Fireworks and Deadlines

RUSHING TO MEET THE DEADLINE
Tomorrow, Tuesday, the Costa Mesa City Council will, once again, address the sale of The Fairgrounds in a closed session meeting preceding their regularly scheduled open meeting. This will be the final time they, as a group, have a chance to address this issue before the City must place in the hands of Governor Schwarzenegger its proposal for purchase of the property. That deadline is Wednesday.

WHAT ARE THE TERMS?
I find myself wondering if we'll hear the terms of the proposal before the governor does. Doubt it. In fact, I wonder if we will ever hear them? If the governor rejects the proposal what value will there be to announce the failed bid. Thinking positively, I hope they've managed to create a successful proposal and that, in quick order, the Governor accepts the plan and we can actually move forward.

MONAHAN - LONGER HOURS AND MORE DEVICES
At the very end of the open session Gary Monahan has a scheme to expand fireworks use over the July 4th holiday - one that is sure to generate some discussion among council members and residents. He wants to extend the sale hours on the 4th, moving the closing time from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. The police and fire organizations are against it.


SPARKLERS BACK?
He also wants to permit some hand-held devices, including sparklers. The public safety folks are against that, too. The injuries to small children using sparklers is well-documented and previous councils recognized the danger and banned them. Restoring them for sale is a truly bad idea. This photo shows the kind of injuries that led to the decision to ban sparklers in our city.

TELL THE COUNCIL HOW YOU FEEL
Regular readers here know how I feel about fireworks in our community, so I won't talk about it here since it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. If you've got an opinion on these issues, read the staff report, HERE, and present your views to the City Council, either in person or by email to the city web site.

OK, Now It's My Turn...

STRAP YOURSELF IN...
Fasten your seat belts and get comfy... this is going to be a long one... I had planned to publish my choices for Costa Mesa City Council a little closer to the election, but the Daily Pilot forced my hand today. Originally, I thought I would wait until after the next two candidate forums on the 22nd and the 28th, but many will be mailing absentee ballots soon and - unless one of the candidates really steps in it over the next couple weeks - I already know how my votes will be cast, and why.

DAILY PILOT CHOICES
In the Sunday, October 19, 2008 edition, the Daily Pilot editors provided readers with their choices for the open City Council seats in Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. In both instances there were surprises. I'm not going to address the Newport Beach selections - I've only followed them peripherally and I don't have a dog in that hunt. Costa Mesa, however, is another question.

READ THEIR VIEWS, SEE THE VIDEOS
The Daily Pilot editors chose to endorse Katrina Foley, Jim Righeimer and Gary Monahan from among the nine candidates for three seats available. You can read the reasons for their selections HERE. You can also view the video of portions of their interviews HERE, which may help you with your own decisions on November 4th.

BEVER REJECTED - WISELY
The editors, wisely, chose not to support first-term councilman and current mayor, Eric Bever for re-election. Some will speculate that they did so because he snubbed them during their interview process. I seriously doubt that's the case, but even if it is, it would be understandable. Bever has proven to be a petulant, arrogant and capricious member of the city council, more concerned with providing a smug quip for every event than exercising sound judgment in the administration of our city. I concur with the editor's choice to ignore Bever . I will not vote for him because our city deserves much better.

KATRINA FOLEY FIRST
I agree with the Daily Pilot that Katrina Foley, through her citizenship and service to this city as both a planning commissioner and council member over the past nearly a decade, has earned the right to be returned to the dais for another four years. As the editors stated, she seems to be omnipresent, representing our city government at almost every event of significance throughout her term - the only council member to do so. Foley has clearly been the smartest, best prepared of the current council members and, although consistently outnumbered on important votes, she nonetheless has provided solid reasoning and an essential counterpoint to the sometimes-irrational views and votes taken by the current majority. As the candidate who captured the most votes four years ago, she has done an excellent job of insuring that all sides of an issue were heard, giving voice to many residents who's opinions would otherwise have been ignored by the majority. As a business owner/lawyer, wife and mother, she has demonstrated boundless energy and a very special ability to juggle the demands of job, family and city. I whole-heartedly support returning Katrina Foley to the city council.

EXTRAORDINARY POOL OF CANDIDATESFrom here on it gets a little sticky for me. This cycle the voters have had an especially unique group from which to choose their next leaders. In my more than three decades in Costa Mesa I don't recall a panel with so much relevant experience. This year we have three previous council members, including two with mayoral experience, and an uber-operative of the Orange County Republican Party who makes the word "connected" sound strangely inadequate. Combine those with a previous candidate who has become a dedicated activist, two mature, solid citizen business leaders and two bright young men with strong futures in civic affairs and you have an extraordinary group from which to choose.

RIGGY AND MONAHAN
I have been, and continue to be, critical of both Righeimer and Monahan, but for very different reasons. I'll discuss them individually, even though they are being presented to the voters, along with Bever, as a de facto slate. As a check of your mailbox each day will illustrate, the three of them are beneficiaries of mountains of money being spent by the OC GOP on their campaign.

A CARPETBAGGER AND SO MUCH MORE
I have described Jim Righeimer as a carpetbagging opportunist and well-connected political operative who chose Costa Mesa as a safe haven in which to perch awaiting a higher office to open up. I have described him as impatient, to the point that he has verbally abused applicants before the planning commission during his brief tenure. I have described his appointment to the commission by Allan Mansoor, after having resided in Costa Mesa for only a few months, as an act of political payback for the help Congressman Dana Rohrabacher gave to Mansoor and Wendy Leece two years ago in their campaigns. Did I mention that Righeimer is Rohrabacher's campaign manager? I have also said that I don't really believe he has a long-term commitment to Costa Mesa. I still believe all of the above.

PART OF OC GOP PLAN
I also don't like the fact that he appears to be a big part of a grand plan by the Orange County Republican Party - my party - to take over the government of Costa Mesa and use it for an incubator in which their cadre of political fetuses will grow.

ON THE OTHER HAND...
All that being said, there can be no dispute that Righeimer brings almost unprecedented experience for the voters to consider. As a developer, he has a very special perspective on those kinds of issues that is especially valuable in our city at this time. Beyond that, he has exceptional experience in regional organizations and all the important contacts that go along with them. He is an articulate, clever guy who knows how to "sell" his point of view. He's a personable fellow with plenty of charm and a beautiful family, which we've all seen in the numerous political mailers stuffing our mailboxes these days.

CROSSING MY FINGERS AND VOTING
So, keeping my fingers crossed until they turn white due to lack of circulation, I'm prepared to vote for Jim Righeimer and hope he will, as he promises, become a voice of mediation on the council. I'm prepared to vote for him, then stand back and hope it doesn't blow up in my face. I'm prepared to vote for him, then call him out if he strays from the promises he's been making to the voters in our city. Ouch, my fingers hurt!

WHAT ABOUT MONAHAN?
I understand why the Daily Pilot editors chose to support Gary Monahan's return to the City Council. Simple logic tells you that someone with a dozen years on the City Council previously, including a third of that as mayor, should be a good move for our city, right? During his campaign Monahan has consistently touted his vast experience on various agencies and boards that were part of his previous council terms. That should be important, too, right?

I REMEMBER GARY...
Well, I watched Gary Monahan during most of his previous tenure on the council and those memories have left a very unpleasant after-taste. I've watched him evolve from a rank neophyte with limited political skills into a cunning, and sometimes conniving, operator with a very unbecoming streak of vindictiveness. I saw him become the very reason the voters of this city passed a term limits ordinance.

MAYOR FOR LIFE?
I also watched as he stood before the city council a year ago as a private citizen and lobbied hard to get them to place the issue of a directly-elected mayor - without term limits - on the ballot this November. As he stood and spoke as if he was still a council member, pushing hard for this issue, I found myself thinking that he was attempting to become "mayor for life". Allan Mansoor supported Monahan, but Eric Bever's choice not to support this subject killed it - for the time being. There is no doubt in my mind that, if re-elected to the city council, Monahan would quickly launch yet another move to have the position of mayor become directly-elected, and without term limits. In my view, this would encourage corruption, perpetuate mediocrity and would certainly be bad for our city.

WHY RUN AGAIN?
Having watched Monahan at the end of his previous term, it was clear that he had lost interest and he stated, as he stepped aside from a leadership role to make room for the Mansoor/Bever team, that he needed to spend more time with his prodigious family and his business. All of us can understand that, but I wonder what has changed? The size of his family has not, and his business - like many today - probably needs even more of his attention in light of the downward spiral of our economy.

HOLDING A GRUDGE?
I remember Monahan during the rancorous days when his restaurant was being picketed by activists opposing Mansoor's bogus immigration screening plan. He's bitter to this day about that, as evidenced by his comments at candidate forums this year. I wonder how that animosity toward Latinos in our city will translate into even-handed governance in the future?

WEARY OF THE PROCESS?
I also remember Monahan's growing impatience with the process of governing - something that happens to folks that have become weary of a "job". I recall with crystal clarity one evening when he admonished his peers on the council, while discussing the subject of annexation of portions of the county coveted by both Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, that they should "play hardball" with Newport Beach representatives, even though Newport Beach held all the cards in that game. That's the kind of attitude we can no longer afford as we deal with our neighboring cities. We need cooperation, not confrontation, as we move forward on issues like John Wayne Airport, the SR-55 solution and Banning Ranch, just to mention a few.

