City attorney shift
There’s a bunch of things going on at City Hall, not the least of which is that the council in a 3-2 vote just decided to give a 60-day termination notice to their city attorney, Steven Amerikaner, and hire instead the newly formed law firm of Jenkins and Hogin. The Jenkins, of course, is our first city attorney, Michael Jenkins, formerly a partner of the firm of Richards, Watson and Gershon but now struck out on his own. His partner, both in business and in life, the Hogin of Jenkins and Hogin, is our former city attorney and present Interim City Manager Christi Hogin, who is anxious to get back to lawyering and out of the city-managing business. The vote was not unanimous with both Mayor Tom Hasse and Mayor Pro Tem Joan House in opposition — not so much because of the change but more because they felt it was done in too much of a hurry and should have gone out to bid (or at least that’s what they’re saying publicly). It apparently wasn’t Amerikaner, whom they all appear to respect, but maybe more a question of costs. However, what has become more apparent with each passing week is that Councilmembers Sharon Barovsky and Ken Kearsley are on one side, and Hasse and House are on the other. Councilmember Jeff Jennings appears to be the man in the middle, who sometimes goes this way and sometimes that. Other opposition to the new city attorney, primarily in the form of letters to the editor, appears to be coming from the usual suspects who were instrumental in pushing Hogin out last time as the city attorney and don’t seem too happy about her return.
Bond committee splitting
The Ad Hoc Citizens Committee, push for a $15 million bond issue to buy public open space has been meeting regularly. At the last meeting, Ozzie Silna, a member of the committee and the major financial backer of Proposition P in the last election, announced that the Wetlands people who have been a significant part of the bond committee were backing off and going to take a less-public role. Essentially, they were fearful that the wetlands issue might detract from the coalition’s ability to get the two-thirds vote necessary to pass the bond. One of the primary goals is to get new ball fields, and their backing off was described as a generous gesture to make it easier to pass the bond issue. HoweverBeneath the surface was a much touchier issue. It’s been rumored for quite some time that the Wetlands people — or perhaps someone on their behalf — were going to file a lawsuit against the city in connection with Prop. P, which passed in the last election but had 100 or so fewer Yes votes then Proposition N, which supposedly knocked Prop. P out. Or so they said. The bond coalition was fearful that if the Wetlands people finally decided to sue the city, it would spell doom for the bond issue. Now everyone will have to wait and see if the Wetlands withdrawal was truly just a generous gesture to help the bond pass, or just a strategic preliminary move before filing a lawsuit.
Growth of government-funded faith-based charity
I recently attended a conference at Pepperdine University called “Faith and Public Policy” that was intended to examine the roll of “faith-based” organizations in the Bush administration’s national thrust to deliver more of our social services through churches and other nongovernmental and frequently religion-based organizations. With the welfare reform of a few years ago, the burden of maintaining a safety net is falling more often on private religious institutions, much as they did throughout this nation’s history. Typically, they deliver services more cheaply and efficiently than do many of the larger public bureaucracies. However, there are some significant costs. Some argue that it is part of the steady chipping away of the constitutional separation of church and state, which in the long run is bad for the state and even worse for the church. In a multicultural society like ours, if the government begins to fund the activities of religious institutions, those groups that are funded begin to show up at the polls to support the candidates that fund. Keeping certain people in office becomes, they believe, the godly thing to do — which makes many people very, very nervous, including me. Having spent many years covering politics and politicians, I can say one thing about almost all politicals: If there is one thing they ain’t, it’s godly. There was never a politician alive that didn’t want to put God onto his campaign committee, and if he can do it at public expense that’s even better. So, for many of us, the jury is out on faith-based funding from the government. And the real question for the churches is: No matter how pure your intentions are, can you take their money without getting corrupted?