Council weighs cost of election

Deirdre Newman

Despite a projected $4-million budget shortfall, City Council members

seem to be headed down an inexorable path to a special election to

replace former Mayor Karen Robinson, at a cost of about $95,000.

Twice in the past weeks, the council has failed to break a deadlock

between the two applicants who survived the whittling down of the

appointment process: Mike Scheafer and Eric Bever.

Tonight, in a special meeting, the council will try again to

surmount the impasse. One of the options will be appointing an

interim replacement who would serve until a special election is held

in November. That’s assuming the council members can even agree on an

interim replacement. Ideological differences, which have thwarted a

compromise so far, threaten to do so again.

“Ideology is much more important [than cost] because if we keep

doing what we’re doing, we’re wasting money on things the status quo

woe is doing,” said Councilman Chris Steel. “Take the Job Center. The

cost is about $75,000-$150,000 of what the city pays. Drop that and

there’s the special election right there.”

Money is going to be tight next year, with the city staring at a

$4-million shortfall in the 2003-4 fiscal year.

And that’s the good news.

The amount was reduced from a $10-million gap by City Manager

Allan Roeder and his staff. Part of the cost-cutting measures

included eliminating $2 million for raises for city employees for the

2003-4 fiscal year.

If additional trims to the budget are necessary, some possible

cuts involve across-the-board reductions, a hiring freeze or

deferring scheduled maintenance.

Decisions during

a budget crunch

Because of the budget shortfall, Councilman Allan Mansoor took

issue with spending about $71,000 on a community garden for Hamilton

Street last Monday. Yet he doesn’t seem to be as concerned with

spending $95,000 on the special election. Mansoor has been adamant in

his support of Bever, who hasn’t been able to muster more than two

votes from the four-person council.

He referred to the special election as a possible necessary evil.

“I don’t want to spend money on a special election, but there

comes a point where if it has to be done, it has to be done,” Mansoor

said.

Steel, who also supported nixing the funds for the community

gardens, said the comparison with the special election wasn’t fair.

But Councilwoman Libby Cowan, the only one who supported the

gardens, disagreed.

“It’s exactly a fair analogy,” Cowan said. “Because I think that

it’s something the community wanted. The people of the community

[also] wanted us to [agree] on an appointment ... Money is an issue

and anytime you take something away and then force us into paying for

something that is ridiculous, like a special election, then it can be

compared.”

Mayor Gary Monahan, who was elevated to the city’s top political

post last Monday, said the cost of a special election is not weighing

heavily on his mind.

“I don’t think that money is that relevant,” Monahan said. “I

think the fact that we don’t have a council person for six months is

pathetic and after the last council meeting, if any one else can’t

see that, then they don’t know how city government works. By not

having any [decisive] votes on issues and continuing to bring things

back, that will waste even more money.”

Different visions

of the city

The absence of a decisive vote has been on display during the past

two city council meetings, with the council splitting on the

replacement decision: Mansoor and Steel support Bever and Cowan and

Monahan support Scheafer.

Mansoor and Steel both come from a loosely defined group of

self-named “Improvers,” who are focused on cleaning up the Westside.

Their ideas include stepping up police efforts, reducing crime,

rezoning industrial areas and cutting down on the number charities,

which many of the Improvers say are “magnets” that draw illegal

immigrants and others who can’t afford to live in the city.

Steel said he is doing everything he can to break the deadlock and

avoid a special election. But he also emphasized that he is holding

out for someone who is on the same ideological plane as he and

Mansoor.

“There are two people [on the council] who don’t want to make the

serious changes we need to make and there’s two people that do and

I’m one of them and I’m going to make that clear,” Steel said. “If

[Scheafer] gets on there, there won’t be any changes.”

Most of the council members said they are still amenable to

options that could produce a compromise candidate.

Steel suggested having each council member nominate one person,

not worrying about having that person seconded and seeing what

happens with those candidates. He expressed confidence that someone

he nominates could get at least three votes. He also proposed finding

someone who would agree not to run in the special election to

depoliticize the decision.

Cowan is taking a more mathematical approach, exploring the

possible outcomes of various options. She recommended going through

the entire, original list of 26 who applied for the spot and voting

on everyone who gets a nomination and a second. She also proposed

submitting names from the list in a secret ballot format, any who are

submitted twice are automatically seconded and then repeating the

process.

The public looks

at the budget

Residents are divided in their opinion of whether or not the cost

of a special election is warranted in light of the city’s budget

crunch.

“It is costly but I’d rather they paid more attention to the cost

of a lot of other stuff that goes on there,” said former Mayor Sandra

Genis. “Look at the money they wasted on the whole Huscroft House

debacle or little landscape enhancements here and there. Those are

nice, but you look at that and say what’s more important? Democracy

or some little flowers some place?”

But Doug Sutton said he believes a special election would be a

waste of money.

“One hundred thousand dollars is more misspent money,” Sutton

said. “They weren’t able to agree on an appointment because they

can’t see beyond their short-sighted, special-interest agendas. I’m

fed up with people running for council, pledging responsibility, only

to act like spoiled teenagers when elected. Five months ago, we voted

and the next greatest vote-getter -- whether you like her or not,

whether you agree with her or not -- should serve out the term.”

That person would be former Mayor Linda Dixon.

Although the state code states a special election should be called

if an appointment is not made within 30 days of a vacancy, Acting

City Atty. Tom Wood said it’s not a requirement.

“[It’s] to make sure they try and do it as fast as they can,” Wood

said.

During the discussion, there has been some confusion as to when a

special election, if necessary, would be held.

State code states it has to be held on the next regularly

scheduled election date. That date is Nov. 4, even though there is

currently nothing scheduled on the ballot, said both City Clerk Julie

Folcik and a representative from the County Registrar of Voters. So

the special election would be held on that date, if it is 114 days or

more after the council calls for the election.

* DEIRDRE NEWMAN covers Costa Mesa and may be reached at (949)

574-4221 or by e-mail at deirdre.newman@latimes.com.