Haven’t the voters already spoken?

Salary for a Costa Mesa City Council member: $9,096.

Money wasted on stalemate votes until November: Thousands.

Cost of a special election: $95,000.

Compromise: Priceless.

Since that word does not seem to be in the vocabulary of the Costa

Mesa City Council, here is the definition given in Webster’s New

World College Dictionary, third edition.

Compromise: An adjustment of opposing principles, systems, etc. by

modifying some aspects of each.

Say it with me, com-pro-mise.

After deadlocking two meetings in a row, the council will once

again consider tonight appointing candidates to fill the seat left

empty by former mayor Karen Robinson. If they are again unable to

settle on a candidate, the item will most likely go to a special

election, to be held in November in conjunction with the county

election.

Council appointments should not be taken lightly, we can all agree

with that, but let’s put things into focus.

We just had an election. As I recall, only five people in the city

wanted to be City Council members six months ago. These five people

spent hours campaigning, debating, fund-raising and walking

precincts. Two of them are on the dais, two of them serve on the

Planning Commission and the fifth is enjoying her family and the

occasional welding class at Orange Coast College.

Now, all the sudden 26 people have a burning desire to serve the

city. And instead of garnering a large percentage of the residents

votes, they only need three council member’s votes -- which has

proven to be almost the more difficult task.

I have to hand it to Councilmen Allan Mansoor and Chris Steel for

their determination to get Eric Bever on the council. They want a

majority on the council and they are willing to fight for it.

I also admire Councilwoman Libby Cowan and Gary Monahan for being

equally stubborn in not letting them have their “Improver” voting

block -- a concept that is terrifying to many residents.

So here we are. Stuck at a crossroads, where compromise on either

side is not an option. What to do now? Let the people decide -- at

the cost of $95,000. With a population of about 103, 823, and about

40,000 of those who even care to cast a ballot, we are looking at

paying about $2.40 per vote.

What does $95,000 buy you now-a-days anyway? More than a 20-minute

long distance phone call.

* Costa Mesa could fund all its budgeted tot lot improvements at

various parks and still have $25,000 left over.

* It could implement another sidewalk program, budgeted for

$100,000 in the 2002-03 fiscal year.

* The city could run the Job Center at twice the size.

* The graffiti abatement programs costs 98,022 per year.

* The recycling program runs us $94,145.

* And the Neighbors for Neighbors budget, a community building

event, costs $91,507.

We are looking to spend nearly $100,000 -- in a budget crisis time

-- to possibly put someone in office who has never walked a precinct

(as a candidate, anyway), never raised a dime and never served in any

form of city leadership.

Having put their hand-picked candidates in office the last two

elections, the Improvers, including Mansoor and Steel, are optimistic

about their chances of elevating Bever (or another more extreme

candidate) to the dais in a special election. If so, all this

stubborn, foot dragging by Steel and Mansoor will have paid off and

they will have their coveted majority.

But what if that doesn’t happen?

What if the Costa Mesa community gets smart and all the

nonimprovers -- which is still the vast majority of the voters --

back one candidate against an improver. No vote splitting between the

moderate candidates, like in the previous elections.

Steel and Mansoor could wind up with someone much more “liberal”

than Mike Schaefer.

Rumor around town has it that Planning Commissioner and previous

council candidate Katrina Foley already has her campaign machine

turning. Are Steel and Mansoor ready to give her a chance to take

that seat?

She is hoping the answer is yes. Foley is among those who are

championing a vote of the people -- just like the Improvers.

I am all for the electorate being heard, but I am also wary of

spending all that money on another election, when we just had one.

Those who wanted to be heard just voted.

Their statement: Monahan and Mansoor should represent the city.

Their third choice: former Mayor Linda Dixon. Foley came in fourth,

followed by Planning Commissioner Bill Perkins.

That was only six months ago and seems to be the most timely

measure of the electorate’s wishes.

Of course, Bever, Schaefer, Heather Somers and the other 23

council hopefuls vying for an appointment were not an option in

November. Well, yeah, they didn’t put in the time, money or effort it

takes to get on the ballot during an election year. (Well, except

Bever who was putting his time, money and effort into getting Mansoor

elected.)

So why should they get a shot now?

The City Council needs to do what is most time and cost efficient.

Since it cannot compromise on who it should appoint, perhaps it

should reevaluate how it determines the appointment.

If they are so anxious to hear from the people, check out the

results of the most recent election: The electorate chose Dixon.

Now let’s get on with city business.

And don’t worry, those of you who still have a burning desire to

lead the city in 2004 can go out and walk precincts, attend debates,

plan fund-raisers and get your names on a ballot the real way.

* LOLITA HARPER writes columns Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and

covers culture and the arts. She may be reached at (949) 574-4275 or

by e-mail at [email protected].