Doing best for human relations
I spend the week after I return from a trip slogging through
newspapers that have accumulated while I was gone. That way I can
keep up on the local crises and generate some easy columns.
This time it appeared to be easier than usual because one crisis
dominated both the news and editorial pages of the Pilot: questions
over the suitability of three members of the Costa Mesa Human
Relations Commission because of recent public comments they have
made.
According to the city’s Web site, the mission of the Human
Relations Commission is to “implement projects that will encourage
the interaction, sharing and understanding of each culture’s riches
and seeks to be a catalyst for the resolution of issues that separate
people in Costa Mesa.” Obviously it’s the wrong place for anyone
committed to positions that would circumvent these goals.
So the only question relevant to this issue would seem to be
whether or not the public postings of the members under fire -- two
of them recently appointed -- raise critical questions about whether
or not they can satisfactorily serve the stated goals of the Human
Relations Commission. And answering this question should be a slam
dunk since their views are on record on the Concerned Costa Mesa
Citizens Web site.
But not just anybody can get access to this web site to read their
views. For reasons unclear to me, you have to be approved by a
moderator named “Jerry.” I applied on Monday morning, and as I was
writing this on Tuesday evening, I got a response requesting more
information. I had an easier time getting into a fraternity in
college and the U.S. Navy. Since I live in Santa Ana Heights and that
was one of the additional questions, I have a feeling I’m not going
to be approved -- and certainly not before my deadline for this
column. I’ll keep you posted.
Meanwhile, I have to depend on the accounts in the Pilot’s news
stories and letters. There, the objectionable postings I can’t get
access to are quoted in detail and mostly related to two national
organizations: Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.
Human Relations Commission member Allan Mansoor -- a candidate for
the Costa Mesa City Council -- defended these postings as offering a
conservative viewpoint that should be heard and appreciated by those
commission members with differing opinions.
But what he didn’t point out is that these organizations don’t
stop at offering viewpoints; they push agendas. They don’t want to
understand homosexuality, for example; they want to deny its
biological roots and fix gay people who -- in their view -- have
elected this lifestyle. And here is where sharing viewpoints breaks
down. When the viewpoint becomes an agenda then it is totally
counterproductive in the area of human relations, and people who
subscribe to this agenda would be working at cross purposes with the
committee, which is not out to change anyone.
It isn’t clear from the clippings to what degree the other two
commission members under fire subscribe to this same agenda. But when
Costa Mesa Councilwoman Libby Cowan told a Pilot reporter, “If we can
get past the rhetoric and the hurt feelings, I think that in the long
run this will be a good thing for our community,” she may well have
been blowing smoke. When commission members believe that their
positions are ordained by God, we aren’t dealing simply with rhetoric
to be gotten past.
So are there, indeed, ways in which this controversy can be good
for the community? I asked this question of Mayor Linda Dixon, whose
absence in the clippings seemed to put her above the fray. And she
first of all described the manner in which members are chosen for the
various volunteer committees set up by the city. When a vacancy
appears, the city advertises openings on TV channel 74 and letters of
applicants are distributed among the council members. The Council
liaison -- in this instance Karen Robinson -- then makes a choice,
and, if there is no objection, the post is filled.
“Most of the time,” sighed Dixon, “we’re lucky if we get enough
applicants to fill the openings. In the case of Human Relations, we
had just enough. There isn’t much of a regimen to this. City
committees aren’t very popular to serve on. So when we have people
who are eager, we allow the liaison to make the appointments. We
don’t interview the candidates or set up any criteria.”
Does the current Human Relations hassle suggest a new approach?
“Of course it does,” she said. “It makes me believe that we need
to do some interviews and set up some criteria so if an applicant
doesn’t fit, we find that out ahead of time. But so much needs to be
done, and there is so little time available to take all the steps
that need to be taken.”
Meanwhile, unless the City Council chooses to take some action on
the complaints, we’ll muddle through the Human Relations crisis. No
critic, in my reading, tried to limit the expression of any viewpoint
or made personal attacks on committee members. What they attacked was
the appointment of members they perceived with a fixed agenda that
would produce conflict rather than progress on the commission. If the
critics were a little shrill, that should not invalidate the
legitimacy of their concern.
* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column
appears Thursdays.
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.