Pilot editorial misses the point

It has been a while since I have written, but after reading the Nov. 20 editorial about the discretionary development fund (“All right, kids, knock off that bickering”), I realized that the Daily Pilot is drifting off again. The headline encouraged us “kids,” the council, to “knock off that bickering.”

I am once again reminded of why I canceled my subscription to the Daily Pilot. This was such a biased editorial, and I sincerely believe that had it been one of the men making the expenditure, the Pilot would have been all over us.

There have been numerous votes on major issues that have been 5-0 or 3-2 but not along gender lines. How much longer will the Pilot keep trying to spin gender instead of focusing on the facts of the issues? Please, knock off that childish gender bickering. Sometimes the Pilot will say who voted which way, and sometimes it won’t. How about some unbiased consistency? But let’s get back to the issue at hand.

The Pilot states that “Costa Mesa City Council members have been sniping at each other.” First of all, this is not sniping, this is a legitimate issue.

I would like an opportunity to show what the Pilot got wrong and set the record straight with some facts. Let me start by saying this is not an issue of whether the groups receiving the funds were worthy recipients. The issue has always been whether this is an appropriate way to expend public tax dollars.

The Pilot states that Councilwoman Katrina Foley expended money from “her personal slush fund to help out youth and community groups.” This is not a personal council slush fund. For the Pilot to call it that is simply irresponsible. It is a discretionary professional development fund with the emphasis on professional development. It was meant to benefit council members in doing their jobs.

The Pilot states that “[Councilman Eric] Bever himself voted to approve the expenditures.” This is completely false. There has been absolutely no discussion or vote on this expenditure. Some have said that it was approved when the warrants were approved. This is nonsense. The warrants are simply checks or expenditures from the city. It could be anything that the city would write a check for, such as purchase of equipment, payroll, refund of a permit or work-related training for staff.

There are literally hundreds of warrants with a minimal three- or four-word explanation. Sometimes only one word such as “training” might be listed. The warrants are ratified under the consent calendar. Notice I said “ratified” and not “approved,” because the funds have already been expended, so they cannot be “approved” after the fact. This would be like having a developer build something and then we approve it a week later.

Community development block grant funds are an example of something that gets on the council agenda and then receives public input and a public vote by the council. Later, the check is written through the warrant process, and it is ratified.

The public expects us to read our staff reports and do our homework. I believe every current member of the council does this. The public also expects us to deliberate publicly on all issues before us. By that reasoning, if the funds that were expended by council member Foley were “approved” by the warrants, then we should literally pull each one for discussion and a vote. I am not suggesting we do this as it would be next to impossible. As I mentioned, there are hundreds of expenditures, and there is no way to know all the details of each unless you ask for them specifically. The fact is that council never deliberated or voted on which, if any, organizations should receive the funds.

The Pilot states that “Foley asked for, and received, approval for the expenditures from the city manager.” Our city manager has always been respectful and realizes that we have an obligation to the voters to make our own decisions within state law. It doesn’t change the fact that the expenditures were outside of the limits of professional development. Our city manager also mentioned that the warrants are ratified and not approved.

The Pilot states that “the city attorney reviewed the expenditures and found nothing amiss or illegal.” Our city attorney’s job is to protect the city. I am sure another attorney could make a different argument. There is one question that still has not been answered. Can a single member of a city council legally distribute donations without full council deliberation and approval? I believe the answer is no, and it is considered a gift of public funds.

The Pilot states that “Foley and Bever each used the funds for wireless communication services.” It is my understanding that Foley used some of her funds for some type of Internet service. Bever did not use any of his funds for any wireless communication service but did get a cellphone.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with public funds being used to buy a phone or laptop to help with council obligations. When the city pays for the ongoing monthly service, it gets difficult to separate public business from private, and the city in fact ends up paying for both. This is why the new policy eliminates this and is simply for seminars and such that are related to city business.

For the record, I have a personal computer that I bought for personal use, and I pay for the monthly service. I purchased my own phone and pay for the service, a good part of which is used for city business. I was given an old laptop to access city e-mail when I am not at City Hall. This will be given back when I am no longer on the council. We all have our regular work and are paid to be on the council. I think we need to put some service back in public service.

The Pilot states that since “there are no guidelines for the use of the fund, council members had the right to use the funds for just about anything related to the city.” Yes, related to the city under professional development.

The Pilot states, “In fact, Foley just may have incurred some goodwill toward herself and the council among the folks who received the donations.” Yes, again, that is why a gift of public funds is prohibited.

And finally, this one takes the cake. The Pilot states that “placing such restrictions on funds that are supposed to be discretionary is a bit like taking away a child’s candy because the child is eating too much of it.” Again the Pilot keeps saying “discretionary” but forgets to say that the funds are for professional development. And yes, if a child is eating too much candy, I would hope a good parent would take the candy away.

I do not look at our policy as restrictions but rather as a clarification of what already existed. It needs to be related to professional development, plain and simple. This is straightforward and accountable to the public.

* ALLAN MANSOOR is the mayor of Costa Mesa.

20051201id293dkf(LA)