks of conspiracy" to deprive the public of its right to vote on the Orange County Central Park and Nature Preserve Initiative.

On June 20, Fredric Woocher, attorney for pro-airport groups, sent a four-page letter to County Counsel Laurence Watson, detailing Woocher's objections to the ballot title being prepared by Watson's office.  Woocher copied Supervisors Charles Smith and Jim Silva. Watson, Smith and Silva never revealed the impending attack to initiative proponents.

The Woocher letter was disclosed last week, as a result of a Public Records Act request.

Despite repeated inquiries by the initiative supporters, Watson's office delayed releasing their title and summary for the initiative, until the legal last moment. State law allows 15 days for this task. Proponents received the title late on Friday June 29.  Woocher's lawsuit was ready the following Monday.  The case was brought against the County and not against the initiative supporters.

Campaign Committee Chairman Bill Kogerman said, "This smacks of conspiracy against the people by pro-airport officials and special interest groups. They stalled and hid the facts because they wanted to spring a surprise lawsuit.  This is one more tactic to try to thwart the will of the people and keep them from voting for the popular park initiative."

Over 160,000 signatures have been collected on petitions bearing the disputed initiative title.  71,206 are required to qualify for the ballot.  A lower court judge ruled that the County-prepared wording for the title is misleading and hence, the petitions are invalid.

The ruling is being reviewed by the Court of Appeals in San Diego.  Initiative proponents say that the ballot title supplied to them by the County Counsel meets California legal standards and should be allowed. The judge raised no objections to the initiative itself.

Pro-airport Supervisors Smith, Silva and Coad voted not to join in the appeal of the lower court ruling, despite the recommendation of County Executive Officer Michael Schumacher that they do so.  Smith is quoted in the press as saying "the official title and summary of the initiative were flawed.  I'm very much in favor of not allowing that to go on the ballot, and I'm very much in favor of having an airport.''