JOSEPH N. BELL -- The Bell Curve

I was startled to pick up my Daily Pilot Monday morning and discover

my old friend, Mike Scheafer, making news at the top of the page.

Mike’s wife cared for my stepson 20 years ago, and Mike has been

caring for my insurance needs almost as long. We probably don’t see

eye-to-eye on some political matters, but Mike is a passionate supporter

of the Anaheim Angels, which has always proved to me that he has his

priorities properly in order.

Mike as the center of a quasi-political controversy didn’t square very

well with my vision of him, so I phoned him to find out what was going

on.

I had read his earlier letter in the Pilot taking issue with the Costa

Mesa City Council’s relocation of a public skateboard park. And I had

read Councilwoman Linda Dixon’s tart response. But the news story Monday

about his resignation as a parks commissioner seemed an unnecessary

escalation -- unless, of course, Linda Dixon resigned, too.

Nothing Mike told me changed this view -- which, obviously starts with

a bias in his favor. If you have followed the story at all, you know the

history. Mike introduced the idea of a skateboard park two years ago. The

City Council approved it, then assigned a study group to select a

location.

Both the first and second choices were strongly resisted by

neighborhood residents. So the council backed off and selected a location

in a business area that didn’t offer neighborhood resistance. But that,

in turn, inspired new resistance from a lot of citizens -- 85 of whom

signed a petition -- who badly want a skateboard park and strongly object

to the site chosen by the council.

That’s where matters stood from mid-January until last week when the

Costa Mesa Recreation and Parks Commission -- of which Scheafer is a

member -- was scheduled to vote on the City Council relocation plan.

And when a whole new element was introduced, that caused Mike to end

the evening sitting in the audience instead of with his fellow

commissioners.

I’m not prepared here to offer an opinion on the various skate park

sites. I’ve read the arguments on both sides and have done no personal

research from which to assess them. But the new element is something

quite different -- and potentially dangerous because it sets a precedent

that could seriously affect the workings of government.

The new element was an opinion offered by the city attorney of Costa

Mesa in response to a request from the city’s Public Services Director

William Morris, seeking to determine whether Mike Scheafer’s “bias” as

indicated in his letter to the Pilot should disqualify him from voting on

the new skate park site.

The conclusion was that prior expression of opinion is not

disqualifying but something called “personal embroilment” might be.

In answer to a further inquiry from the City Council regarding the 1st

Amendment free speech rights of public officials, the city attorney

expanded on the “personal embroilment” argument and concluded that

because Scheafer had “approached” an unacceptable degree of involvement

he should be advised -- but not ordered -- to abstain from voting on

skateboard park matters.

All of this took place last January. Mike Scheafer knew nothing about

it until William Morris gave him copies of the City Attorney’s rulings

last Monday, one day before the Parks Commission met.

Mike was understandably outraged. He took the only course that seemed

principled to him. He resigned when the meeting got underway, then sat in

the audience and expressed himself as a citizen when the skateboard park

issue came up. He doesn’t know, nor do I, why those views couldn’t and

shouldn’t have been expressed from his seat at the commission table.

Of course he’s biased. There has never been any effort to deny this.

He is also probably “personally embroiled” -- whatever that means. But

isn’t this true to some extent of every public official required to cast

a vote on any issue? And don’t we get into pretty dangerous waters when

we try to measure the degree of “personal embroilment” by some fuzzy

legal yardstick?

What about the congresswoman whose son was shot and killed on a New

York street? Should she be disqualified from voting on gun control bills?

Or the city council member or county commissioner whose home will be

under the traffic pattern of a proposed airport? Should they be allowed

to lend their names to organized opposition to the airport and then vote

on it? Or should the scion of a wealthy family who stands to lose or gain

great amounts of money be allowed to vote on an inheritance tax bill?

Will their votes diminish public confidence and possibly allow a legal

challenge to the legislation? If the answer is “yes” -- as suggested by

the city attorney in Mike’s case -- then why wouldn’t Councilwoman Linda

Dixon’s public response to Mike’s letter require her also to abstain from

voting on this matter?

Or, more logically, why should this absurd can of legal worms have

been opened up in the first place?

Mike Scheafer is just the sort of thoughtful public-minded citizen

that our system sorely needs in public service. Driving him off with this

kind of nonsense is not only a loss for the city of Costa Mesa but sends

up alarms for other like-minded quality people.

In his resignation letter, Mike wrote: “Personal embroilment

apparently means disagreeing with members of the City Council ... I can

make a bigger difference without the constraints imposed by legal

decisions given to the City Council. My freedoms are more protected as a

citizen than as a Commissioner.”

Which is sad, but -- in this case, at least -- apparently true.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column

appears Thursdays.