Leadership Archives

West Magazine (formerly Los Angeles Times Magazine) has published The West 100, which the editors bill as their list "of the most pwerful people in Southern California."

Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle is the only Orange County elected official to be included in the list:

Curt Pringle
Anaheim mayor; 47, Anaheim

Pringle has taken some heat for having lost Anaheim's name-change fight with the Angels and for struggling to muster consensus on courting the NFL. Still, Pringle is not only running unopposed, he's also been endorsed by his biggest critic. It's a testament to the skill and war chest of the ambitious GOP leader of Disneyland's hometown. More broadly, Pringle has built such a strong reputation for his aggressive pro-business approach to governance (creative tax waivers, sweeping zone changes, market incentives to redevelop run-down parts of the city) that other local officials have coined a verb for his philosophy: "to Pringle-ize."

Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle’s re-election campaign for a second term as Mayor is just starting to gear up, but has already received the endorsement of most of his City Council colleagues as well as the Anaheim Police Officers Association (APOA) and the Anaheim Firefighters Association (AFA).

Along with the associations representing Anaheim’s public safety personnel, Mayor Pro Tem Richard Chavez, City Councilman Harry Sidhu, and City Councilwoman Lori Galloway have endorsed Pringle’s campaign.

“Although we don’t approach every issue from the same perspective,” Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, “there is no doubt that Curt has a passion for Anaheim.  You know that he is motivated by what is best for our community.”

“Curt and I share some very important goals, including keeping taxes low and protecting private property rights,” said Councilman Sidhu.  “I look forward to working with him in his second term.”

“Anaheim is in the middle of a Golden Age, and Mayor Curt Pringle is the visionary driving our progress,” said Councilwoman Galloway.  “I am as proud to call him my friend as I am to call him my Mayor.”

Joining his council colleagues, the APOA and AFA cited Mayor Pringle’s efforts to keep Anaheim one of the safest large cities in America.

The city’s lawsuit against Angels Baseball has been fun for no one – least of all the parties involved. But in order to protect the interests of Anaheim taxpayers and uphold the sanctity of contracts, it was a lawsuit the Anaheim City Council had to pursue.

After the jury verdict came out against the City of Anaheim, my colleagues and I spent the next few months carefully consideration whether we should appeal the verdict. After judging the information before us, we voted in closed session last week to pursue an appeal. Mayor Pro Tem Richard Chavez, Councilman Bob Hernandez, Councilwoman Lorri Galloway and I voted to appeal. Councilman Harry Sidhu voted against an appeal and to instead accept the jury verdict.

Believe me, I wish this whole matter could be resolved between the parties and made to go away. And the city tried to no avail, to negotiate with the Angels over these last months for a mutually beneficial outcome. But we have a duty to the citizens of Anaheim to hold the Angels to their contract, and I want to present to you our reasons for appealing the verdict.

Jury Instruction Errors
A number of errors were made in the conduct of the trial that negatively impacted Anaheim’s case.

For example, the attorney who represented Anaheim during the contract negotiations with the Angels – when the stipulation about the team name was made -- was not allowed to testify.

Also, the judge barred other witnesses who would have helped Anaheim’s case from testifying, including witnesses who could testify to the value to our city of having the team be the “Anaheim” Angels.

The nature of the jury instructions also hurt Anaheim’s case and helped put the jury on course to ruling against us. We asked to have a number of elements included in those instructions. For example, we asked that the jury be allowed to consider outside evidence regarding the intent of the parties when negotiating the current contract between Anaheim and the Angeles. In other words, when the jury considered any ambiguity in the language of the contract’s team name requirement, we believed the jury should have been allowed to consider outside evidence in order to determine what the intent was of contract parties.

But this reasonable request was denied.

There was also a witness who had been one of Disney’s early on negotiators on the contract with Anaheim that led to the team being re-named the Anaheim Angels in 1996. This witness testified as to what Disney’s intent – or at least his own – in allowing the team-naming language to be somewhat loose.

We wanted the jury to be instructed that “unexpressed intent” could NOT be considered, which is clear in California contract law – but our request was denied in this as well.

Interviews with the jury members following the trail also made it clear these factors influenced the jury to rule against Anaheim, and helped convince a super-majority of the city council to pursue an appeal.

Even so, Anaheim’s preference is to resolve the issue outside the courtroom, and we have been in contact with Angels Baseball during the last several months in hopes of doing just that.

Angels’ Want Anaheim Taxpayers To Foot The Bill
Unfortunately, we are unable to make headway due to Angels Baseball’s insistence on continuing to pursue billing Anaheim taxpayers for their legal expenses – and that is unacceptable to me and my colleagues who voted to appeal the verdict.

There is no “loser pays” provision in either California law or the city’s contract with the Angels – and we refuse to be penalized for acting to hold Angels Baseball to the terms of the contract they had with the citizens of Anaheim.

If Anaheim wins the appeal, we won’t have to worry about paying Angel Baseball’s legal bill. Since our attorney’s have agreed to cap their fee at $150,000 for the appeal, I think many would agree that it is smarter to pursue a strong case for appeal than to simply give up and pay the Angels’ multi-million legal fees.

Written Judgment Paves Way For Angels To Leave Anaheim If We Don’t Appeal
There’s one aspect of the verdict that has hardly been covered in the media, despite its serious consequences for Anaheim: the written judgment.

This is the document that actually sets down the terms by which the parties to the lawsuit must abide.

As it stands, the written judgment allows Angels Baseball to call the team anything it wants – anything at all. The team could completely erase any mention of Anaheim from anything Angels related – logos, merchandise, marketing, promotions – as long as somewhere in some legal filing the team was called the “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.” We know this because we asked the judge if the team could call itself and market itself as the “Los Angels Angels” and he confirmed it.

We believe that this written judgment goes far beyond what the jury decided, but it will stand if we do not appeal. If we do not appeal, Angels Baseball is free to market the team without any reference to Anaheim – even as the team plays in a stadium they did not pay to build and for which they pay no rent, and otherwise enjoys the financial benefits of an extraordinarily one-sided contract.

One of the only real benefits Anaheim received was the publicity resulting from the team being called the Anaheim Angels. That name was essentially the rent the team paid to the taxpayers of Anaheim.

I believe failure to appeal this verdict paves the road for the Angels to leave Anaheim. If during the next 10 years under the contract the Angels only referred to themselves only as the Los Angeles Angels with no mention of Anaheim, then they will be identifying themselves with another region and laying the groundwork for re-locating when the contract expires.

Mayor Pro Tem Chavez, Coouncilmembers Hernandez and Galloway, and I understand that and acted accordingly – and, we are convinced, rightly.

A final note as to the city’s legal fees, which amount to about $4 million. This money hasn’t come from the General Fund, but from an “enterprise fund”: monies budgeted for operating city facilities such as the Stadium or the Convention Center. As I mentioned, legal fees for the appeal are capped at $150,000.

No one on the City Council enjoys paying legal bills for the city, but we are adamantly opposed to paying other people’s attorneys fees when we are only fighting to protect ourselves.

If there were an acceptable alternative to appealing the verdict, we would explore it. However, given that:

• Jury interviews showed errors caused by the Court molded the opinion of the jurors against the city’s position,

• The Angels insist Anaheim taxpayers pay their attorneys fees,

• And the written judgment allows the team to call itself anything it wants, paving the way for the Angels to leave Anaheim,

…the only course open to us, is an appeal.

It is my sincere hope the three appellate judge panel hearing the case will correct the errors made and allow for a fair hearing to be presented. I will keep you updated as new information presents itself.

-- Curt Pringle

The Orange County Business Journal has named Mayor Curt Pringle as one of Orange County's 50 Most Influential People:

OC 50 - GOVERNMENT & INSTITUTIONS

Profiles of Orange County's Most Influential Businesspeople

CURT LAYNE PRINGLE
Mayor, City of Anaheim

Born in Emmetsburg, Iowa,

June 27, 1959

Lives in Anaheim

“Curt.”

Chummy, visionary mayor with big-city ambitions. Drawn attention for “freedom friendly,” pro-business tack to government; even a new verb in policy circles—“Pringle-ize.”

Spearheaded business-tax holiday, home-improvement fee waiver. Granting free access to street, utility poles to Earthlink in bid to have citywide wireless network by end of year.

Immersed in national controversy over who gets to provide video, Internet to homes: Favors scrapping traditional, exclusive franchise pacts and invite all comers—AT&T already installing fiber-optic network over Adelphia’s objections.

Has championed redevelopment throughout city, without use of eminent domain. Sweeping zoning code changes most evident in Platinum Triangle, area around Angel Stadium being converted by Lennar, others into mini-city of high-rise condos (see real estate OC 50ers Jon Jaffe, Emile Haddad).

Touting market incentives to address affordable housing. Critics complain about traffic, noise, crime in some older neighborhoods.

Sports are a love, also a headache. NBA recently awarded Anaheim development league franchise but not the sought-after big-league team. City has given NFL deadline of later this month to decide on franchise, stadium deal. Council deciding whether to appeal verdict in favor of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

Not on speaking terms with Angels owner, fellow OC 50er Arte Moreno.

Critics call Pringle heavy-handed, manipulative.

Ultimate networker. On boards such as Orange County Transportation Authority, gives talks around country. Political conservative who has advised Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, counts Democrats Willie Brown, John Burton, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa as friends.

Four terms in Assembly, including 11 months as speaker in 1996 during GOP’s brief reign.

Has put behind him 1988 poll-guard election controversy—on good terms with Hispanic community. Councilman Richard Chavez reliable third vote on five-member council.

Elected mayor in 2002, looks like a shoo-in for re-election to a final term this fall. Guessing game over his next career move.

Grew up in Garden Grove. Bachelor’s in business, master’s in public administration from Cal State Long Beach. Runs government consulting firm, Curt Pringle & Associates. Teaches government course at UC Irvine.

Wife Alexis, teenage children Kyle, Katie.