Commentary: Charter process faulty from the start

I read “Charter process nearing end” in the June 3 Daily Pilot. The comment, “The two sides once again lobbed well-worn arguments at each other,” drove me to review some documents and articles that served as the basis for my initial opposition to this second attempt at a Costa Mesa city charter.

First, the majority of the City Council members have said the charter will not give them more power. However, despite what they say, more power over the residents and community can be granted to the council majority.

This is supported by the comments below from the 2011-12 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury that were prompted by the scandals in the charter cities of Bell and Vernon:

“Charter cities in California are given greater authority and flexibility, by California law, than general law cities over municipal affairs. The CGJ members expressed concern about the potential for abuse of this flexibility.”

And, “The CGJ conducted an investigation of the charter cities within the county of Los Angeles, to look at and consider whether the relative autonomy that charter cities are entitled to may lead to abuse in the areas of financial management, procurement and contracting, compensation, and general city governance.”

Second, rather than a voter-elected commission, as many residents recommended, the council majority decided to use a council-appointed committee. This allowed council members to install on the committee like-minded followers.

The appointed committee gave the inaccurate perception of properly involving a representative cross section of the community in the charter process.

Third, as was described in the Daily Pilot (“Costa Mesa Charter Committee sets up house,” June 27, 2013), the committee tried to establish its mission: “Should the group work assuming that its aim is to create a charter, or should it first be decided whether or not the city needs one?” The committee was not allowed to make the determination about whether a charter was needed.

The answer to this key question would have formed the entire basis for the charter. However, because it was not answered, the charter couldn’t have been written correctly.

Despite the well-worn nature of these arguments, they are still valid. I remain opposed to the charter because it will grant too much power to the council majority, the process used to form the committee was not right and the proposed charter was not written correctly.

CHARLES MOONEY lives in Costa Mesa.