BACK TO THE MUNICIPAL TROUGH
It is my understanding that, if elected to the city council, Monahan will remain on the board of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, where he will be entitled to draw over $1300 per month, depending on the number of meetings he attends. Combine that with the honey pot he will have as a council member - $952 per month, plus expenses and the availability of excellent medical benefits for his family and the opportunity to pad his pension, and I just cannot help but think that he's in this for Gary, not for the city.

THANKS, GARY, BUT NO THANKS...
I will not support Gary Monahan for re-election because I think he's weary of the job. He has worn out his welcome and is just trying to elbow his way back to the municipal trough. Thanks for your prior service, Gary, now please step aside.

THE REMAINING FIVE
This leaves us with five candidates for the remaining choice on my ballot - Lisa Reedy, Chris McEvoy, Nick Moss, Chris Bunyan and Bill Sneen.

NOT REEDY'S TIME
I think Lisa Reedy - a woman with excellent business and leadership skills - has not gotten serious enough early in her campaign and it shows in her performance at forums. I hope she decides to run again in two years. I'm grateful to her for making this run and hope she will do so again soon. I cannot vote for her this time around.

MC EVOY SHOWS ENTHUSIASM AND PROMISE
Chris McEvoy is a delightful, refreshing young man to whom the future of this city belongs. He has some unique ideas about solutions to city issues and promises to stay involved in civic issues following the election. I hope he does, and that he returns as a candidate again soon, but I cannot vote for him this time.

MOSS IS STILL LEARNING
Nick Moss is another young man who is still on the steep part of the learning curve on municipal issues. I hope he finds a way to stay involved, but this is not the right time for him on the council. He won't receive my vote this time.

BUNYAN AND SNEEN
That leaves us with Chris Bunyan and Bill Sneen, both of whom I like very much as individuals and as candidates.

BUNYAN'S BACK AND FOCUSED
Chris Bunyan ran two years ago and finished last. This year, with saving the Banning Ranch as a cornerstone of his campaign, he seems to be working much harder and has been making inroads. His comments at the recent forums consistently drew the best responses, so he does strike a chord with voters. I think he can continue to make significant contributions to our city. Should he somehow manage, in the face of such stiff competition this time around, to round up enough votes to land a seat on the council I would not be unhappy, but I will not vote for him this time.

SNEEN HAS THE SKILLS, SMARTS AND ATTITUDE
As he said at a recent forum, Bill Sneen has lived in Costa Mesa twenty years longer than Jim Righeimer and is a business executive, community activist and family man. He is the husband of recent school board member, Linda Sneen, and the father of two college-age sons - both Eagle Scouts. He and his wife have been active in school issues for many years. He possesses excellent business leadership experience and the intelligence, maturity and work ethic so necessary to make solid decisions for our city. He has worked harder than any other new candidate trying to prepare for the forums this year, interviewing many senior city staffers and former municipal leaders and residents. From all I can discern, his slogan, "Costa Mesa First", accurately describes his commitment to improving our city for all residents ahead of any personal political ambitions. By any definition of the phrase, Bill Sneen is a "solid citizen" and precisely the kind of person we should hope to elect to our city council. For all of these reasons he has earned my remaining vote.

FOLEY, RIGHEIMER AND SNEEN
So, there you have it. I will mark my ballot for Katrina Foley, Jim Righeimer and Bill Sneen because I think the combination of skills, experience, and leadership they individually and collectively bring to the dais may go a long way to moderate the divisiveness and rancor that has existed over the past few years. The challenges that face Costa Mesa in the near future will require a city council that can set aside individual bias and make decisions that serve all the stakeholders - residents, business owners and visitors, alike. I think Foley, Righeimer and Sneen can be the nucleus of that team.

REMEMBER "44 VOTES" - MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE
Don't take my word for it. Do your own homework. Watch the video clips of the three forums available to you on CMTV or the city web site and view the individual clips on the Daily Pilot web site. Read what the candidates have written, consider their backgrounds and motivations. If you use comments offered by bloggers like me, remember to consider the source. There's one guy in town who has very clear ulterior motives - something that should be important to you as you weigh his words. With apologies to my cousin Jerry for the use of his jersey as an illustration, remember that in the election four years ago only 44 votes separated Eric Bever and Bruce Garlich. Whatever you do, make an informed choice when you mark your ballot. Two weeks to go and counting...

Mansoor and Leece Jump the Gun - Name Choices

PREDICTABLE NEWS
This morning, in their online version, HERE, the Daily Pilot reports that Costa Mesa Mayor Pro Tem Allan Mansoor and his campaign barnacle two years ago, council woman Wendy Leece, have announced their choices for the three contested seats in the November election.

