According to citizens who have spoken at its meetings, the quality of City Council has declined over recent decades. Its debased condition today cannot be attributed entirely to Mayor Ken Miyagishima, but his four terms, or 16 years, in office have necessarily contributed much to Council’s decline. The mediocrity of our maybe well intentioned but certainly unimpressive cast of Councilors has probably discouraged others who are capable and would be competent and committed to serve constructively.
Accordingly, until this week, it looked as if three current Council members—one running for Mayor, two running for re-election as Councilors—would go unchallenged, leaving voters with no choice. All three of these candidates, if elected to the offices which they seek, will perpetuate the mediocrity of the current Council.
Fortunately, Eric Enriquez, former Assistant City Manager (2020-2022) and former Fire Department Chief (2016-2020), has announced for mayor, against current District 1 Councilor Kasandra Gandara. With his candidacy, voters have a clear choice between someone with executive experience in, and a thorough knowledge of, city government, and a loquacious and petty politician of no distinction or accomplishment. To avoid repeating myself, I refer readers to my previous (3 May) blog, which discusses Councilor Gandara’s character and conduct in office.
Unfortunately, neither District 2 Councilor Tessa Abeyta not District 4 Councilor Johanna Bencomo yet has a challenger. The quality of City Council would be immensely improved if either, not to say both, were replaced. Because I have repeatedly criticized Councilor Bencomo without devoting an entire blog to her, I shall limit my remarks to a few words in a (21 July 22) blog which capture the lack of integrity of her Council work.
The members of City Council, who have little or no knowledge of government, policy development and implementation, and, most of all, doubtful integrity and dubious priorities. Johanna Bencomo, who was for police reform, particularly a citizen review board, until the Mayor berated her for not respecting the police and she, too unliberated to defend herself—how dare you speak to me in that fashion, Mr. Mayor?—immediately abandoned her position and apologized that she, too, loves the police; and is trying to get back to the head of the line on police reform, where the microphone is.
She was for police reform until she was against it—a transformation in less than three minutes. She later trash-talked a sensible proposal for such a board as “superficial”—a cheap shot from someone who has offered not one proposal of her own which would suggest that she is in any way honest about wanting police reform. I have not seen her announcement for re-election, but I assume it is replete with the empty clichés which she artfully strings together for her benefit when she so often speaks to the media.
In her Bulletin interview (28 July) announcing her run for re-election, Councilor Abeyta addressed police and crime in more detail than most candidates do. However, given her record, it is not surprising that she misrepresented herself. Abeyta praised herself for having “asked good questions” about the proposed civilian police oversight board. As a witness, I can attest that few were good and most were bad. With, I suspect, solicited assistance from a friendly lawyer, she spent most of her time in an aggressive, legalistic cross-examination of Peter Goodman in opposition to the proposal. Thus prepared in advance, she made no effort to understand the merits of the proposed board or to address and resolve any issues. She revealed her temperament as a councilor disposed, not to reasonable consideration of a citizen’s informed proposal, but to rude, hostile ideological opposition to it.
Abeyta further claimed to “want transparency and accountability.” The claim is, to put it politely, hypocritical balderdash. She is one of the Mayor’s two appointees—the other is District 1 Councilor and Mayor Pro Tem Kasandra Gandara—on the Public Safety Select Committee. This Committee has operated in secrecy so stringent that the four other Councilors did not know of its existence. In other words, Councilor Abeyta has been part of a clique which rules on issue of public safety yet is unknown not only to the public, but also to colleagues. Such is her “transparency”; such is her “accountability”; such is her trustworthiness.
From personal experience, I know that she responds to the concerns of citizens on the basis of her feelings about them. When I appeared before the Utilities Board on which she sits, she (with Johana Bencomo) paid no attention to me, did not even look at me, but shuffled papers in a display of contempt. I believe and do not mind that she is no fan of mine because of my criticism of City Council and its Councilors. But, as a Councilor, she is expected to address issues, not act on grudges from her hurt feelings. A thin skin and a supply of spleen are not desirable characteristics of an elected official.
Notwithstanding my wishes for the defeat of all three of these candidates, I am a realist. Councilor Gandara faces a challenger, and I know that many people are less thrilled with her than she is with herself. So there is hope for a refreshing change of leadership. But Councilors Bencomo and Abeyta, having no challengers, are assured of re-election. One vote for each will do the trick. In these circumstances, the best that citizens can do to signal their desire for something better than political mediocrity, mendacity, and meanness is not to vote for them. Even so, small vote totals will not matter to these candidates; they are so indifferent to and contemptuous of ordinary citizens that they will remain impervious to their concerns or public opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment