Bever proved he cares about Costa Mesa...

Bever proved he cares about Costa Mesa by withdrawing

Thank you to Eric Bever for doing an honorable thing for the city

of Costa Mesa. While I was concerned with his “ideological” alignment

with Councilmen Chris Steel and Allan Mansoor, Bever has proven

himself to be a guy who really does care about the city. Mike

Schaefer will do a great job and will provide a nice balance on the

council, so it’s truly a good day for the city.

MARK GLEASON

Costa Mesa

Did the wrong man do the right thing?

Returning on Mother’s Day from a short, but much-needed vacation I

had my fingers crossed, hoping to find that the members of our City

Council had somehow managed to resolve their deadlock in April and

had appointed a new council member during their meeting on May 5.

Alas, it was not to be.

I read my accumulated Daily Pilots for information about what must

have been a contentious hearing that evening, then hunkered down

before my TV set to view my videotape of the meeting -- more than a

little depressed because I already knew the outcome.

When searching for words to adequately describe my reaction to the

proceedings that evening many come to mind -- “anger” and

“frustration” are but two.

For me, though, the word most descriptive of my reaction to that

meeting is “disappointment.” I am disappointed that our remaining

four elected leaders had been unable to arrive at a decision on this

issue, despite having previously put it off for two weeks to “see

what develops.” I was extremely disappointed that they put it off

again, until today, apparently assuming some kind of divine

intervention would occur in the next seven days.

I was disappointed that the attendees and viewers were again

subjected to Mayor pro tem Chris Steel’s incompetence while

conducting the meeting -- the “lowlight” of which was Councilwoman

Libby Cowan’s frequent interruption of applicant Eric Bever’s

discourse to remind Steel that he had forgotten, once again, to start

the clock. Disappointment turned to embarrassment as Cowan had to

instruct Steel -- who was operating in his usual state of perpetual

wide-eyed befuddlement -- on how to operate the timing device.

I was also very disappointed when, once the Bever/Mike Scheafer

deadlock was again assured, the council once again rejected Walt

Davenport as a compromise option -- even though he may well be the

most highly qualified of all the candidates for this position.

My disappointment was amplified as the council members seemed more

than willing, in this time of fiscal distress, to subject the city

and it’s residents to the cost and trauma of a special election to

fill the council vacancy.

There were a couple highlights from that meeting, however. Among

them were the professionalism displayed by both Bever and Scheafer as

they presented their case for appointment. I was also impressed by

supporters of both applicants as they calmly and eloquently extolled

the virtues of their favored applicant.

For me, however, the single most encouraging event that evening

was the election of Gary Monahan as mayor. This means that an

experienced, steady hand will be at the helm during the tumultuous

times ahead. No longer will the city council meetings drift like so

much debris from a shipwreck on a stormy sea, as has been the case

with Steel at the wheel.

So, Monday I prepared to watch the proceedings live, fully

expecting it to be a replay of last Monday’s council meeting. Things

went as expected, including the obligatory 2-2 votes on both Bever

and Scheafer. My disappointment continued as, after listening to

Steel offer up former Planning Commissioner Eleanor Egan as a

compromise candidate and failing to receive a second, Cowan moved to

adopt the resolution sending the process to a special election --

without anyone filling the spot in the interim. This, of course,

would have been disastrous for the city.

Then -- in a remarkable display of integrity and citizenship -- up

stepped Eric Bever. With a few well-chosen words, he validated his

supporters’ confidence as he interrupted the discussion of Cowan’s

motion and offered to withdraw from consideration for the good of the

city and to avoid the cost of the special election.

You could hear a pin drop as his most ardent advocate, Councilman

Allan Mansoor, confirmed with Bever his intention to withdraw. Cowan

then withdrew her motion and Monahan again nominated Scheafer, who

was appointed on a 3-1 vote, with a flummoxed Steel voting no for

some unfathomable reason. A second vote confirmed Scheafer

unanimously.

Although this trauma is now behind us and the City Council may

finally be able to move forward on issues critical to the city, I

remain uneasy. As Scheafer, following his swearing-in, took his seat

on the dais and thanked the council for their support and confidence,

he neglected to mention Bever and the sacrifice he made. At that

moment, I found myself wondering whether the wrong man had done the

right thing.

GEOFF WEST

Costa Mesa

Holding up moderation against extremism

Lolita Harper is always an interesting read for me, even though I

almost always disagree with her. You see, I value diversity of

opinion and practice tolerance toward opposing (a.k.a. “extremist”)

views. Hopefully, Harper does also, so I am writing to take exception

to almost all she had to say in her “Haven’t the voters already

spoken?” column of May 12.

First, she states only five people took the initiative to run in

November but 26 “suddenly” have a burning desire to serve the city.

Many of these 26 people already serve the city, in some cases for

several years, on various committees and with volunteer work. Perhaps

some of them would have run for council in November (I think around

15 people pulled nomination papers) but decided that another

candidate who had already filed shared similar viewpoints. So they

decided to campaign for him/her rather than split the vote. In any

case, all 26 people followed the law and submitted a letter seeking

appointment. Those who did not have a track record of service were

quickly dismissed. Where’s the harm? Why does it bother Harper?

As a conservative, I am used to having those who disagree with me

use terms such as “hate speech,” “chilling effect,” “extremist” and,

when they are desperate, “racist.” (Where is that tolerance for

diversity they preach?) But Harper describing the thought of an

“improver” being appointed as “terrifying” is a little overboard.

Out-of-control borders and invading masses not screened for their

intentions or communicable diseases are more apt to cause terrifying

results, don’t you think? To apply that term to a group that wants to

improve the quality of life for Costa Mesans is ridiculous.

Harper says that we could run the Job Center at twice its size

with the money a special election would cost. Hmmm. Just a thought,

but we could stop funding the Job Center and have paid for the

special election.

The Job Center has a noble purpose, but it could be privately run

by a company such as Labor Ready. Also, it would teach assimilation

by withholding taxes from employer and employee instead of under the

table payments. One argument against a company such as Labor Ready is

that they are adept at screening workers for legal status. Don’t tell

me our city uses taxpayer money to find illegal immigrants jobs? I

guess next you would want me to believe that we use federal grant

dollars to fund services to illegal immigrants rather than take care

of needy legal residents?

Harper says the majority of Costa Mesa voters might have need to

get smart and back one candidate against an “improver” in the special

election [that ended up being unnecessary] and we would end up with a

moderate. I guess she implying that law abiding, improvement minded

candidates are extremist? One person’s moderate is another’s

extremist.

JAMES FISLER

Costa Mesa