If Santa Ana had fire-breathing residents
In a city government that is less than open, extending term limits doesn't seem a good idea. Will no one object?
I'm sitting down to write about Santa Ana City Hall and its Tuesday ballot measure, but find my thoughts drifting to the Capo Unified School District.
I'm imagining the importing to Santa Ana of some of the leaders from the parents' groups in the South Orange County district that took on the school administration in recent years. Current head count: The superintendent, the assistant superintendent and three board members are gone, with two more now facing a potential recall.
The angry South County parents had a list of grievances, which might have been loosely defined as arguing that the officials had become too big for their britches.
And so I wonder what those folks might do with the powers in Santa Ana, who sometimes give the impression they're wearing pretty big britches too.
In recent months, for example, they've eliminated TV coverage of some council meetings and dissuaded city commissioners who have criticized City Hall on a website.
Now, Measure D is on the Tuesday ballot and would increase the years a council member could serve from eight to 12. Increasing the maximum tenure from two terms to three might not seem like a big deal, but the measure's supporters are touting it as an idea that will, in part, "reduce the power and influence of City Hall bureaucrats and developers."
That, apparently, came as big news to one of the city's leading developers, who, according to a Times story last week on the heels of a blog posting by OC Weekly writer and Times editorial page contributor Gustavo Arellano, has been the biggest financial contributor to Measure D.
In other words, a measure designed to curb developer interests has been largely funded by a developer. Two other significant contributors came from interests that do business with the city.
You could argue that the measure's backers put their language in, not knowing who would donate to the cause. And there's certainly nothing wrong with a developer or a business supporting a three-term maximum and putting their 2 cents' worth into the fray.
What's troubling is that the Measure D supporters, without blushing, are hailing it as a curb on special interests.
The supporters could argue that another provision of Measure D -- requiring a "tough, new Code of Ethics and Conduct" -- will address the influence of special interests. Yeah, I suppose, except that that code hasn't been written yet and no one knows what it will say. Or how "tough" it will be.
