Bever proved he cares about Costa Mesa...
- Share via
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
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.