Planning was bad on council appointments

Mark your calendar. Feb. 3, 2003, is the date the Costa Mesa City

Council resurrected cronyism, redefined political patronage and wrote

it into the city code. They decided to cast aside any pretense of

objectivity in the appointments to the two major city commissions --

parks and recreation and planning -- and voted themselves, as

individuals, the ability to handpick one member of each commission.

These surrogates will be joined at the hip, so to speak, of their

benefactor for life. Life, in this case, is defined as the duration

of the council member’s tenure or until the council person tires of

them, which ever comes first.

By their actions, they have eliminated the opportunity for

applicants to the commissions to present their qualifications. The

process now will consist of “interviews” of potential appointees by

the individual council members. I can just hear those “interviews”

now. “You will vote the way I tell you or you’ll be history, pal!”

And how will these “candidates” be selected? Let’s see now --

politics is an expensive proposition, so maybe a nice, hefty campaign

contribution might insure a place on the Parks and Recreation

Commission. Perhaps a little larger donation will land a person a

slot on the Planning Commission. The term “highest bidder” comes to

mind.

Then, as the next election approaches, the commissioner could be

encouraged to kick in a little more, since the council member can

“fire” the commissioner at will -- no questions asked. Heck, if the

right person is selected, this could be an annuity that would put the

city retirement plan to shame. After all, no one can veto the

appointment and no other council member will “interview” the

candidate before the selection is made. Who knows what other kind of

favors or inducements might be required for one of those nice,

powerful positions.

Might successful council candidates appoint their spouses or

significant others? How about their children or pets? Certainly, we

could expect to see a campaign manager or two. The proposed plan

provides no oversight or veto power, so literally anyone could be

appointed. At a time when some stability is certainly necessary in

our city, it would be possible for a council member to appoint a

person for a week, then swap that one out for another, and another

and another. I can envision a new title -- Planning Commissioner for

a Day.

Quite simply stated, this stinks. Our council conveniently took

the easy way out -- and coincidentally managed to take the way that

will benefit each of them individually by giving them the power of

political life and death over their selectees. If this bogus

methodology is enacted, there is absolutely no reason to think anyone

will get a fair hearing before either of these commissions in the

future. The commissioner’s decisions will have already been made for

them by their benefactor.

There is still time, however, to stop this madness. The council

chartered the city attorney and city manager to come up with a

policy, to be presented and enacted at the next council meeting.

Immediately following that enactment, the new appointees will be

announced.

I suspect that, given sufficient citizen reaction to this

flimflam, the council might be encouraged to reconsider this plan and

take a more appropriate route to selecting future commissioners. The

commissioners should be appointed based on a majority vote of all

council members and should be subject to removal on the same basis --

not at the whim of a vindictive benefactor.

GEOFF WEST

Costa Mesa