Effective or "Touchy-Feelee"

Better roads require 

drive to accomplish

Watching the Mayor and Pro Tem work during the past year brought to mind a Chief of Surgery at a military hospital, many years ago. The staff would all have cancelled and connived to get him as the surgeon for their surgery -- or their family's. However, they cancelled and connived at least as hard to avoid working in the operating room with him.

Excellent work, caustic criticism

He was irascible, demanding, and an extreme perfectionist. Other surgeons feared him, too, because of his caustic criticism of their failings. Morbidity and Mortality conferences, where medical folks meet to discuss cases that went either well or poorly, were well-attended (Chief’s orders) and dreaded (Chief’s presence). No one ate the breakfast supplied at the meeting, and many didn't sleep well the night before M&M conferences.

Dr. Z spared no words on someone who made a mistake – it would be a long time before anyone in the room ever made that mistake again. So, after about a year with Dr. Z as Chief, most surgical staff errors were small and subtle. Surgery was safer, faster, and more competent in all surgical departments. Overflow fastidiousness improved the nursing services, the Medical (non-surgical ill) service and even the housekeeping services.

Dr. Z demanded perfection and improvement – from himself as well as from every member of the staff.

In Costa Mesa 

When we see the accomplishments of the City Council majority we remember Dr. Z’s insistence that every job be done perfectly, or at least close. And that it be done better next time. In Costa Mesa we are seeing roads and gutters being redesigned and repaired and fixed correctly after years of neglect and patching and slurry.

We see the City’s Reserve funds, spent down from $35M by previous councils, being restored dollar by dollar. We see Fairview Park getting some of the attention we promised for it a decade ago – which the Councils since that time have ignored and refuse to fund.

We see award-winning transparency, enforced by ordinance. We see the Westside starting to rise into prominence and importance after years of being ignored. We see the problems generated by the Problem Motels being addressed for the first time since they were identified,tabled and ignored more than a decade ago.

He doesn't talk soft and nice

But, “the Mayor’s harsh” with people who interrupt and delay Council meetings. The Council majority insisted on learning what the employees were being paid to do. (This required “pink slips” per labor union contract, although the Mayor assured the employees that no one was expected to lose their job, regardless of the study’s outcome.) 

Note that teachers face these “pink slips” repeatedly; they’re just part of the procedure required by union contracts. (Yes, some prefer the term “Association Memorandums of Understanding” but there’s no essential difference in meaning, just in length of terms.)

The Mayor and the Pro Tem don’t always talk softly and never talk timidly. They demand excellence for Costa Mesa. They serve the citizens of the City, without capitulation to the agitators and other power brokers. They don’t talk sweetly and pontificate about abstract “good things;” instead they meet their responsibilities as elected leaders.

Accomplishment admired, style -- not so much

Similar to the Dr. Z story above, a lot of cities would like a council majority like ours. But, also similarly, the critics in our City don’t like his manner. They enjoy the improved roads and alleys and parks, but they hate the Mayor who speaks directly, sometimes very directly -- and drives the improvements.

 Perhaps we should all get used to hearing truth spoken “directly” as we enjoy the fruits of jobs done well – and done better every time.

Bully them if they're right

Commenter bullies

We read that bullying isn't acceptable in schools and that it’s wrong in the workplace. What about bullying those who disagree politically? For a small group of haters in Costa Mesa, that bullying is acceptable.

If someone states that street and curb repairs, park maintenance and Westside development are all good for Costa Mesa they will be bullied. They’ll be ostracized, criticized, and marginalized by our local haters. Why? Because the Mayor and Pro Tem are driving the improvements.

The haters are (political) bigots. Their bigotry is simple – if the Mayor and Pro Tem are involved it’s bad regardless of the benefit for the City.

Bigots

The Pro Tem is walking down every street in the City, and the Mayor is visiting neighborhood after neighborhood with a Meet the Mayor program. The idea, in both cases, is to find out what is really going on in the city and what the citizens’ concerns are. What’s wrong with seeking the facts before making decisions? Back to the bigoted premise; the Mayor and Pro Tem are involved so it’s time to “bully the blighters.”

The bullies use attacks on personal lives, innuendos about (supposed) beliefs and ridicule of lifestyles. Personal attacks are all that the haters can muster because the value of infrastructure improvements can’t be argued.

An old malady

Costa Mesa’s haters aren't unique, just mildly annoying and sometimes amusing. (See Council Comments video Here.) There’s even a term for their affliction, coined many years ago. Xenophobia is the “unreasoned fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.” Infrastructure improvements are foreign concepts to the haters.

Look at how the parks and roads and alleys were neglected, ignored, and unfunded when previous Council majorities set the priorities. Pontification and pandering from the dais didn't ensure street and alley maintenance, it just wasted money. One presumes the haters were happy as the Reserves drained away and politicians emoted tearfully from the dais. Now things are getting done, which upsets the haters.

Fear of that which differs

Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways involving the relations and perceptions of one group toward another, including suspicion of the other’s activities and aggression toward those perceived as different.

The Pro Tem developed COIN (Civic Openness In Negotiation). It is being studied and copied throughout the state, and to some degree by cities in other states. The haters vehemently opposed this ordinance. After ferociously disputing and resisting COIN they now complain that it doesn't go far enough!  

Perhaps the haters should muster the discipline and political will to extend transparency to our other money-spending activities, if that’s what they really want. They can have credit for the “ON4-1/5” or Open Negations for (the final) one-fifth” of City expenses.

Not kid stuff but childish

Bullying isn't acceptable for adults. But for the haters, it’s all there is. Their diatribe is mostly ignored, so maybe we should call it attempted bullying.

Intent to harm vs. freedom to publish

Libel in the time of Weblogs 

Malice: a legal term describing the intent to harm. “Actual malice” is required to establish libel against public officials and is usually needed for punitive damages. It involves material that was known to be false.

As “libel law" develops in the Weblog age, defining what “publishing” is becomes more important. Libel is published written defamation (false statements of fact that damage one’s reputation).

But is it published

 “Distribution” isn't the same as “publishing.” Amazon can list an excerpt from a book in their advertising without concern for it being false and damaging; they are distributing the information, not publishing it.

But if a newspaper publishes a guest editorial that damages someone’s reputation by asserting a “fact” that is clearly untrue, it potentially subjects itself to libel suits and damages. It published something that it knew, or should have known, was false as well as damaging to the victim. It demonstrated actual malice.

Does a blogger “publish”? Probably. But, are comments following her posts “published” or “distributed?” The answer is obscure. Is the blogger responsible for the comments within her post? Probably to some degree; it’s not clear.

Defamation must damage

Defamation has to cause damage to be actionable in court whether it’s done in a newspaper or online. So, a blogger who asserts that “Mayor Righeimer eats worms” is probably safe from libel suits. (It’s also about as relevant and demonstrable as most of the constant complainers’ other assertions.)

However, blogging untruthfully that (hypothetical name) Bob Sanchez sells heroin as his second job, might result in an expensive suit if the accusation caused Bob’s customers to cancel their orders. In this case the phrase “in my opinion” might not protect the blogger – her statement of fact is verifiable and wrong. If she posts, “the Mayor has poor taste in neckties” she’s stating an opinion.

Defamation might be expensive

Say she posts, “Bob Sanchez should be fired from his primary job because his second job involves illegal drug sales.” If Bob gets fired; can he get libel damages from her when a court clears him of illegal dealings? The answer is; maybe. We’re getting more case law in this field.

There are some interesting twists, too, in the reputations of the publisher and the victim. If the victim has a scurrilous reputation, such as a physician who recently lost his medical license for egregious misbehavior, his recovery of damages is unlikely. The idea is that the victim’s reputation was difficult to damage more with a blog post. The same assertion about the Chair of the Water Department might be actionable.