NO SURPRISES
To no one's surprise, they didn't choose Katrina Foley as one of their favorites. They did choose Mayor Eric Bever, former Mayor Gary Monahan and the carpet-bagger, Jim Righeimer.

JUMPING THE GUN
Of even greater interest is the fact that they chose to make this announcement before the filing period has officially closed. Because Linda Dixon chose to "leave her seat open" ( a very unfortunate bit of headline writing on the part of the Daily Pilot), the filing deadline was extended until Wednesday at 5 p.m. It is still quite possible for other interested parties to pull papers, acquire the required signatures, fill out the forms and return them.

SUPPORTING HIS BUDDY
It was a given that Mansoor and Leece support Bever for re-election. Mansoor stepped aside so Bever could become mayor during this re-election year, providing him with a more visible platform from which to display his limited stand-up routine.

NO ROOM AT THE TROUGH FOR MONAHAN
I'm also not surprised that they will support Monahan's quest for yet another turn at the trough. In the last couple years of his last and hopefully final term he shifted gears and joined Mansoor and Bever to form an unsavory majority. Gary has demonstrated more than once that he's in it for himself first, most recently when he proposed that the city directly elect the position of mayor. We assume he saw himself akin to Idi Amin Dada - Mayor For Life. Re-electing Monahan would not be in the best interests of the people of Costa Mesa although it would certainly enhance his pension and benefit package. You will recall that he's the only council member to ever qualify for a pension.

THE CARPETBAGGING OPPORTUNIST
And then there's Riggy... This one was a slam dunk for Mansoor and Leece. Two years ago Congressman Dana Rhorabacher and OC GOP honcho Scott Baugh provided tons of support for Mansoor's candidacy and he dragged Leece along for the ride. She ran virtually no stand-alone campaign of her own. Mansoor began the payback process when he appointed Righeimer - who had lived in Costa Mesa only a few months - to the Planning Commission, rejecting long-time "improver" foot soldier Paul Bunney three times. Supporting Righeimer - Rhorabacher's re-election campaign chairman, by the way - for a council seat is just more payback for the support that got them into office.

EMINENT DOMAIN GUARANTEED
Electing Bever, Monahan and Righeimer to the council along with incumbents Mansoor and Leece would be disastrous for our city. There would be no divergent viewpoints on the dais - no way to keep them honest. I firmly believe that, before Mansoor and Leece's terms expire in 2010, we would see eminent domain imposed to grease the skids of redevelopment on the Westside, despite the fact that Mansoor has adamantly proclaimed he was against it many times. No, an absolute majority of "improvers" would turn our city into one governed by a virtual junta and guided, at least in part, by the ravings of a White Supremacist cave-dweller from the north part of town.

FIRST CANDIDATE FORUM NEXT WEEK
On that happy note, I will remind you that the first of what is expected to be several candidate forums is scheduled to occur next week. Mesa Verde Community, Inc., the Mesa Verde Homeowner's Association, will again host what has historically been the first and best of the forums on Thursday, August 21st at the Neighborhood Community Center at Lions Park near the library. The event begins at 6:00 with a brief "meet and greet" opportunity, with the formal program beginning at 7:00. This will be your first chance to meet with the candidates and to see them as they present their platforms for your consideration. Unlike Mansoor and Leece, I'm eager to hear what ALL the candidates have to say before anointing any of them. As they say, be there or be square.

Only Two Running, So Far

TWO HORSES IN THE STARTING GATE - SO FAR
The last word I had from the City Clerk last week is that, so far, only two candidates had actually pulled the necessary papers to run for City Council in Costa Mesa this year - Councilwoman Katrina Foley and former councilman, mayor and current Costa Mesa Sanitary Board member Gary Monahan.

FOLEY - BACK INTO THE BATTLES
Foley was the highest vote-getter in her run for city council four years ago and, although usually on the short end of many issues because she and Linda Dixon must frequently butt heads with the Mansoor/Bever/Leece majority, Foley continues to force important issues into the arena of public debate.

MONAHAN - FOR HIMSELF FIRST
Monahan - a three-term council member before being termed out in 2006 - will attempt to again elbow his way back to the municipal trough. You may recall that he is the only council member to ever qualify for a municipal pension. Right now that amount would be minimal, but another couple terms would go a long way to make his declining years as a pub owner and father of six more comfortable.

LET US COUNT THE WAYS
When considering candidates this year Monahan makes it pretty easy. All you have to do is remember that he thinks of himself first. Those of you paying attention will recall that a year ago he stood before the council and lobbied hard for the issue of a directly-elected mayor to be placed on the ballot. He was joined by then-mayor Allan Mansoor, who refused to even consider term limits for the position. Wisely, that scheme died on the vine. I think both Mansoor and Monahan envisioned themselves as "mayor for life". You may also remember that he campaigned for his current seat on the Sanitary District board as a guy who saw the need for reforms and would immediately move to make them if elected. Well, he did. He immediately moved to give himself and the other board members a pay raise and you, the rate payers, a rate increase. As I said, Monahan thinks of himself first...

BEVER AND DIXON?
The next few weeks should show us more candidates for the three positions on the city council this year. It is assumed that Eric Bever will run again - more's the pity for the city. His inept attempts at combining the job of mayor with that of a stand-up comic is getting pretty old. Linda Dixon is playing her cards very close to her vest. She may have had enough of having her position on the dais marginalized by the majority that has done everything possible except locking Dixon and Foley out of the chambers to ignore their presence and votes.

FISLER HAS TIME TO CAMPAIGN AGAIN
Rumors persist about Jim (I'm a realtor here in town) Fisler, current Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, occasional commenter here on this blog and part of the self-anointed "improver" group is going to run again. We have to assume he will make that decision within the next couple week. With the real estate market doing as poorly as it has been lately, Fisler will have plenty of time for municipal duties.

BUNYAN, AGAIN?
Former candidate Chris Bunyan has immersed himself in civic activities since he last ran and is presently immersed in saving Banning Ranch. In fact, he's footing the bill for a workshop on that subject from 6:30 - 8:30, Monday, July 21st at the Neighborhood Community Center near Lions Park for that purpose. He's been an off-again, on-again potential candidate. The last word I had from him was that he was not going to run... we'll see...

WHAT ABOUT RIGGY?
And then there's Riggy, the carpetbagging Planning Commissioner and Orange County GOP good old boy Jim Righeimer... we don't know if he's going to toss his hat into the ring this time around. If he does, that would make the election very interesting. He would undoubtedly get a lot of support - that means bucks - from the OC GOP. Riggy has said he's not running. If he did, he'd have to give up his weekly column on the Daily Pilot - a forum he's used to attempt to present "conservative views" to us all - when he's not pillorying applicants before the Planning Commission, that is. (Sorry, a smaller photo wouldn't accommodate his ego.)

NEWBIES?
I find myself wondering if we're going to see any new faces this time around. I hope so, although I'm not sure what a ballot with a dozen candidates will accomplish except to confuse the electorate.

THE FLAG GOES UP IN AUGUST
By the middle of August we'll know for sure who wants to compete for the opportunity to shape the city for the next four years. Then the fun begins... Stay tuned...

Weekend Reading

More things to contemplate while you're relaxing with your family this weekend.



DAILY PILOT ANNOUNCES DP 103
First, the Daily Pilot has announced the 2007 edition of their DP 103, a list of 103 people and things that were "influential" in our lives this year. You can read it here. As you scroll down through the list you'll find many familiar faces - movers and shakers in the Newport-Mesa area who appear year after year for their contributions. As always, there are some new ones, too. I've already teased some of my pals who made the list, but were superseded by plankton, at #80.

Thanks to each of those folks recognized by the Daily Pilot. Without their energy, vision and generosity our community would be a sorry place, indeed.

ORANGE COAST COLLEGE LIBRARY
Speaking of which, our pal, Doug Bennett, over at the Orange Coast College Foundation and #84 on the DP 103, took time out from trying to sell Rabbit Island to drop me this little note:

Geoff,

I wanted to let you know that there will be a new library in Costa Mesa in January – the new Orange Coast College Library. Yes, it is a college library but it is also a library that the community will be able to use. It will be 88,000 square feet and although I am biased its pretty spectacular, lots of computers, places to read and books. Community members can get a library card for $20 a year. It won’t have all of the children’s and juvenile collection of a city library but it will fill a need for students and the community until the new city library is built. It is being paid for with our local Measure We will be having a dedication ceremony in February, I’ll make sure you are invited.

Doug Bennett
Executive Director
Orange Coast College Foundation

So, once that new facility is opened you library fans can sneak over and check it out. It may whet your appetite for the new Costa Mesa Library even more.

RETURN OF THE LEPRECHAUN
A former member of the DP 103, Gary Monahan, announced that the three-term councilman, mulit-term mayor and the only councilman to qualify for a city pension, has decided to pitch his hat in the ring for a council seat again. You'll find Daily Pilot article here. The comment thread attached to that article is thought provoking, to say the least. Monahan's candidacy will be the subject of a separate post in the future.

So, let the speculation begin about which names will find their way to the ballot next year. At this point, it looks like Monahan, Foley and Bever for sure.

