BYRON DE ARAKAL -- Between the Lines

Michael Szkaradek, a Costa Mesa attorney and CPA with an arguably

principled passion for the rules, has a history of tossing grenades into

Costa Mesa’s political machinery.

Brian Theriot knows this. It was Szkaradek who peppered Theriot’s 1986

City Council candidacy with charges that Theriot’s nomination papers were

laced with ill-gotten and invalid signatures. And although Theriot was

later cleared, his candidacy was hobbled and ultimately unsuccessful.

Howard Gensler should remember Szkaradek, too. In 1988, Szkaradek

challenged the legitimacy of Gensler’s City Council candidacy, alleging

Gensler was not a “bona fide” resident of Costa Mesa. Some three weeks

after Szkaradek launched that little mortar round, Gensler pulled the

plug on his candidacy.

In recent days, Szkaradek has stirred up what amounts to dime store

political intrigue around the election of Chris Steel to the Costa Mesa

City Council.

Steel, a colorful firebrand, finds himself in Szkaradek’s cross hairs

and the subject of a city attorney investigation over the validity of a

single signature on Steel’s nomination papers.

It seems, according to Szkaradek’s allegation, that an elderly and

longtime Costa Mesa resident may have signed his wife’s name to Steel’s

nomination papers in addition to his own. Within the language of the

California Elections Code, that’s a no-no. And in a perfect world, the

alleged signature-by-proxy rightly belongs in the dustbin. By Szkaradek’s

measure, so does Steel’s candidacy. Here’s why:

Invalidating the signature in question would leave Steel with just 19

legitimate signatures on his nomination papers -- one shy of what’s

required by law to earn a slot on the ballot. If that’s the case,

Szkaradek argues, Steel’s election should be nullified.

But it gets even dicier. Were it shown that the signature in doubt is

as phony as Sam Donaldson’s hairline, Szkaradek charges that Steel’s

signed “Declaration of Circulator” -- in which he pledges that he

witnessed every signature on his nomination papers -- was falsely

executed. That, too, would be a breach of the elections code and another

reason to change the locks on the council chamber doors.

So what do we have here? Political skulduggery? Chicago-style

electioneering? Cause to boot a duly elected candidate from office before

he even has a chance to warm a council chair?

I doubt it. What I see is a lot of sloppy work done on the fly, a poor

old gentleman more unknowing than deceptive, and a gadfly with principled

intentions -- somewhat tainted by animosity -- but lousy timing.

What I don’t see is any willful or criminal intent to ride roughshod

over the law. In that case, Steel should retain his victory.

And there are a gaggle of reasons why I find that to be true.

I’m more inclined to give Steel the benefit of the doubt in lieu of

consigning the Costa Mesa City Council to a season of tumult at a time

when much important work needs to be done to make this city a better

place to live.

As Steel tells it, it was not his intention to launch a 10th try for

the council. But upon his return from a trip to San Diego to visit

family, the very day of the deadline to file nomination papers, he found

his answering machine laden with messages from a hefty contingent of

supporters urging that he run.

At that moment, he said, he made the choice to go for it. Steel

hotfooted it down to the city clerk’s office, he said, pulled nomination

papers and quickly canvassed his neighborhood for the requisite

signatures. Then, after penning his signature to the papers, he said he

hurried back to the clerk’s office to submit the document.

Clearly, it would have served Steel’s interests to give those

signatures the once over, something he now says, “I should have done.”

Too true. After my own examination of the questioned signatures, I

found them to be remarkably similar. To his credit, Steel says he does,

too, now that he’s looked at them.

But the more glaring and bothersome example of slipshodadministrative

work that may have gone on here -- providing the disputed signature turns

out to be invalid -- was what may have been turned in by the Orange

County Registrar of Voters. It’s the Registrar’s charge to validate the

signatures on nomination papers.

That process, presumably, involves matching the signatures on the

nomination papers with the signature on voter registration cards. And

since Orange County Registrar Rosalyn Lever validated Steel’s nomination,

placing him on the ballot, one can only conclude that Steel’s signatures

were in order. If it turns out they were not, Lever’s office would have

some explaining to do.

But with that said, how do you unring the bell, as lawyers like to

say, of Steel’s validated nomination after the election? I don’t think

you do when it is the product of innocent, albeit unfortunate,

inattention.

Which brings me back to Michael Szkaradek. He said he pursued the

“Steel Papers” caper for two reasons: He doesn’t much like Steel, and

he’s tired of politicians playing fast and loose with the rules of an

election.

One is the product of animosity, the other of principle. He has the

right to both. But his cause -- and the veracity of his stand on

principle -- would have been far better served had he pressed the issue

before the election, not after. Why didn’t he?

“I really wasn’t paying much attention to the City Council race,” he

said, adding that he couldn’t exactly recall when he became aware that

Steel was a candidate.

Between Steel’s hurried inattention, the Registrar’s sloppy validation

work and Szkaradek’s lousy timing, this little episode of low drama has

some hard lessons. But in the end, it is much ado about nothing much.

Steel should be sworn in.

* BYRON DE ARAKAL is a writer and communications consultant. He lives

in Costa Mesa. His column runs Wednesdays. Readers can reach him with

news tips and comments via e-mail at o7 [email protected]