Truth about Pilot’s gobbledygook

A fellow reader, who encouraged me to set the record straight, brought Jim de Boom’s recent column to my attention (“[Drumroll please] And the turkey of the year goes to ...” Nov. 26).

It is unfortunate that de Boom relied only upon the published accounts from the Pilot to base his opinions on. The constant repetition of half-truths by the writers and editors at the Pilot never seems to end.

Much has been written regarding my “legendary note,” and much ado has been made about nothing. Consider for a moment just what the note might have suggested, if in fact an attempt were being made to influence anything: The only possible content would have been an expression of support for funding a playground for disabled children at TeWinkle Park.

Now the really silly part: Who decided that there was any influence needed to affect the vote on this matter? It was obvious to all in attendance that both Mayor Allan Mansoor and Councilman Gary Monahan were eager to fund the park project. Unfortunately, in their zeal to support it, they slowed the council’s progress by making motions to use funds that were essentially intended for historical purposes for the park use instead. This approach was met with much resistance from other council members.

All the while, the Ikea funds were awaiting their disbursement -- yes, those very same funds whose benefactors had just moments earlier stated that they would support art or “anything to do with kids and families.”

So, what was “Evil Bever” trying to do? Politely remind those who were stuck in the process that there was a more appropriate source to fund the park project.

As for my alleged “surreptitiousness,” Councilwoman Linda Dixon passed the paper to the mayor for me ... pretty sneaky huh? I did learn from this situation, in hindsight, that a simple verbal prodding would have sufficed without eliciting questions of propriety.

As has never been mentioned, the votes in question were subsequently retaken as the law prescribes in cases where there is any question of a violation, and guess what? The results were exactly the same. Exactly as those members of the public who spoke urged the council to act -- no harm, no foul.

Regarding the “improper use of public funds” issue, de Boom restates misinformation to the detriment of the community that relies on this newspaper to report the facts. The staff report on this issue is available, and I encourage all interested parties to review it for their own edification.

One of the interesting facts that the report illuminates is that the city manager had warned Councilwoman Katrina Foley that though there were no council policies prohibiting her desired use, she still needed to consider the municipal code and state law requirements. This advice did not exactly constitute a “stamp of approval” by the city manager, as the Pilot claims.

To her detriment Foley did not consult with our city attorney before she jumped off the high dive and landed in the deep end of the ethical pool. The writer repeats the comment that the city attorney assured that nothing was amiss in Foley’s use of the funds entrusted to her. This assurance, however, was not merited. In her assessment, the ratification of “warrants” by the council constituted “approval” of Foley’s “donations” by the council. This interpretation is faulty because warrants are ratified after the money has already been paid out by check. According to state law, public deliberation, findings and an affirmative vote by the council must precede any donations of public funds.

Unfortunately, in Foley’s case none of those requirements were met. Obviously there was a problem with the way this process occurred, and accordingly I asked for an internal investigation of the process. This investigation has led to the council adoption of clear guidelines that mirror the original intent of these fund accounts. Problem solved.

I take my role of public servant seriously. I respect my station and will continue to ask questions and work to find solutions. I will continue to be motivated by the same principles that would not allow me to waste city funds in a useless runoff election, and which still move me to do my best for my fellow Costa Mesans.

It’s a pity that de Boom did not take the time to confirm his information and instead chose to believe and repeat the half-truths he read in the Daily Pilot.

Regarding turkeys and eagles, both of which I have been called, if given the choice between soaring above it all or being an earthbound turkey, I’d rather be a down-to-earth councilman to best serve the needs of my constituents.

* ERIC BEVER is on the Costa Mesa City Council.

20051208hmmt5pkf(LA)