The blogger’s reputation probably matters, too. If the blogger is generally applauded as a reasonable source of information, she may be able to damage a Fair Board members’ reputation with her post. If she is generally considered to be a “nut case” or “loose cannon” her ability to damage an honored citizen with a post is less. So a blogger might avoid libel trouble if she’s not taken seriously by most Costa Mesans.

A field with constitutional overtones 

And, the clash of the issues of personal dignity and First Amendment rights, as expressed by Justices Stewart Potter and Hugo Black, seem to be critical to internet libel cases.

Libel is growing in importance in blogging and social media, and the rules aren't yet clear.

Scream insults or study facts, take your pick

Deciding what's right

Let’s look at two approaches for deciding controversial matters of public policy. Both are in vogue in Costa Mesa. One approach involves investigation, discussion, and debate – by Costa Mesans -- to decide what’s best for Costa Mesa. This method has the most supporters.

Another approach is illustrated by a Councilwoman’s comment:

“I hope the feds send a strong message to the Council majority that the City cannot ignore the rules and just build the path, turn on the lights and make way for the parking lot and tot lot.”

So, she believes Costa Mesa can’t or won’t protect City property though our own procedures. She is insulting the ability and integrity of our Public Services Department and Director.

This is also an example of perceived locus of control – clearly she believes in committees appointed in Sacramento or Washington D.C., rather than Costa Mesans to best determine what is good for Costa Mesa.

Emotional not factual

Her remark is a bit short in the facts department, though. The path she’s talking about was in place for a long time and refurbished recently by citizens trying to improve the park. (The City Council ignored Park projects for several administrations so volunteers began maintaining some trails and fences at their own expense.) Just a matter of residents trying to help out when previous Councils didn't fund Fairview Park maintenance. (It's worth noting that only the Mayor and the Pro Tem were not involved in decisions to not fund Park Maintenance in the past.)

Further, the turnaround/parking was planned more than a decade ago and has just reached a funding stage; funding for study, that is. Hysteria about “paving the vernal ponds” was generated by a few folks with political agendas – again; unfounded and ridiculous warnings that have been done before. (1)

Lights are similarly being studied – and blamed on the Pro Tem’s enthusiasm for youth sports, ignoring the real arguments both for and against.

I'm mad -- I want the city to get fined 

The Councilwoman is rooting for the home team to lose, a curious stand for an executive. There’s the matter of loyalty, too. We started learning in Kindergarten to support our team. Some of us did.

So disloyalty in hoping for (if that’s all she did) her city to be “punished,” and attacking the knowledge and integrity of the Public Services Department, and distortions of facts – why?

Vindictiveness trumps integrity and loyalty

A key reason behind such silliness is personal vindictiveness. For example, consider a remark by a commenter after her post:

“Steve is sort of a bully. Jim, a failed leader. Together they fund a lot of lawyers.”

This has no bearing on the subject, it’s just an ad hominem attack – which is most commonly used when facts supporting a position are sparse or haven’t been researched. And more such nonsense; a frequent theme for about five very vocal commenters is:

“Theft of public land is a Righeimer hall mark going back to his days working with Suncal,” an ad hominem refuted as far back as 2011. (See 2) 

Facts and priorities or name-calling and blaming

So, there’s the approach of debating the priorities and issues, on one hand. There’re ongoing studies and plans by a devoted and highly-effective Public Services Director and his staff to collect facts to fuel and support debate about priorities. This also involves soliciting citizen – not agitator – input.

And, then there’re emotional outbursts seeking to blame the current Council’s majority for failures by past City Councils. This involves recruiting out of town agitators.  Those who enjoy the emotional catharsis of screaming at Council and Commission members will continue doing what they enjoy. (3)

It must tire them out 

Seeing every project and event through the lens of “I hate Mayor Righeimer and the Pro Tem, too” must be exhausting. It doesn't require any effort for research or thinking though.

