Community Commentary -- MICHAEL W. SZKARADEK

With respect to the alleged conduct of Chris Steel in 1998 and

2000, I was only the messenger. And yet I have at various times been

subjected to allegations by Steel and others that my charges were “phony”

or otherwise the result of some 14-year-long vendetta against him.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Steel did what he did, and I

just happened to be the only one to find and expose it. Among other

things, I am a fraud auditor. That’s what I do and what I am good at. The

fact that the Orange County District Attorney has opted to prosecute

Steel after conducting a thorough and independent investigation is all

the proof that anyone should need to conclude that my original concerns

and actions were justified.

At this point in time, even Steel’s most ardent supporters must have

noticed the conflicts in his various public quotations about what really

happened.

Steel has now apparently had a chance to admit and take responsibility

for what he did, and accept a lesser punishment (i.e. a misdemeanor

conviction and removal from office) and he has chosen not to do so. That

is his choice. However, whatever the outcome of the criminal action, I

personally think that Councilman Gary Monahan and Steel’s other

supporters are living in dreamland where the rule of law and generally

accepted principles of logic do not apply when the actions of their boy

are being subjected to scrutiny or otherwise are being questioned.

The simple fact is that this signature did not even come close to

matching the authentic signature on file with the Registrar of Voters and

should have therefore been disqualified by the City Clerk before Steel’s

name was ever put on the ballot.

Why this signature wasn’t disqualified is an open question that has,

in my opinion, not received enough attention by the authorities or the

news media. In any case, those who attempt to overlook or excuse Steel’s

preelection misconduct because he won the election ought to try taking a

course in logic, because they have failed to comprehend the fundamental

truth that a person who was not legally supposed to be on the ballot in

the first place (i.e. due to the actual deficiency in the number of valid

signatures on his nominating petition), should not have been in a

position to receive any votes, much less win the election.

Finally, I think that the defense apparently being advanced by some of

Steel’s supporters (i.e. that he could have gotten more valid signatures

if he had wanted to) is itself ridiculous. The next time that any of your

readers are in front of a traffic court judge for doing 60 miles per hour

in a 40 mile per hour zone, just try telling the judge that you “could

have” driven more slowly, and see what happens.

* MICHAEL W. SZKARADEK is a Costa Mesa resident who also ran against

Steel in the 1986 Costa Mesa City Council election.