RON DAVIS -- THROUGH MY EYES

Elections are nasty affairs. Emotions get more heated and distorted than

the steam in a Turkish bath. When it comes to elections, facts and ethics

seem to give way to an apparently more valuable principle -- winning. It

doesn’t seem to matter how the game is played -- “Just win, baby!”

I confess to having a double standard. I’ll give much more latitude to

the rank-and-file citizen who gets involved on one side or the other in a

campaign, as compared to our political leaders. I expect our political

leaders to be passionate about issues. I expect them to advocate to their

utmost for their cause.

But because they’re our leaders, they set an example for all of us to

follow. So if they bend the truth for political reasons, or should I say

merely because they want to win, it should surprise no one that others

follow their lead.

I’m certain that each side on Measure I (the Wal-Mart issue) can point to

misrepresentations and outright lies by the other side dressed up as the

gospel truth -- deliberate distortions justified in the minds of the

perpetrators on a fight-fire-with-fire theory; a sort of “It’s OK if I

stretch the truth or even lie because the other side has lied.”

To many, that’s considered politics as usual. A game played where winning

is everything, and how the game is played is relatively unimportant.

A letter was signed by four council members and distributed to some

senior citizens. This group was told that if Wal-Mart wasn’t constructed,

our city would lose $400,000 a year in revenues that were “badly needed

to maintain ... police and paramedic services.” They were also told that

loss of these potential revenues would have a “direct impact” on the

city’s ability to “maintain the level” of both of these services.

In short, they were told that if Wal-Mart wasn’t built, the essential

police and paramedic services that these residents especially rely on

would be jeopardized. Were they being truthful? Were they setting an

appropriate example as leaders?

The authors told the audience that “over half” of the city’s general fund

is used for public safety. But the authors didn’t provide the readers

with the dollar amounts so that the reader could put the loss of an

anticipated $400,000 in context.

As council members, they knew that the general fund runs around $115

million annually. Therefore, in the context of a $68-million expenditure

for public safety, would any rational person think that not receiving

$400,000 we never had in the first place would have a “direct impact” on

the city’s ability to maintain these services?

If that were so, why is it that those same council members thought so

little of the issue that they opted to ask whether the $400,000 should be

spent for tot lots and parks -- as stated in Measure J -- rather than on

public safety?

There were many compelling reasons to support the construction of the

Wal-Mart, and I find it deplorable that some of our leaders felt that

winning the issue justified the distribution of, at the very least,

misleading information to a vulnerable segment of the public -- a public

that assumes our leaders will give us the straight scoop.

Despite my displeasure, I won’t be joining the ranks of any group

suggesting that any member of the council be sanctioned or recalled from

office. They’ve merely given us what we’ve come to expect -- politics as

usual. It is we who have to expect more, and they’ll deliver more.

Just win, baby? Or should we be more concerned about how we play the

game?

* RON DAVIS is a private attorney who lives in Huntington Beach. He can

be reached by e-mail at o7 r.dd@gte.netf7 .