The "Direct Election of Mayor" Stampede Begins

As we head toward the celebration of Independence Day, July 4th, the agenda for the Costa Mesa City Council meeting to be held on Tuesday, July 3rd, became available on the city web site. Of special interest on this particular agenda is the next-to-last item, the debate of whether or not to directly elect the position of mayor at some point in the future. This will certainly provide us with some pre-4th fireworks. I thought it was curious to place such an important issue on the agenda at a meeting almost certain to be sparsely attended because of the holiday. However, former mayor Gary Monahan was very specific about it when he proposed the change.

KIM BARLOW'S REPORT
I scrolled down through the staff report prepared by City Attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow for the council to consider on Tuesday. That report, which can be reached by clicking here, provides some very interesting food for thought. As usual, Ms. Barlow has provided plenty of information for the council to consider. For example, she goes into an exhaustive analysis of the balancing of terms of council members and a mayor, depending on the circumstances of the election which approves the position.

Paraphrasing Ms. Barlow, here are a few pearls gleaned from her report (the emphasis is mine):

1- Generally, an "elected" mayor has the same powers as an "appointed" mayor. However, an elected mayor, "with the approval of the city council, shall make appointments to boards, commissions and committees unless otherwise specifically provided by statute." This means that an elected mayor selects individuals for appointments, but subject to the City Council's "right to reject mayoral appointments''. These appointments include "regional boards, commissions, and committees" and all "appointments to city council subcommittees." She goes on to tell us that the City Council may withhold approval of an appointment submitted to it by the mayor, but may not dictate to the mayor who the appointee must be. She also tells us an elected Mayor's power extends to the power to appoint members of the City's Planning Commission, but subject to the approval of the City Council. In my mind, that's a lot of power to place in the hands of one individual.

2- The term of such an elected mayor could be two or four years, depending on what the voters choose.

3- On the subject of salary of a directly elected mayor, Ms. Barlow indicates that an elected mayor may receive a salary in addition to the salary established for members of the council. She goes on to tell us that any such additional compensation is unlimited if it is established by the voters. Yikes!

4- On the subject of timing of such an election, Ms. Barlow provides extensive analysis and cost figures. She states that, "The estimated cost for our City to conduce a 'stand-alone election' is about $199,000". Later she further states that, "The cost of a consolidation election is estimated to be about $90,000 to $105,000."

5- There is no budget for a municipal election in the 2007-2008 budget, so an appropriate budget adjustment would have to be made, depending on the type of election anticipated.

If you're interested in the other details of Ms. Barlow's report I invite you to click on the link I provided in the second paragraph of this entry and review it in it's entirety.

QUESTIONS
I'm left with many questions about this subject but, in my view, the two most important to me are the following:
1 - Why is this change necessary?
2 - How will the direct election of the position of mayor improve the way the city is managed?

I need to be convinced that changing the system that has worked for more than a half century is essential and will make a significant improvement in how things are managed. Former Mayor Gary Monahan mumbled something about this position giving Costa Mesa more stature among the other cities in Orange County. Well, when I look at the list of the six cities in Orange County who have directly elected mayors - Anaheim, Irvine, Garden Grove, Orange, Santa Ana and Westminster - nothing jumps out at me as those cities having any particular elevated stature among the others simply because they directly elect the mayor. Anaheim gets a disproportionate amount of attention because of the recreation venues within it's borders. Irvine has gotten much attention because of it's growth, The Great Boondoggle, er, Park and because it had an egomaniac at the helm as mayor for a long time - the Emperor Agran. Miguel Pulido in Santa Ana is certainly not a good example of why an elected mayor is a great idea.

WHAT IS MONAHAN'S MOTIVE?
It's interesting that former Mayor Monahan is the moving force behind this initiative. A cynical guy might suspect that he got very comfortable at the municipal trough during his twelve years on the City Council and misses the significant benefits that come with a council position. I'm suspect he wouldn't be pursuing this change if he didn't think he had a lock on the position. And, if memory serves me correctly, didn't Monahan step down from the position of mayor not too long ago because his schedule was too busy? I wonder what's changed.

THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS
Not addressed in Barlow's missive to the council is the question of a sitting council member running successfully for the office of elected mayor. If a council member with two years remaining on his or her term decides to run for mayor, must he or she abandon that seat first? How would that vacant position be filled? Would another special election be necessary to fill the unexpired term? Would one of the vote-getters from the election be automatically appointed? What about term limits for this position?

WHY I WOULD VOTE "NO" TODAY
At this point, I'm not inclined to think favorably about this change. Even though the council is currently controlled by people I think are taking it in the wrong direction, I don't see how the direct election of the mayor would improve things. Quite the contrary, I see the real opportunity for corruption with such a change. The opportunities for cronyism and control of the city agenda by one person - a dictator, as it were - makes this a bad idea. And besides, I'm not sure I want to make such a change in this city just to provide health care benefits to a former mayor's brood and to pad his city pension.

This issue is very important to every resident of this city because it will fundamentally change the way the city does business. I suggest those residents with an opinion or questions communicate with the city council and/or present themselves before the council Tuesday night to express their views. I have the impression that the council majority will attempt to stampede this through the process to have it placed on the next state-wide election, the primary in February. To make that happen, even though it's more than a half a year away, many things need to happen fast to meet statutory requirements - see Ms. Barlow's report for the details.

Tuesday's council meeting should make for some very interesting viewing.

Directly Elect a Mayor? Why?

Seldom is there a time when I agree with our old buddy over at the CM Press. This time, though, The-Brain-Who-Ate-Costa-Mesa asks some pretty darn good questions - some of which I had posed in an earlier entry. Based on his blog comments, it looks to me he's really more concerned about losing influence over the council than anything else. Still, his questions are good ones and I've provided a link to his posting here.

At issue is the apparent fast-tracking of the proposal voiced by former mayor Gary Monahan at the city council meeting on June 5th to move forward with a plan to directly elect the position of mayor of Costa Mesa.

Now, beyond the fact that Monahan obviously thinks he's got a lock on the job, the whole subject presents some interesting questions that should be asked and answered before this change is rammed down the throats of the voters in this city. Since it was obvious that the mayor and city manager were not surprised by the request on the 5th, one can only assume that there's been a whole lot of dialogue going on behind the scenes on this issue for some time. It's going to be very interesting to see how this shakes out.

I've thought some more about this and have many of the same questions the CM Press addressed in his post.

1 - Will this be an additional position or replace one of the council positions?

2 - If it's an additional position, will it be a voting position?

3 - What will the tenure be - 2 or 4 years?

4 - How much will we pay this position?

5 - Will the compensation package include retirement credits?

6 - What about medical?

7 - Will it be a full-time job, or part-time, like the council positions?

8 - Will there be term limits applied to this position?

9 - If the directly-elected mayor gets hit by a truck - or falls off a bar stool - and cannot fulfill his responsibilities, how will he be replaced?

10 - Will this position have greater powers and authority than the present position of mayor? If so, it seems to me that there is a huge opportunity for abuse of that power and for corruption.

After watching the council meeting when Monahan requested this change, it sure looked like Mansoor was all for it. If he's for it, you can be sure Bever and Leece will vote to put it on the ballot, too, regardless the public input.

In the Daily Pilot article that addressed this issue, here, our young jailer/mayor is quoted as saying, "It does give a little more clout on regional issues, and it gives us more of a mandate regarding the direction of the city. And so that can be beneficial." I read that and found myself wondering just how the directly-elected mayor gives our city more clout on regional issues? I mean, a mayor is a mayor, right? Does that mean Mansoor is less a mayor than one who might be directly-elected? I'm sorry, I know that question is a set up, but I couldn't resist. And what's this "more of a mandate" stuff? Mansoor and his cronies have been crowing like those darn birds that infest my neighborhood ever since the election about their "mandate", for goodness sake.

The last segment of his quote is very interesting, too. What do you mean, "beneficial", Mr. Mayor? Do you mean beneficial to you, who has been padding his war chest recently under the guise of raising funds for the Veteran's Memorial Project? Does it mean the person who occupies the directly-elected mayor slot would have more visibility than you've had the past few years? How is that even possible? I mean, your mug has been all over the media ever since you decided to become a Minuteman and save our country from the brown hoards.

It's too early for me to express an opinion on this question - there are too many unanswered questions right now. However, it sure looks like this was contrived to benefit one person - former mayor Gary Monahan. I may be wrong, but he sure acted like he was back in control Tuesday night and had every confidence that his idea would fly.

I noticed that Monahan handled this one just as so many other important issues have been handled - he requested it be agendized for a council meeting, not a study session. This is precisely what happened with the Immigration Cross-designation fiasco. You'll also recall the way he slid the closure of the Job Center into the agenda with a similar, low-key, almost whispered, request.

An issue of this importance should be agendized for a study session, where potentially contentious elements can be discussed, before being placed on the council agenda. This sure looks like another quick pitch by this council majority to implement something extremely important to all residents of this city without giving them sufficient time to voice their views.

I wrote a satirical piece about a fictional (?) land of Mansooria, in which a person resembling our young jailer/mayor becomes Emperor. It's a long one and you can find it in the archives of this blog. I found myself thinking, tongue firmly planted in my cheek, that I wonder why we should bother with the position of directly-elected mayor? Why not just withdraw from the union and appoint an emperor to govern?

