SOUNDING OFF:

I read Costa Mesa City Attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow’s “Sounding Off” commentary (“Peelman’s missed oath doesn’t negate his principles,” Oct. 20)with great interest.

When she says, “The City Council does not determine who gets prosecuted, nor does it direct what charges may be pursued, when and under what circumstances charges will be filed, whether a case should be dismissed at some point in time during its course, or whether to appeal a decision adverse to the people,” I find myself wondering just who works for whom?

In the dismissed Acosta case the City Council held numerous closed-session meetings over many months in which the case was discussed. Are we to believe that these sessions were “one-way streets” with Barlow telling the council what is happening without the opportunity for the council — her boss — to provide direction?

If that’s the case, what happens in the pending federal case filed by Acosta against Mayor Mansoor, Chief Hensley and the city if the defendants wish to try to find common ground for a settlement? Will the attorney ignore that direction if he feels his case is strong?

I want to know just how much authority, responsibility and influence our elected officials have in this kind of a situation. It sounds like Barlow is saying, “none, none and none.”

When Barlow tells us that Peelman, her associate from Jones & Mayer, should not be taken to task for failing to meet a legal requirement for a prosecutor — which caused the Acosta case to be dismissed — I become concerned. If Peelman is not responsible for this gaffe, who is? Even though I hold Barlow in high regard, this sounds just a bit self-serving.

We can’t judge Barlow’s performance because much of what happens occurs behind closed doors. We are left only to judge by the outcome — as in the Acosta case.

Despite Barlow’s excellent account, based on letters and postings on the Daily Pilot blog, there are many people in this community who still find it curious that charges were filed by the prosecutor for the city after the District Attorney’s Office chose not to, and that those charges were filed only after Acosta filed his federal case.

Whether it is the case, it looks like we chose to try to teach Acosta a lesson for acting in a disrespectful manner toward the mayor at the earlier meeting in December 2005. It looks like we were willing to spend thousands of taxpayers’ dollars on a case that would generate $1,000 in fines. None of that makes our city look very good.

Barlow ends her commentary with the following statement: “Whether you agree with the decision to prosecute Acosta or with the judge’s order dismissing the case, the guiding principle for every prosecutor remains the same. Swearing one more oath does not and cannot change that.”

Well, apparently Judge Kelly MacEachern felt differently, so whom are we to believe?