1) Paving vernal pools: Good summary of several issues: Here

Early article:  Here

2) Untrue and malicious, refuted here:  Here

3) Alinsky’s Rule 6 is: “A good tactic (for manipulating public opinion without regard to truth) is one your people enjoy.”

Personal animosity is never correct, legal, or even productive

Law and Propriety

From the Municipal Code (City law)

Sec. 2-60. Propriety of conduct of council members

Members of the council shall preserve order and decorum during a meeting.

It shall be unlawful for any member of the council to violate any of the following rules:

. . . Members of the council shall not, by disorderly, insolent or disturbing action, speech, or otherwise, substantially delay, interrupt or disturb the proceedings of the council. . .

 (Code 1960, § 2223; Ord. No. 72-38, § 2, 10-16-72; Ord. No. 85-26, § 2, 10-21-85)

In the past, the law listed above would have seemed superfluous; after all, folks elected to conduct Costa Mesa’s business and to represent all of the citizens of the City would be responsible and honorable people. We expect respect for government process from government officers even when they don't get their way.

Laws apply to the audience 

Sec. 2-61. Propriety of conduct while addressing the council.

It shall be unlawful for any person while addressing the council at a council meeting to . .

. . . make any personal, impertinent, profane, insolent, or slanderous remarks.

. . .  yell at the council in a loud, disturbing voice.

. . .  speak without being recognized by the presiding officer.

. . .  continue to speak after being told by the presiding officer that his allotted time for addressing the council has expired. . .

(Code 1960, § 2224; Ord. No. 72-38, § 2, 10-16-72; Ord. No. 85-26, § 2, 10-21-85)

 

Sec. 2-64. Disorderliness by members of the audience.

It shall be unlawful for any person in the audience at a council meeting . . .

Engage in disorderly, disruptive, disturbing, delaying or boisterous conduct, such as, but not limited to, handclapping, stomping of feet, whistling, making noise, use of profane language or obscene gestures, yelling or similar demonstrations, which conduct substantially interrupts, delays, or disturbs the peace and good order of the proceedings of the council.

Refuse to comply with a lawful order or directive of the presiding officer of the council.

The sergeant-at-arms shall have the authority to remove any such person from the council chamber and place him or her under arrest, or both.

(Code 1960, § 2227; Ord. No. 72-38, § 2, 10-16-72)

Illegal and silly

So, the behaviors we've observed during recent meetings – and during last year’s City Council meetings -- are illegal, as well as foolish and embarrassing for the City.

And what if the sources of “profane language or obscene gestures” are city employees or volunteers? Are City employees exempt from City law? The employees who represent Costa Mesa to the public should be people who obey the law and observe rules of decorum.

Fortunately, the majority of the elected officials, and the great majority of the employees and uniformed volunteers are law-abiding, courteous men and women.

 

The number of rude, entitled brats is small; nevertheless Costa Mesa deserves responsible behavior from all of those who would represent her to the public. 

Personal animosity is never correct, legal, or even productive in government operations.

As if the "Chamber Childish" weren't bad enough. . .

Uninformed or just foolish

The Council meeting Tuesday evening was embarrassing. The “Chamber Childish” contingent often triggers embarrassment about their lack of decorum. But Tuesday’s meeting added more reasons to hope intelligent tourists weren't visiting and judging Costa Mesa by what they observed.

Study the study to . . .

The Council considered rehearing the City’s decision to study the impact of the turnaround proposed for the end of Pacific Avenue (and extending into Fairview Park). Yes, that’s reopen study of a study.

A request for a re-hearing in Costa Mesa requires that credible new information be found.

Offered as “new” information were such items as a letter from a state office recommending that archaeological sites be avoided in development. More “new information” included opinions of biologists and archaeologists who looked at photos and drawings. A couple of them speculated that biologically and archaeologically sensitive areas might extend farther south – into the planned turnaround.

Speculation to fact 

How would we turn this speculation into fact? Study the area. The rehearing’s purpose? Delay the study of the area while we learn more about the area – by not studying it.

