Mannequins of Change
by Bo Klein

About this time during every election year, Congress and state legislatures posture mannequins of change in the windows of voters’ minds. By the last-minute review of proposed bills at year’s end, the politicians dress the future of the community for the seasons ahead.

One has to question the validity of our lawmakers cramming hundreds of proposed laws before fellow politicians at midnight hour, knowing a full debate is impossible to analyze the merits of bills that primarily originated from paid lobbyist actions. Each politician window-dresses his own proposed laws, attempting to get them passed … or does he? Is simply proposing a bill for a lobbyist group or some community group sufficient for the politician’s reelection? To get elected originally, most politicians design their campaigns to uproot an incumbent by offering a change or law that purports to improve something voters think they want. Does simply offering the concept of change sustain the voter? It does in Mission Viejo.

Comparing promises and reality years later, one is left with a long list of incomplete tasks in our city. The last time this writer checked, the Edison power lines were still overhead in our city despite the dismal failure of the politician who proposed the change of burying the lines. A very big failure, yet the politician is now a city councilman, and his success is based on his failure. Basing a successful career on one’s failures can only be done in politics.

Another example of comprehensive failure is Councilwoman Trish Kelley’s 2002 campaign promise to establish sensible senior transportation for a reasonable cost. Actually, she never promised her plan would be sensible or cost-effective. Because she failed to think about those aspects, she had no real plan other than using the concept of change to get elected. But, hold the bus, she again at year’s end with her campaign in progress proposes her "plan" to sustain the voter. She attempts to ride her failure to a successful reelection. One could point to numerous other examples where such year-end agendas bring out the bag of empty promises.

Incumbent council members have a huge advantage over their challengers by playing the time game with the agenda of public meetings. Just like Congress, if too many proposals are made at year’s end by a council member, some won’t make it to this year’s council meeting for debate and vote. The agenda is carefully managed as if it were a history book in the making – it actually is. If an item doesn't make it on the agenda, it doesn't occur later or it’s not supposed to in principal. An incumbent like Kelley can drag out an already debated issue and personal failure such as senior transportation, attempt to place it on the agenda with a smile and again campaign with superficial sincerity, claiming she deserves reelection. She has no new issues to drag before the public even after hanging around City Hall for nearly four very volatile and disappointing years. Councilman Lance MacLean is no doubt still trying to figure out a way to re-agendize a gym proposal in order to get his name back in print like an old and washed out Hollywood actor seeking a role – any role. The point is, to suggest an agenda item is almost as good as getting a law passed when it comes to deceiving the public during an election year.

Staff controls the city agenda far more than any council member or commissioner. If the city manager thinks a crackpot idea, such as a gym, were proposed to be on the agenda, he could easily stall staff reports and prevent the item from reaching the agenda. Ideally, from his perspective, both the crackpot idea and the ousted incumbent who proposed it would go away on Election Day. However, a candidate for reelection – Kelley, for example – can still request her agenda item prior to election time and, while not getting it agendized, campaign on it. The days are still numbered for that incumbent, just like agenda items are.

It’s a campaign of control: who has it, who doesn’t have it and who's losing it.