Commentary: Candidate’s statements offer no compelling reason to vote for her

Last weekend this newspaper dedicated a full half-page — more than 850 words — to a commentary with the byline of Costa Mesa City Council candidate Julie Mercurio, which outlined her manifesto for fixing every problem that exists in our city..

Because of what is said, and the way it’s written, a few members of the community suspect she may have had a little help preparing that commentary — maybe a lot of help.

Mercurio cites as her qualifications the fact that she moderates a Facebook page that is “nearly 7,000 strong” — actually, just over 6,600 as I type this a week later. And she cites the fact that she’s a mother as a qualification for the job. That’s it.

I looked at the commentary for any reason to vote for her, and came up short.

Last week, Mercurio was selected from a roster of 12 applicants to fill a vacant position on the Parks and Recreation Commission. As a man who made a very good living assessing resumés and selecting good candidates, I can tell you that her application was the least impressive of the bunch.

It read, in total: “I would like to get more involved in the city. I have two children and am dedicated to preserving our open space. Thank you.”

That’s it. No letter listing the problems she wanted to address on the commission. No resumé listing education, work experience or community volunteer work or anything indicating even the most minimal knowledge of issues she will face on that commission.

Mercurio’s commentary is full of comments that begin “I pledge,” “I support,” “I will strive,” “I will work,” but gives us no meat on the bones of her candidacy to consider. It’s just typical political puffery. I suggest that every candidate will also “strive, support, pledge and work” on the same issues.

Mercurio apparently feels that moderating a Facebook page somehow qualifies her for serious consideration as a City Council candidate, implying that she has learned a lot about how the city runs from that activity. It’s worth understanding that the Facebook page to which she refers is not a representative cross-section of Costa Mesans — it is a closed page, and she controls who may participate.

Dissenting views are discouraged, and those who express them are ousted or blocked from further participation. (Yes, I am one of those people.) As a result, what usually transpires are one-sided “discussions” of issues.

Her words show us the limitations of her knowledge of city issues.

For example, she cites the “Homeless Task Force,” a group that no longer exists. She tells us she will “request the Costa Mesa Police Assn. add a homeless services liaison officer,” but I doubt seriously that she actually thinks the men and women of the Costa Mesa Police Assn. — those dedicated public servants sworn to protect and serve us while being sued by the mayor and mayor pro tem — will hire a new person for a critically understaffed department. The only folks the Costa Mesa Police Assn. hires are lawyers to defend itself from that bogus lawsuit.

I think she meant the Costa Mesa Police Department. She got it wrong, and not in an insignificant way.

In her commentary she says, “I am fed up with obstructionism based on petty, personal grievance,” which tells me that her candidacy will perpetuate the stifling of public opinion that exists now.

Today we see speaker after speaker discouraged from presenting his or her views by personal attacks from members of the council and by being shunted to the very end of the meeting. It’s obvious, if you believe her commentary, that she wishes to extend this abridgment of free speech and perhaps do even more to quash it.

I could go on and on dissecting her commentary, but you get the point. Mercurio may be a lovely person, and her heart may be in the right place, but her qualifications for this position fall well short of what is necessary for a true advocate for “all the residents” of Costa Mesa, another of her pledges.

Her candidacy is clearly an attempt by the current power elite to place a compliant, guaranteed third vote on the dais to replace termed-out Councilman Gary Monahan. Her placement on the Parks and Recreation Commission is obviously intended to get her some face time with the public during the campaign season. She will have five meetings in which to impress the voters with her knowledge, skill and dedication — or not.

We hope the voters will see through this sham and take the time to carefully assess Mercurio’s worthiness for a position on the City Council. The credibility of the process and the future of our city are at stake.

--

GEOFF WEST, who publishes the blog A Bubbling Cauldron, lives in Costa Mesa.

MORE OPINION

Mailbag: Column on the Campbells and Alzheimer’s was enlightening

Commentary: Your ego will graduate from high school with you

Commentary: Project Wipeout can help keep you safe in the water