One new piece of information was advice that a family may have hidden or buried the remains of a relative in the park recently – probably clandestinely.

So there were opinions from a distance, speculation, and a hint that remains had been interred in the public park recently.

Not enough for another hearing

The information offered didn’t meet the criteria for a rehearing, so a rehearing was denied. The emotional outburst by the requester was noteworthy: initially her presentation had been rational. It was disorganized and largely opinion or hearsay-based evidence, but it was rational. Her summary, however, was an outburst unworthy of a government official.

Her attacks on the Public Services Director, in our opinion, were unwarranted and an egregious misuse of power. She castigated him and used one of his statements to try to justify a rehearing. She berated him; he had said there was no need for archeological oversight of the turn-around because it wasn't in an area known for archaeological significance.

What wasn't mentioned in her abuse; there is no evidence of archeological significance in the turnaround area – yet. The design study includes an evaluation of the significance of the site, as well as delineation of the important areas. So, as the study proceeds more area may be protected. The turnaround area may qualify as a protected area. Or not.

Delay the study until we know more 

She wanted to delay study of the area until we learn more about it – by not studying it. She verbally abused and criticized a highly-respected City employee. Her summary of her position was an emotional outburst instead of an argument supporting her position. And, she’s a Council member – a respected and responsible title.

 

It was embarrassing. And that’s before the “Chamber Childish” started their hoots, groans and catcalls.

Council members’ concern for constituents’ ideas

Wednesday Potpourri

 

One Councilman rarely responds to emails, but is happy to discuss issues, often at length, with anyone who asks. The Mayor and Pro Tem respond to calls, emails, and questions – period. They schedule time to talk to any citizen with a question, giving the impression that they care what the citizenry think. They sit down and talk with those who insult them. These three Council members seem to be trying to represent all citizens, not just those who agree with them.

We have been unable to engage either Councilwoman in any more than brief conversation, or to get any return phone calls or texts from them, or to have our emails to them answered. They are frequently engaged with their followers after Council or Commission meetings, though. That is, they do seem responsive -- to those who agree with them.

Chamber childish at work

Only two medium and one soft “honk” came from the “Chamber’s childish” contingent during Tuesday night’s Council meeting. That was, sadly, an improvement – maybe they're tiring of their squeaky toy. 

And, a song which was probably intended to be cute was sung so far off key it was difficult to understand – apparently the idea was dissonance rather than message. Why is someone singing at a governing body meeting, you ask? Yep, we ask that a lot.

(To paraphrase an old joke: What’s the difference between the anti’s who crowd Chambers during Council meetings and the Boy Scouts? Answer, the Boy Scouts have adult leadership.)

Rules are for you, not me

Commenters have three minutes to present whatever they want to the City Council at the beginning of the meeting. During agenda item discussions their comments can only address the specific issue being discussed. This is spelled out in state law and City ordinances. However, some commenters think that they are entitled to ignore the rules that apply to the rest of us.

One comment during the “specific item” citizen input about a proposed rehearing degenerated into an attack on Councilmen who “looked bored.” Looking bored was criticized as “rude” and became the focus of the comment. The ranters and ravers were appalled that the Mayor insisted on the discussion remaining on point – per law. Their view seemed to be, “How dare he enforce the rules when she wants to insult Council members? Their cries of outrage suggested they think “the rules don't apply to her.”

Entitlement enriched – but not enabled; the Mayor didn't let her continue her rudeness rant.

Outsiders respectful and courteous

We noticed that most of the courteous and respectful commenters at this meeting were from out-of-town. So they could be excused for not understanding the Costa Mesa ordinances regarding rehearings. (Issues can be re-heard only for new and pertinent information.) Most of these commenters identified themselves as representatives of local tribes who wanted Fairview Park areas protected from encroachment, which wasn't the issue.

