Laguna Beach will spend a half million dollars to settle Shoreh Dupuis’ claim against the city for harassment by councilmember George Weiss. Since starting on the council, George has become the proverbial “loose cannon.”
I don’t think he has the respect of city staff or the other council members. The $500,000 could have been used by Laguna for undergrounding, infrastructure, parks, public works, energy conservation etc. So, time to send George down the road either by recalling him or waiting for his term to expire in November 2024.
George Orff, Laguna Beach
Hi Mr. Orff, if You really believe that George Weiss is somehow responsible for the demise and retirement of CM Dupuis then we must conclude that You believe Mayor Whalen’s rationalization as stated in the “separation agreement”.
Anyone who has monitored CM Dupuis’ term is completely aware of CM Dupuis precarious position long before her “not really a suit” allegations against CC Person Weiss.
There is no need to list the multiple and formidable offences carried out by CM Dupuis during her short stint as Laguna Beach’s CM, at least not in this thread, they are too numerous. The reason given by Mayor Whalen are farcical.
Residents of Laguna Beach are finally coming to grips with the reality that was created, perpetrated and made achievable by the manipulation of Laguna Politics by CC members Whalen, Kemph, and the former CC Member Blake with the full support and reinforcement of former CM Dupuis.
It is high time that we stop trying to “shoot the messenger” and commend CC Person Weiss for bringing to light the multiple transgressions of our current and past CC Members and the former CM.
Mr. Orff –
Are you equally concerned about the $2.7M Ti Amo non-fire station that Ms. Dupuis pressured the City Council to buy without an appraisal for $400,000 more than its previous offer?
Does it bother you that only after the purchase, she announced that the site was unfeasible because it needed to service an urgent medical unit . . . something the fire department had been in discussions about for two years? Three years later and it still sits vacant.
Does it upset you that she spent $50,000 in taxpayer money on legal feels trying to suppress the body cam video of her traffic stop – only to have to release the video anyway by a majority vote from the City Council?
Do you ever wonder how much more than the $50,000 on legal fees she cost us because she never divulged the last three months of her attorney billings?
If you’re so worried about money, does it give you pause to know that when looking to strike a deal for the Presbyterian parking structure, she merely accepted the seller’s $7M appraisal without conducting an an independent appraisal of our own?
Would you care to speculate on how much money she may cost the City for the defamation lawsuit she initiated by accusing residents of creating a hostile work environment? (Where have I heard that baseless, unproven, smear/accusation before? If she had a solid case with much more money at stake, why didn’t she file it instead of only making a verbal complaint and using it as a bargaining chip to squeeze more cash out of her severance deal?)
And what about the potential multi-million dollar lawsuit she set us up for by bungling the preferential-treatment handling of the 14West Hotel and Hotel Laguna armed invasion by Mo Honarkar’s thugs?
All that in just two years time. Care to conjecture how much more she could have cost us if she’d remained?
As for Mr. Weiss . . . When three members of the City Council illegally violated the Brown Act by secretly voting to overlook Mr. Honarkar’s five stop work orders and allow him to continue renovations on the Hotel Laguna without permits, plans and inspections, Mr. Weiss was the one who exposed their crooked actions.
When Sue Kempf and Ms. Dupuis conspired to buy the library and then possibly turn it into a parking lot, Mr. Weiss was the only one diligent enough to do the deep digging to discover and reveal their plans to the public.
When Bob Whalen tried repeatedly to force residents to pay tens of millions of dollars for the Presbyterian parking structure boondoggle, Mr. Weiss was on the front line opposing it as hugely fiscally irresponsible.
If representing residents’ needs like this is what you mean by being a “loose cannon,” I hope to God we re-elect him and one more just like him during the next election.
What a complete croc, Pudwell. She doesn’t set policy, and acted at the behest of the Council majority, every single time. Just as John Pietig and Ken Frank did before her. I remember clearly how much your former leader Toni Iseman complained about them. Why didn’t you guys bully them? Oh yeah, white males.
So let’s get the facts straight about who rushed into the purchase of Ti Amo. It was Toni Iseman and George Weiss, who pressured Shohreh to go forward without an appraisal because there were two other offers on the table. You see, their friends in South Laguna didn’t want a fire station on Catalina and thought this was the best solution. Of course, when it turned out to be problematic, both Weiss and Iseman developed amnesia and blamed Shohreh instead of doing the right thing and admitting their mistake. And by the way, it was during John Pietig’s last closed session meeting as City Manager.
