Rigonomics:

I wrote my first Rigonomics column for this paper in May 2007. Today, with 120-plus columns under my belt, I am writing my last. Though I was never trained to be a writer, I have a degree in business and I have done my best to bring the Daily Pilot readers useful and hopefully insightful columns.

I received the news from Acting Editor Dan Evans that I had a choice to make. It seems that I might have stepped over the line with one of my columns.

The ethics guidelines for the Daily Pilot are the same as those of its parent, the Los Angeles Times. The paper does not want to have even the slightest appearance of a conflict of interest, and therefore it has some very strict guidelines. One of those guidelines is that “No staff member (including freelancers like myself) may run for or accept appointment to any public office.” The editors believe that my appointment to the Costa Mesa Planning Commission, because of how much it affects our community, is equivalent to a public office.

A little history: The former editor Tony Dodero asked me to do this column after I was appointed to the Planning Commission in January 2007. I have known Tony for more than 20 years. He said he was looking for a more conservative column for the paper.

His interpretation of the guidelines at the time was that I couldn’t write about issues coming before the commission. He told me that if I decided to run for office, I would have to stop writing the column until any election was over. In 2008, when I decided to run for City Council, I did just that and took a 15-week sabbatical from writing this column.

When the election was over, I resumed writing my columns about free markets and gas prices, housing bubbles and bailouts.

I think the problem started when I began to write about the state’s decision to put our fairgrounds up for sale. For almost three years, I had never done a story that had anything to do with my position on the Planning Commission. Once I started writing about keeping the fairgrounds as, well, fairgrounds, by locking in the zoning through a citizen-passed ballot initiative, I probably crossed the line between my civic responsibility as a planning commissioner and writing a column about what I think should happen to the fairgrounds.

As you may recall, it was the response that I got from this column that persuaded me to start “Save the Fair.” My real estate background made it clear to me that the only way to save the fairgrounds was by getting a vote of the people to lock in the zoning. A decision this big could not be left to a future city council.

I know that I covered my ethical responsibilities as a planning commissioner when I abstained from voting on the General Plan Amendment language that, should the City Council approve this Tuesday, will be on the ballot in June.

My reasoning behind abstaining was simple: A planning commissioner is required to keep an open mind on any decision until after a public hearing on the matter. Seeing that I had already written about my desire to keep the property as a fairgrounds through a General Plan Amendment voted in by the citizens, a reasonable person might say that I had already made my mind up before the public hearing. Hence, I recused myself twice from voting on the issue and actually left the dais during the discussions and public hearings.

It was my column two weeks ago that brought this concern to Daily Pilot editors. How can they have a columnist who writes a column about the fairgrounds also be on a Planning Commission that has issues brought before him, and all the while be seen as impartial?

I accept that being on the Planning Commission and writing a column about an issue like that, even though I abstained on it, could look like a conflict. So I had a choice to make. I could either be a planning commissioner or a columnist; I could not be both.

I put a lot of thought into this decision. Though I do immensely enjoy writing this column, and even though it takes up my Friday, I have to look at the responsibility that I have in the community.

The City Council appointed me to the Planning Commission at a time when we have a lot of important issues other than saving the fairgrounds. The city is 50 years old, some of our infrastructure is getting worn out, and we need to make decisions to alleviate those problems. The commission also has to help guide the redevelopment of the Westside and mitigate any issues that might come if Banning Ranch gets approved.

I gave Evans my decision that I would be ending my column and continue with my responsibilities on the Planning Commission. I did not want any hard feelings between us, and he agreed to let me do this final column. He said he was sorry to see me leave, but he understood why I made the decision that I did.

So, to all of you who have read my column over these last several years: Thank you. I know that we did not always agree, but I hope I was never disagreeable in my writing.

A truly civil discussion is a rarity these days. People actively seeking to improve their community in addition to their other responsibilities at home, at work, and while trying to maintain a social life are a commodity not to be taken for granted. I thank every one of you who have taken the time to read my columns and join in the discussion that is so vital to our local community.

JIM RIGHEIMER is Chairman of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission, local business owner and a father of four. He can be reached at jim@rigonomics.com.