We doubt that the local complainers (and Newport Beach recruits) learned much about decorum from their good example, though. After all, Kindergarten and their mothers weren't very successful at instilling manners and respect for fair play.

"You're stupid and mean. Want to go to a movie with me?"

Illuminate or bludgeon

A Daily Pilot commentary sparked remarks that illustrate two ways of approaching issues. The letter addressed a need to deal with the unfunded liabilities from employee retirement benefits.*

The first two and the fourth remarks below illustrate a positive and respectful approach to debating the issue. The third illustrates the approach we see from the “chronic haters;” an example of insulting one’s opponent to open a discussion. It drops the debate from rational argument – and solution seeking – to common diatribe.

“Charles, glad you agree. And I'm encouraged you get it. The trick will be to do it right . . .”

“Good commentary. You can fool people, but you can never fool math.”

“This City Council majority has a history of ignoring consultants and experts (sic) advice, at the expense of the taxpayers . . . , looks like he’s just kickin' that old can down the road…” 

“The analogy is interesting and I appreciate CM4RG actually talking about the elephant in the room in an intelligent way. But am I wrong? Didn't the author miss a very important issue as he . . .”

Agreement in the dirt and sun

 

A city employee who is active in union affairs was working beside me Sunday afternoon.

While we were sweating and getting dirty cleaning up the scarecrow area we discussed an approach to politics that annoys both of us; starting a discussion with insults. 

His examples of egregious openings differ from mine; samples of both are paraphrased below. Our examples are easy to tell apart, but the important point is, how likely is the ensuing discussion to lead to solutions both parties can live with?

“Your side is only concerned with your pay and benefits, you won’t try to help the city or compromise, or  . . ."

“You two (Mayor and Pro Tem) are destroying the city by the way you hate employees and want to lay everybody off  . . . “ 

“Your union is filled with rogues who are criminals and they just try to intimidate  . . .” 

“You guys (same two) are trying to bankrupt the city and pave over the vernal pools and  . . . so you can line your pockets/benefit your developer friends  . . .”

Start with insult -- go nowhere

These assertions, like those in the third example of comments above, are all false, unsupportable and inflammatory – without adding any information or insight to a discussion. Using them in a problem-solving discussion is more likely to block progress than to move toward solutions. 

If the tactic is chosen to inflame or to block progress, then the assertions are useful. Otherwise, they’re simply emotional manifestations of weak thinking skills.

*DP Article: Here

Crows repelled from Fairview

Scarecrow festival

Last weekend the kids of Costa Mesa – between the ages of “old enough to sit unattended” and “young enough to sit unattended” got a chance to play in Fairview Park.* They rode a model train from Goathill Junction out to the “Pumpkin Patch,” perusing Costa Mesan-made scarecrows en route.

There they picked out their special pumpkin and rode back to paint the pumpkin -- and/or their faces -- listen to mechanical organ music (think monkey grinder, calliope), ride a fire truck, fire their personally-built rocket, eat, drink . . .

Learned while they played 

Kids and adults got a chance to learn a little about our water supply, crime prevention, “hands only” CPR, and amateur radio (Ham) operations that support the city.

VIP visitors

Four City Council members, at least three Parks and Recreation Commissioners, a planning Commissioner or two, the Chamber of Commerce President and CEO, and a whole bunch of City employees all visited and supported the event. The City’s CEO visited. At least two members of the 60^th Anniversary main committee visited.

Several teachers visited of course; fourth graders in Costa Mesa watched a presentation and received a coloring book about Costa Mesa history during the past couple of weeks. Three of the classes built winning entries in the Scarecrow contest!

Newport-Mesa School Board members probably visited since this was an event celebrating teaching and learning Costa Mesa history. They must have visited incognito since we didn't see them. It’s said that one of the board members believes she originated the idea of a scarecrow contest but we haven't been able to reach her to learn more. It would have fueled a good conversation.

