
(Revision as of April 18th, 2011. For those who’d rather actually hear my comments that evening, an edited video has been created by a friend and supporter. It is now on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvAH1Vz37Dc . Additionally, on 4/18, there was a new post on “Orange Juice Blog” at http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/04/la-habra-hanky-panky-and-not-the-octomom-either/)
It is always much more fun to write about bright and sunny developments around town. As a natural optimist, I find the glass rarely half-empty and fortunately, this is an easy viewpoint in La Habra. But it is also the responsibility of honest citizenship to seek the truth. The sunshine sometimes misses dark corners. And so I am writing about a dark corner in La Habra City Council chambers that needs a little sunshine.
When I ran for council last year, I was chairman of the La Habra Planning Commission and I had a feeling that if I did not prevail on Election Day, those council members who did not endorse me (Gomez, Beamish and Shaw) might decide to deny me a second term on the commission this March. But I didn’t worry about that then—and didn’t think much about it after the election. Sure, it would be a wrong-headed, purely political slap, but I also felt that a majority of council members might embrace fair-play and serve the city’s best interests rather than pursue a vendetta. I was wrong. I was dumped in March, with only Council member Rose Espinoza voting to retain me. Council members Gomez, Beamish, Shaw and Blazey all nominated other candidates and for the first time (perhaps ever), an incumbent commissioner was denied a second term.
Big deal? Maybe not—but that is the tip of the iceberg. On March 28th, I chaired my final Planning Commission meeting. Mayor Gomez presented me with a proclamation thanking me for my service, and for which I thanked-him warmly. Then I made a few candid comments to the 40 or 50 people in attendance that night. Very candid.
I related a series of actions undertaken by Gomez, Beamish, Shaw and Blazey that shows, “a certain disrespect for the city, a certain contempt for the process and a dishonoring of the constituency that we are here to serve.” At the conclusion and adjournment of the meeting, folks got on their feet and applauded. City Manager Don Hannah wisely requested an official transcript of my comments and had them sent to all council members. Below, you will find that full transcript. I spend some time thanking my colleagues and staff and then I offer my criticism (in bold type). These were unscripted comments, from the heart. Take from it what you will. And understand that despite the perilous course that I fear we have embarked upon, it is a course easily reversed. And Council members Beamish and Shaw might perhaps be the most interested in how we feel about this, as they are running for re-election next year.
Transcript of excerpt from the (City of La Habra) Planning Commission Meeting of March 28, 2011
Following “Commissioners Comments”, Chairman Daren Nigsarian stated:
“I’ve got a couple of comments to make as well. I want to start off by saying how deeply appreciative and grateful I am to two of the people who have mentored me throughout my five-and-a-half years on the Commission, that being Janis (Robinson) and Jerry (Callaghan). You’ve been great friends and great supporters and I learned a tremendous amount from both of you. Janis, your knowledge is encyclopedic. I know your specialty is the aesthetics of the city and without your very astute observations, the city would be much poorer. So, I just want to express my gratitude to you for being as instructive as you’ve been for me.
Jerry is another very, very bright man who’s got an enormous depth and breadth of experience. He’s added—he adds—a tremendous amount to this commission and I am so pleased that he’s on GPAC to help lead that effort. And I remember shortly after I became a commissioner . . . I watched Juan when he (was) chairing the commission, and I said, ‘If I do half as well as Juan does chairing this commission, I’ll do okay.’ And I want to say that I hung on your every word and I tried to follow your lead as best I could. I don’t know if I ever measured-up, but you did an outstanding job as chairman and, again, your knowledge is absolutely voluminous. I mean, you bring a great deal of insight and knowledge to this commission and I am very appreciative for that, and I am very happy that you are going to be on GPAC as well.
And I want to say (that) our staff is top-drawer and top-flight; the best that I can possibly imagine. Carlos (Jaramillo) is absolutely fantastic. He’s been a great resource for this commission and I am grateful to you. David (Lopez) is wonderful; he’s just a great Planning Aide and does a tremendous job. And I can’t imagine us, the City of La Habra, having a better Director of Community Development than Mike Haack. He has pulled us out of jams, helped guide this commission when we needed it, (given) us direction when we needed a little extra assistance. Again, his experience as a former planning commissioner himself has served us extremely well. He does just an outstanding job and it has been a great pleasure serving with you. And (so) the City is in good hands.
You know, it’s interesting because in the beginning, I began by always saying, ‘Yes,’ every time I was asked to do anything for this city. In 2005, it was Tom Beamish who said, ‘Well, how about the Fiscal Review Committee? Are you willing to serve?’ And I said, ‘Yes.’ And from there, I served as vice-chairman on the board . . . shortly after that, Tom Beamish and Steve Anderson took me to the ‘Cat and the Custard Cup’ and gave me, I think, one or two drinks and said, ‘Look, we want you to chair the Measure-G campaign.’ And I said, ‘Guys, I don’t know anything about running any political campaign.’ And, some would argue (that) I still don’t. But I (did) say ‘Yes,’ and I made a habit of saying ‘Yes’ any time I felt that my service could be of some assistance to the city, and I’m very proud of that fact, and it followed up, of course, with efforts for Measure-T, and finally, the Planning Commission itself.
