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.