Changes Ordered in Cypress Recall Ballot Arguments

SANTA ANA —  An Orange County Superior Court judge on Friday ordered changes made in ballot arguments proposed by activists trying to recall three Cypress City Council members.

The dispute involved eight advisory measures asking residents about possible city projects, such as new parks, that will be on the ballot for the Nov. 7 recall election.

The City Council added the advisory issues to the ballot this summer after a citizens’ movement succeeded in petitioning for a recall election against the council members for approving warehouses perceived as detrimental to a Valley View Street neighborhood.

Recall advocate Bob Pepper has charged that the City Council added the advisory measures in “a desperate effort . . . to dilute the significance of this election.” Advocates wanted that language on the ballots in arguments against the advisory measures.

But Judge William F. McDonald wiped out those words. McDonald also struck down all mention of “recall” in the arguments against the advisory measures.

But McDonald ruled that other contested language could remain. Among the recall advocates’ passages he allowed to stay: “This advisory measure is an attempt to deceive the citizens of Cypress by buying votes with false expectations and no commitment.”

After the ruling, city officials said they were happy that the “recall” references were removed while recall advocates lauded the judge for allowing much of the other wording to remain.

“They [city government] didn’t have to go to court on this,” Pepper said in an interview outside of court. “They were just trying to harass us.”

City Atty. John E. Cavanaugh denied the allegation. Cavanaugh said the city was merely seeking assurance that the ballot arguments conformed with state law.

“The judge deleted the most egregious statements,” Cavanaugh said.

The recall election targets Mayor Cecilia L. Age and council members Walter K. Bowman and Gail H. Kerry. Residents launched the recall after the three voted Sept. 26 to approve a carpet-distribution warehouse in the Valley View Street area.

Residents charged the warehouse would cause increased traffic, noise and pollution; the council members have said the warehouse would bring in needed tax revenue and poses no environmental threat.