And, you know, the elephant in the room is—and I have to say this because I’m going to be very candid tonight and if I make someone uncomfortable, I am sorry for that in advance but it must be said, because people wonder—why does he have (only) one term? Because it is unprecedented in this city—I don’t know (of) any historical precedent in the past where a commissioner who served for one term wasn’t given a second term, unless (for) the obvious, such as ineptitude or incompetence. And I don’t want to believe that anyone in this room thinks that is the reason. I think I’ve done a pretty fair job the last five and-a-half years. So, that begs the question, ‘What is the reason?’ And I think some of the people in this audience want to know, and the answer is very simple, and that’s that I had the audacity and temerity to run against a candidate who was endorsed by the (council) majority and by the mayor, and for that reason, I believe now that the commissions have become something of a political prop. I think it’s wrong. I do not believe the commissions should be used as chess pieces or pawns to reward supporters or to punish those who are perceived to be in opposition to the majority. I think that is not in the interests of this city.
You know, these commissions are very important. They do very serious work. There’s heavy-lifting done on this planning commission, there is important work done by community services (commissioners). These commissioners should be chosen based on merit and qualifications. And it might be tempting for those in power to say, ‘Well, let’s make it easier for those who have always been behind us.’ (But) that’s not the democratic way and it undermines democracy at its most basic, fundamental level, and that’s at the local level, (when) you don’t respect the traditions (that) this city has always embraced when it comes to commissioners. And it’s true that this has never happened before, this kind-of generally political approach to commissions. You know, in the day when Steve Simonian and Steve Anderson were here, Anderson was famous for saying, ‘No sweet-heart deals!’ He had a lot of back-bone and integrity and I don’t believe he would have been pleased by this. And I know Steve Simonian would not be pleased. And (it’s) not just this situation; it goes deeper than that and I am going to say this because it’s all inter-related. We’ve begun embarking down this road the way (that) some other local cities have and it has led to ruinous results for them. We’ve just begun and I hope we stop—but when I ran last year, they found a candidate to run in the form of Michael Blazey; a very nice guy—a very nice guy—but he had a disadvantage because he wasn’t a commissioner, (so) he didn’t get any publicity or (have) any prominence.
So, one day early last year, Mr. Blazey showed-up at a council meeting and summarily was nominated by the mayor to serve as a commissioner, without an application being filed, without interviews being held or scheduled, and without the public being notified that a vacancy existed for the position. Now that is wrong. But (at) the next meeting, (then) Mayor Simonian asked Mr. Blazey to resign and then to apply in the proper fashion. But he declined. And I am here to tell you now that, in light of my experience, I have a very strong feeling that the community services commissioners—all of them—feel very certain that they will be shown the door as their terms expire in the future. Why? Because every one of them endorsed me. And I think they now feel that is their destiny.
And I think about our Councilmember Rose Espinoza. Rose is in the audience this evening. Rose is a phenomenal asset to this community. She has a nation-wide reputation. She has served this community unfailingly and with great courage and dignity, and she was due to be mayor pro-tem this year. Natural rotation has never been abrogated– it’s always been that way—except this year. Rose supported me in 2010 and now she has lost mayor pro-tem and I will say it here—and I could be wrong, I hope I’m wrong—but if Rose is not mayor next year, then I will submit to this audience that that is the reason why. And that is wrong. It shows a certain disrespect for the city, it shows a certain contempt for the process and I think it dishonors the constituency that we are here to serve. And I do not feel it is right at all.
I don’t want to hit this too hard on the nose because this is a wonderful city. We’ve got some fantastic people in the city and I would just tell the council majority– the four of them right now– that the people of La Habra deserve better. They deserve transparency and they deserve decision-making that’s made for all the right reasons and with the best interests of the city at heart. I do not believe that this has been undertaken in this case and I hope desperately that, in the future, commissions are not used as tools, because I guarantee you that this will not serve the city well at all.
And my replacement, Mark Handler, is in the audience, too. Mark Handler was a great planning commissioner before and he going to be a great planning commissioner in the future. He will bring enormous depth and breadth of knowledge to this body as well and I congratulate him on his appointment. He is well-qualified (and) he merits the selection. I don’t know Mr. (Charles) Kim, but I’ll say it here—and you can prove me wrong—(but) I believe Mr. Kim will run for city council next year. So you heard it here first.
Now with that, I will say again that you’re all terrific. I’ve got nothing but the highest hopes for the future of this city (and) I know we have a bright future ahead of us. And if I’m ever asked to serve, in any way, shape or form again, my answer has always been ‘Yes’ in the past and (would) again be a resounding ‘Yes.’
I want to say that, without a doubt, I truly do love La Habra and thank you all very much. It has been a great five and one-half year ride and this meeting of the La Habra Planning Commission is now adjourned.
Meeting adjourned at 6:47 PM.