Seen scenes

Random memories of this first annual Scarecrow Festival:

The smile of a girl standing on the back of the returning fire truck “just like a fireman, daddy, just like a fireman!”  Her smile threatened to crack her face it was so wide. Four kids who wanted their rockets’ firing delayed “until the wind blows more” to get better distance on their launches.

A Parks Commissioner who diverted temporarily from a train ride to get a “Dreamsicle, I haven’t seen one of those in years.” He had walked his dog through the scarecrow area early Saturday morning wondering from a distance “why all those people are standing on the edge of the bluff looking at the golf course.” He and said puppy investigated the scarecrows and pumpkins once he was convinced he wouldn't be disturbing a ceremony.

The joggers and dog walkers who stopped at the Pumpkin Patch restrooms in the middle of their walks and runs in the early mornings Saturday and Sunday. They lost their convenience facility Sunday night – it went back to the City yard. 

The Councilwoman who visited even though walking was difficult and painful for her – she’s supported a lot of City events this year. “Support your city” takes on new meaning when it hurts to walk!

Next year bigger and even better

All in all, a great event, with a lot of support from committed and devoted volunteers and City employees – and teachers and kids and scarecrow crafters.


*Register article: Here

Tattling to promote yourself

Tattle tales and false leaders

A recent blog post inspired a flurry of comments, mostly anonymous, and some from folks who didn't want their remarks published.* They prompted this post.

Is it wrong to be a “whistleblower?” Clearly not; calling attention to a dangerous situation that needs to be corrected is ethical. However, that’s not the point addressed in the post.

Two good reasons

If intervention by a higher authority is emergently necessary, such as in a situation that involves risk to life or limb, it is the right thing to do. Calling the Police when screams and a gunshot are heard is wise; running out to investigate isn’t. (If the sounds came from your own home it would probably be better to call and intervene simultaneously if you are capable.)

In the case of a situation that’s ongoing and clearly harmful, but isn’t going to change, calling attention is the ethical choice, although often risky. An example would be calling a newspaper or a regulatory agency with a tip about your company clandestinely diverting its sewage into a pristine river.

Tattling to cause harm 

However, calling the “State Bureau of Classic Car Shows” because you lost an election or don't like the new president of your local car club is unethical. Or, calling the federal “Skunk and Weasel Preservation Committee” in Washington D.C. because your City government is starting to study the growth of a neighborhood skunk population – and you fear the results won’t agree with your view -- is wrong.

The city hasn't failed in its study – it’s just starting it. And, it probably will do a thorough and adequate study. However, being diverted to answering queries will waste its time and money.

If you believe that your City won’t do an adequate job of investigating the situation, the question then is, “will this be an emergent situation?” If the City’s study is likely to result in widespread poisoning of all skunks and other creatures that share their diet – immediately -- then reporting would be ethical. If there’s a process starting that requires reviews, plans, and funding over three to six months, waiting for the committee’s report is honest and disputing the solutions is ethical; reporting the committee or the problem to other agencies to cause a fuss isn’t.

To save or to disrupt is the question

Another question that should be asked is, “Why are we reporting the city?” If the purpose is to save a population of creatures, or a cherished landform from immediate destruction the intervention is appropriate. If the purpose is to try to embarrass a political opponent it’s not only unethical, it’s egregious. Representative government should not be saddled with wastes of time and money by the disgruntled.

We learned in Kindergarten that sometimes we lose; then we join forces with the winners to make the situation better. An illustration straight from Wikipedia:

“(John) Wayne supported Vice President Richard Nixon in the presidential election of 1960, but expressed his vision of patriotism when John F Kennedy won the election: 'I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job.'"

“Whistle-blowing” to get even with political opponents – or to set up a campaign – smacks of disloyalty. In Costa Mesa it’s reflecting adversely on the Public Services Department. That department is ethically and effectively managed by an excellent executive. Maligning the Director and his department to try to get a political advantage is dishonest,

disloyal and disruptive.

 

The citizens of Costa Mesa should ignore and deplore such egregious, self-serving political tactics.

*That post:  Here