Cowan wins day in council compromise

Sometimes things just seem to work themselves out.

Two years ago, the City Council appointed planning commissioners

by majority rule, ensuring that each council member could weigh in on

the selection to the crucial committee. Two years ago, Councilwoman

Libby Cowan was part of the usual council majority and didn’t have to

worry about the lack of political support for her top choices.

And two years ago, the council rejected Cowan’s suggestion to

directly appoint planning commissioners and parks and recreation

commissioners, saying it was emblematical cronyism and political

favoritism. So the council moved forward with replacing the entire

Planning Commission in one fell swoop.

What followed was a chaotic parody of a game show, in which the

dais should have been equipped with buzzers to indicate who was the

first to make his or her nomination. Without such a crafty device,

city leaders frantically sought then-Mayor Cowan’s recognition by

bellowing to her to acknowledge them before all the vacancies were

filled.

“Madam mayor,” they would clamor, beating out a colleague by just

milliseconds.

The speediest speakers forced an up or down vote for their

Planning Commission preference, and the first five nominated were

appointed.

This year, with another “improver” on the dais and no clear lines

of allegiance between council members, Cowan was faced with the very

real possibility that none of her top commissioner picks would get

the necessary three votes for appointment.

But she doesn’t have to worry about that anymore. Thanks to

overwhelming support from the council on Monday, Cowan and her

colleagues will have the pleasure of appointing their choices without

the unruly voting procedure.

While Cowan said Wednesday that she has no problem with the

previous method, it was she who advocated the procedural change.

“No one else was coming up with a solution, so I floated my idea

from two years ago,” Cowan said in a phone interview Wednesday.

That idea, which Cowan proposed in 2000, was that each member

appoint his or her own commissioner. Save the nomination process, the

possible confusion and all that time it would take to speak

face-to-face with 17 planning and six parks and recreation

applicants. Now, each council member will simply get to hand-pick

whomever it was they were going to pull for anyway.

Cowan said she was “very comfortable” with the previous process

and was happy to invest the time it would have taken to conduct

interviews and narrow the scope. Her colleagues, however, were not so

willing, and their lackadaisical attitudes gave Cowan an advantage.

“It certainly works in my favor,” she said, “and I think it does

in each of our positions, but that wasn’t the reason I suggested it.”

Councilman Chris Steel, who has become accustomed to being on the

losing side of votes, was the only one to oppose the direct

appointment process, saying it promoted partiality and politics. Why

would a commissioner vote out of step with his or her appointing

council member, when their tenure depends on that person?

Cowan argues that planning commissioners are required to make

decisions based on law, not politics, and said she hopes every

council member will remember that during the selection process.

Steel and Cowan make good points, but both are idealistic.

Theoretically, Steel is right to fear that direct appointments would

foster more politics, but let’s face it, could the Costa Mesa climate

get more political?

And Cowan is right that planning commissioners are held to a

higher allegiance than a favorable nod from a higher-up, but again,

we cannot ignore the political climate in the city.

The truth of the matter is that politics will play a huge role. It

always has.

When incumbent commissioners faced the likelihood of being voted

to their position, you could see their demeanors change. While none

of them may have blatantly voted against their beliefs to please a

council member, certain tongue-lashings, which were all-too-common

during election time, were saved as to not fan the flames.

In a previous interview, Planning Commissioner Bruce Garlich

summed it all up perfectly:

“I think we all enjoy our jobs, take it seriously and work very

hard at it. But in the end, we serve at the pleasure of the City

Council and we’ll have to see what their pleasure is.”

All in all, Cowan’s proposal does two very practical things: It

saves the council from the timely process of making a cohesive

decision (which, if you have watched Costa Mesa council meetings, you

know it isn’t easy) and it avoids hours of lobbying time to ensure

each member’s first choice.

Regardless of the reasons it was floated, the new procedure

succeeds in cutting through the political fat and essentially

produces the same result.

* 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].