To be honest, up until May, the issue of the possible recall of Oceanside Councilman Jerry Kern was not even on my personal radar. Shoot, to be perfectly honest, I cannot even recall if I voted for the man in the last election.

But since I started getting active in protests against taxation, spending and state propositions in February, I thought I'd better pay more attention to what was going on in my own backyard as well.

So I hit the Web and for the last couple of months, read up on the various archive articles surrounding Kern, the recall effort and the www.recallkern.com Web site itself.

After digesting the Web site's allegations and proof cited, local newspaper and Web magazine reports, and further digging, I am convinced that the recall effort is nothing more than sour-grapes payback for Kern's election victory over former Oceanside City Councilwoman Shari Mackin in the form of opportunistic process abuse.

Allow me to explain how I reached that conclusion.

First off, the recall itself: who started it, who is financing it ---- follow the money. The genesis of the recall was funded by the Citizens for the Preservation of Parks and Beaches, an organization founded by environmental activist Caroline Kramer and Mackin.

Hey! Jerry Kern defeated Shari Mackin in the last election. So let's spell this out: The recall was initiated and got its seed money from an organization that was founded by the defeated incumbent, and an anti-development environmentalist (not making a value judgment there, just pointing it out so the readers know what basic internal values system her motivation stems from).

Next, I took a look at the recall allegations. What are the crimes against Oceanside's residents and well-being; the malfeasance, incompetence and/or negligence, and of course: the proof or at least the evidence about the allegations. There are 10 allegations on the recallkern Web site. Of those 10 allegations:

-- Five allegations have absolutely zero evidence or proof provided by the Web site. One of those five allegations without any provided evidence or proof even accuses Kern of endangering the public safety.

-- Four allegations are basically environmentalist/development voting differences of opinion over what is best for Oceanside's residents, businesses and future.

-- And one allegation ---- well, there is evidence the Web site puts forward, and one has to conclude that the evidence the recallkern.com people document must be the worst possible incident there is: Really? "Assaulting" citizens? A dramatically oversensitive reaction to something that is maybe disrespectful at best is more like it.

Do any of these really reach a severe enough threshold to warrant a recall?

Well, no! Unless. And here is where my research uncovered a bit of deviousness in this effort.

The recallkern Web site has a page dedicated to the fact that Kern won by a very low margin. Why? Why is the margin important? I can think of only two reasons why the win margin is relevant to the recallkern backers:

First, as if winning by "only" a certain number of votes somehow does not make the win legitimate, ala Bush/Gore 2000.

Or secondly, since he won by the least threshold, it makes him the most vulnerable candidate for a recall. That would best be called "predatory political opportunism."

Either reason sets a bad precedent. An election win is a win, no matter the threshold. And whipping up a recall just because of a perceived vulnerable vote threshold, and not because of proven allegations of misconduct, malfeasance or negligence is a blatant attempt at sheer power politics.

Even if you disagreed with the politics or policies of that duly elected opponent, that opponent must still do something you can cite as malfeasance, incompetence and/or negligence to warrant a legitimate recall.

Let's face it: If Kern were just plain bad for Oceanside, the facts and evidence would be there without making multiple unfounded allegations, or having to blow up what is more like "disrespect" as "assault, " or without emotionally couching development/environmentalism voting disagreements as legitimate reasons for a recall.

Lastly, if the recall were really warranted, it would not have to be initiated by the very political rival he defeated in the last election. But it is plain to those who do their homework that the facts do not play out that way.

I recognize process abuse when I see it.

Stop the process abuse. Vote a resounding "No" on the recall.

RICH RAYBURN lives in Oceanside.