Pout, pout, pout. You lost. Majority rules. And Laguna marches forward without you and your lame cabal of complainers.
Um, did you look at how the new CC member at the time, CC Weiss, voted in open session AGAINST the Ti Amo project, Billy? Come on, Billy. I know you can read because you write a regular column here. Pull the the public record for the Ti Amo project. It’s all there, and not quite the way you describe it, but perhaps you have another agenda? FYI: Many of our in-laws are from Iran, and one of them made my wedding ring.
Deborah Laughton is the spouse of councilmember George Weiss – Ed.
Should anyone question the the veracity of Mr. Fried’s wonky world of alternative realities – where facts are optional and falsehoods are mandatory – I invite them to read the enclosed two articles.
The first verifies that Shohreh Dupuis was appointed City Manager in April 2021 (she took office June, 2021) – which happens to have been months before the August purchase of the Ti Amo site:
https://www.lagunabeachindy.com/shohreh-dupuis-promoted-to-laguna-beach-city-manager/
The second article from the LA Times/Daily Pilot verifies that George Weiss and Toni Iseman were dead set against the purchase, indeed wanted an appraisal, and were the only two opposing votes:
https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2021-08-25/laguna-beach-moves-to-close-escrow-on-ti-amo-ristorante-property
A few quotes from that second article:
“The motion to do so carried by a vote of 3-2, with council members Toni Iseman and George Weiss dissenting.”
“Weiss indicated that he found the parcel being acquired to be ‘a bit small’ to have a fire station built on it. ”
“Iseman questioned why an appraisal was not done before agreeing to purchase the property, and she expressed a belief that the asking price was too high. She called on the council to rethink the purchase and explore opportunities at other locations.”
I suggest readers seriously weigh the veracity and validity of anything Mr. Fried says and take it with a gain of salt.
B. Fried: Yes in your own words please do “get the facts straight about who rushed into the purchase of Ti Amo.” And, please don’t stop there; start practicing fact checking all of your information and accusations. It gets tiring for readers to do your fact checking for you.
It also triggers valid public concerns as to whether or not you are purposely using your public platform opportunities to spread politically misleading and/or false information to the public.
IMO – you owe Council member George Weiss and former Council member Toni Iseman an apology for making false accusations about them and tarnishing their names.
Maybe you can also drop the labeling and name-calling of Laguna residents when making your points. They would be better received. Remember, the majority of LB residents/voters banned a public official who was verbally abusive and engaged in destructive public communications.
I agree, Laguna has marched on and will reject anyone who refuses to stop such unnecessary and damaging behavior in our community. Thanks.
I stand by the facts: Iseman and Weiss pushed for a fast / no appraisal purchase of the site in deference to their South Laguna overlords long before the deal was done and they decided to shamelessly throw Shohreh under the bus. Facts matter, folks!
George Weiss says he did not create a hostile workplace that made it too punishing for the city manager to do her job. Yet his four colleagues chose to spend $500,000+ of our money rather than defend him in court. One wonders what they know. Thanks!
I remember every detail of Tony Isenan rejecting the purchase of Tiamo for a fire station. Such a waste of money. I agree with MJ Abraham on so many levels about the misrepresented Billy fried. It’s just awful how people change history to for their own needs.
Mrs. Laughton,
Please come clean and transparent…
Your real name is DEBORAH WEISS and happen to be married to the most fiscally irresponsible member on the council.
B.Fried, can you please show us actual proof of your so-called-facts regarding the TiAmo purchase and the push for purchase without appraisal accusations against Iseman and Weiss?
Otherwise it isn’t “fact” at all. No one can take this type of accusation seriously unless you can validate it. Thanks.
Re: Ms. Deborah Laughton
Why in this day & age, easily 50+ years after the commonly-acknowledged advent of feminism circa 1970, are women still being defined by their relationships to men?
And that women have no independent thought processes from their SOs, boyfriends, girlfriends or husbands, have no right to have their own minds and opinions?
Not limited to those who post comments, somehow the female editor of this outlet became convinced that she too would join that glaring insult inherent in our societal inequality/malady.
Ms. Laughton has every right to use her maiden name—in fact even the idea of a maiden name is kind of misogynist/chauvinist, isn’t it?
I mean “maiden,” that’s sooooo yesterday (actually like soooo 19th Century)!
Women had to march in the streets 100+ years ago, and it was called”suffrage,” maybe should have been spelled “SUFFER-AGE,” because over the ages women had little or no say-so globally, in their homes, in their communities, or their countries decision makers/issues.
As in because they’d suffered enough humiliation and had no way to effect change via a ballot box, disenfranchised.
It wasn’t until 1920 that they succeeded here in America, but it’s obvious are still 2nd class citizens who should “know their place” (baking cookies in the kitchen, doing the laundry, changing diapers, cleaning toilets, cooking all of the household meals, family chauffeur and nurse, ad nauseam).
Blacks/African Americans, post-slavery in 1870, acquired that right some 50 years earlier.
In a sense, servitude has been a women’s unfortunate plight for millennia.
I barely know Ms. Laughton, and no, we’re not friends let alone associates, I doubt either of us likes the other, truth be told.
I’m definitely no one’s flunky or stalking horse, I’ll wager if this gets posted she and perhaps other women will be uncomfortable.
OTOH, it’ll be a miracle if the Indy publishes this, won’t it?
At least explain to us why this outlet is being complicit in such a situation.
Bravo, Bravo!!! Thank you Mr. Butow..Said perfectly and Appreciated !!! It’s rather humorous when you see people make a petty issue like this and feel it’s important to actually write a letter to the editor..You will note that the Editor even made a note of it and she is a woman….I think we have much more going on in this town then someone’s last name..
Amen and thanks, Roger and Barbara, about the insistence of using the Victorian practice of labeling a woman by her marital status and use of a spouse’s last name. In defense of this paper’s editor, I believe she is working under orders by certain parties/advertisers to this newspaper. I could name them, but I’ve been taught a different set of professional manners. As for my last name, it has been used since birth and in my career as an academic book publisher, which I’ve been doing longer than I’ve been married. (I’ve even been accused of being married to my job ;-), but it sure keeps my authors happy).
Thank you Deborah…It is so interesting that I saw this comment looking for something else as many people are commenting and wondering why Michael Rae and Billy are the only view points allowed on political issues in this paper, the very group that has caused such chaos and disregard for others that do not agree with them, wondering if this is being subsidized somehow so that others can not make truthful and logical comments that go against a certain agenda and have columns of their own in the public forum. Does anyone know why this is? Our little town is and has become like Washington D.C.. Money, corruption and Bias/untruths and smearing by the local media.
Chris, where were you during Blakes horrible hatred speeches? You were nowhere to be seen or heard, now you attack the only city council that works for the citizens of Laguna Beach, something you are not! Take your lies and keep them in your city since you don’t live here anymore.
You’re missing the point, Ms Laughton. The issue is not what last name you use. It’s context. You are not just a supporter of our most controversial city councilperson, you’re married to him. Other letter writers keep pointing this out because you do not. Nor did the Indy in the past. In correcting this oversight, the current editor is simply following well-established journalistic practices. The fact that you think she has been ordered to do this is revealing but irrelevant. It’s the right decision.
Mr. Quilter asks why four Council members would chose to spend $500,000+ on Ms. Dupuis’s “retirement” rather than defend Mr. Weiss in court. He wonders what they know.
Seems pretty suspicious that they’d settle this case without proving the claims against Mr. Weiss and before the investigation was completed. And that instead of using an unbiased third party to handle the severance, Bob Whalen was the one who pushed to settle the case – someone who originally insisted on appointing Ms. Dupuis – and a potential political candidate rival to Mr. Weiss (smear tactic). Also odd – what an amazingly overgenerous severance package Mr. Whalen authorized without any proven claims.
Mr. Quilter asks “What did they know?”
Given the quick generosity without proof of claims – plus the detrimental information cross-examination in a legal case may have exposed for Whalen, Kempf and Dupuis – it would seem just as fair to ask “What are they trying to hide?”
Few people speculate with more certainty and less credibility than Mr Pudwill.