Before I express an opinion on the direct-election of the Mayor of Costa Mesa I want to know why it is necessary. What changes will this make to the governance of our city? Why now? What was the event that pushed us over the edge to this decision? Why will this move make Costa Mesa a better city for all it's residents?

Another interesting element is the date that this subject will be discussed by the Costa Mesa City Council - July 3, 2007. Yep, they've managed to get it placed on the agenda on a date when many regular attendees will likely be vacationing and the more casual observers will be otherwise occupied. Pretty clever, don't you think? I guess that means we'll be having fireworks two nights in a row next month.

The direct election of the mayor may turn out to be a terrific idea. However, the circumstances under which it has been proposed makes one suspicious. Baring any new information that changes my mind, I'm willing to wait to hear more about this new position, and how it affects the way this city is governed. It's going to be a very interesting month...

Snapping Fingers, Monahan Lingers, Anti-Airport Wrath and A New Bike Path

You know, sometimes watching a Costa Mesa City Council meeting can be a little like watching someone riding the Tea Cups ride at Disneyland. The way some members of the council change their minds, you almost half expect them to dizzily stumble off the dais from all that spinning.

PLAN AHEAD? WHO, US?
As predicted, the Mansoor Majority on the Costa Mesa City Council decided Tuesday night to discard the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, previously discussed here. Instead of taking a proactive position and proceeding with the plan staffer Peter Naghavi had proposed to establish guidelines for implementation of traffic solutions when residents bring them to their attention, the council majority - using it's obviously limited grasp of management principles - decided to require the staff to just keep on chugging away, handling one problem at a time.

I'm not surprised at this outcome at all. It just demonstrated for us all exactly how much control our young jailer/mayor has over his two lackeys on the dais with him. Both Eric Bever and Wendy Leece were enthusiastic supporters of Naghavi's plan when it was presented at the study session in January. All it took was for Mansoor to snap his fingers and they did a 180 on this issue. No good reasons were given for this turnabout by either of them. I guess they want to be sure their pal, the mayor, doesn't forget them when campaign time comes around. After all, he's still going around building his war chest, so he'll have plenty of bucks to pass around.

There was a moment of humor in this discussion, though. At the end - once the mayor moved to stop further action on the plan and to receive and file the report and it passed 3-2 - he asked the City Manager, Allan Roeder, to have a report prepared briefly discussing potential solutions for Eastside streets Flower, Raymond and Westminster. Others chimed in stating that all those Eastside streets, including Broadway - much beleaguered by speeders in the recent past - Magnolia and 19th Street should be included. Because the staff had already wasted lots of time, money and energy on the Traffic Calming issue, Roeder responded that he'd like to have that in the form of a motion, so they were sure of the direction the council was giving this time. After some hemming and hawing the whole idea was dropped because Mansoor apparently realized that he was asking for exactly the kind of information Naghavi's plan would have provided! Hoisted on his own petard! Ya gotta love it!

MAYOR FOR LIFE?
Another interesting event occurred at the council meeting Tuesday night. You may recall that in an entry at the end of March this year, here, I speculated about the probability of there being a movement afoot to propose the direct election of the position of mayor. Well, Tuesday night former council member and mayor Gary Monahan peeked over the speaker's podium and formally asked for the council to consider putting on the ballot a measure to provide a mechanism to do exactly that - directly elect the position of mayor of our fair city. This comes as no surprise to me - I've heard rumors about this for months. What surprised me is that the request came from Monahan and not the mayor. Of course, Monahan wants his old job back. I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks it could end up being a lifetime gig for him.

That whole idea brings with it many questions. For example, presently the mayor is selected from his peers on the council for a two-year term. I assume the directly elected mayor would have an automatic four year term. Also, would our current term limits regulations apply to that position? Maybe we should elect the mayor for only a two-year term... that would be fun.

Would this position be a full time job or a part time position like the current council seats? Monahan is already the only council member to qualify for a pension, which would be padded by his elected for, say, two terms of four-years each.

Also, even though the present position of mayor is largely ceremonial, the person on that throne does control the flow of debate to a very large extent and is in a disproportionately powerful position relative to his fellow council members. To put that much power in the hands of one person for as much as eight consecutive years creates a situation ripe for abuse and corruption.

This is going to be one issue that gets thoroughly vetted before it hits the ballot - maybe as early as the primary election early next year.

ALL IS NOT LOST
On a more positive note, among the other items considered Tuesday night, the council did pass a resolution opposing the use of the back nine holes of the Newport Beach Golf Course for parking and recommending using the current Bristol Street Mini Storage site as much-needed lighted playing fields.

They also agreed to fund a study to consider using the route along a couple flood control channels as a bike path across the city. This is another good move.