WE NEED A TRULY COMMITTED COUNCILMEMBER IN CATHEDRAL CITY
Summary: Departing councilmember Sam Toles has managed to put his foot in it with his suggestion that the Council should appoint his mother, Carol Lang, to fill out the remaining few weeks of his unexpired term when he finally moves to New York to take up the job he was looking for while ostensibly serving this community. We have been disappointed by Toles; his commitment to this community was always thin at best; is repeated Facebook posts of his forum travel and his frequent absences from the Council left voters wondering if they got what they had been led to expect they would get in 2010 when Toles marketed himself as “the only choice” for voters. We Cathedral City voters have a right to expect that our Council members will be wholeheartedly committed to this community. We also expect that they will have far thicker skins than our two New Yorkers on the Council, Toles and lame-duck incumbent mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa. At all events, our next Council members should not have the personalities of a Sam Toles or a Kathleen DeRosa. We deserve a lot better than what we’ve had.
Departing councilmember Sam Toles’s suggestion that the city Council should appoint his mother, Carol Lang, to fill out a small fraction of his unexpired term prior to the November elections has really worked a nerve with me. That’s not how democracy is supposed to function. Because it displays a kind of unsurprising tone deafness, Toles’s pending resignation raises the issue of the extent to which Cathedral City voters should expect Toles’s successor to be more committed to this community than Toles ever was. Indeed, we may do more than expect it; we may demand it.
Let’s be blunt. Sam Toles has been a serious disappointment to this community, notwithstanding some of his more hyperventilating supporters. Voters have a right to expect that their elected representatives will make a commitment to the community that ought to preclude job hunting on the East Coast and taking a job 3000 miles away while attempting to hold on to a Council seat here in Cathedral City. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Of course, we probably shouldn’t have been surprised that Toles would have left us while still serving on the Council. Facebook posts from the departing councilmember were full of references to European travel on behalf of his then full-time Los Angeles-based employer, and his frequent absences from the city and from Council meetings certainly raised eyebrows in the community to which he moved in 2008 before running a highly successful marketing campaign to get himself elected in 2010 as "the only choice" we feckless Cathedral City residents had to save ourselves. He managed to market himself to the electorate over concerns in some quarters that he was carpetbagging, which he was.
Questions about Toles’s commitment to the community arose not only from the frequency of his foreign travel, but also from statements by him during the 2012 election cycle that he was contemplating his “next political move.” There has been speculation that Toles had been eyeing a primary challenge to Coachella Mayor Eduardo Garcia, the presumptive successor to current 56th Assembly District member Victor Manuel Pérez. According to sources within the Coachella political community, Toles was either warned off or chose not to pursue a candidacy in a district in which he had no name recognition.
Voters have also been disappointed by the thinness of the councilmember’s skin. Toles has a reputation for not handling criticism well. When, after having heard from Toles a whole litany of rather Republican sounding rhetoric, I expressed passing doubts about Mr. Toles’s commitment to the Democratic Party to mutual acquaintances back in 2012, Toles delivered himself of a “Valley Voice” piece in our local Gannett newspaper that constituted 12 column inches of earsplitting “he hurt my feelings” snit, in which Toles suggested that anyone with an authentic commitment to Democratic values must necessarily be some kind of “extremist.” For me, and for others in the community, it was Toles’s “macaca” moment, a gross political gaffe not to be forgotten. Toles also cemented his reputation for being unable to handle criticism by resigning in another earsplitting snit from the Energy and Environment Committee of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments early in his term. Another “macaca” moment that left his elected peers wondering about his basic fitness for office .
As disappointed as we have been by George Samuel Toles’s performance, and by his reputation for self-righteous arrogance, we have an opportunity to elect a councilmember who will be far more committed to this community than Toles ever was. At the risk of sounding parochial, perhaps it is time we elected another native Californian to the Council. Buffalo native Toles seemed happy to spend a great deal of time looking for a job in New York City rather than performing the duties his Cathedral City, California electorate expected him to perform. Now, full disclosure, Toles edged me out in the 2010 Council election, and has managed since then to be a very sore winner, impugning both my integrity and my character, calling me a “sore loser” on more than one occasion.
In truth, I did not mind leaving the Council. At a certain point, being even a bit player in a real life “Game of Thrones” becomes tiresome. What I do mind is Toles’s apparent conviction that the Council seat is his property to dispose of as he sees fit. His suggestion that the Council should gift that seat to his mother, Carol Lang, was the last thing needed to bring my disappointment with his performance and his attitude to public expression.
Council seats are not the property of their occupants. The decision on who should fill a Council seat properly belongs to the electorate, and Toles’s suggestion that the Council should simply bestow “his” seat on a member of his family betrays not only a sense of arrogant entitlement, but also a fundamental lack of understanding of how democracy is supposed to work. We, the voters, not the Council and certainly not George Samuel Toles, are the owners; we are the deciders; we get to choose, not him.
And when we exercise our right of choice, let’s make sure we don’t elect someone who has been in the city all of 22 months before stepping up to try to exploit a political opportunity. Let’s make sure we elect someone whose commitment to California and to Cathedral City is absolute and undiluted by employment out of area or by a job search on the East Coast. Let’s make sure we don’t elect another Sam Toles. Let’s also make sure we don’t elect another crony of the outgoing Mayor. Our New Yorkers on the council have not served us well. Let’s make sure we elect somebody whose heart is here, whose home is here, whose work is here, and who is truly committed to representing this community in a spirit of humility and authentic service.
Friday, June 20, 2014
Thursday, June 19, 2014
CUTTING AND RUNNING: THE POLITICAL MESS CREATED BY SAM TOLES'S RESIGNATION
Summary: the political mess created by the resignation of Cathedral City councilmember Sam Toles has triggered more “Game of Thrones” style politicking in Cathedral City. Speculation is rampant that Toles’s decision to cut and run may have been forced upon him by pressure from outgoing incumbent Mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa and her political claque. Speculation is also rampant that DeRosa, whose term ends in December, will attempt to pack the council with her political supporters and attempt to continue to run things from behind the scenes once she is gone. Yet, as a practical matter, it may not be possible to appoint some dependable crony of DeRosa to serve out a short-term of barely 150 days before the election. It may also not be feasible to try to call a special election to fill out the unexpired terms of either Toles or Mayor pro tem. Chuck Vasquez, who has his own troubles to contend with, and who may be leaving the council as well. Since both Vasquez and Toles would have had to face the voters in November anyway, it makes no sense to waste taxpayer time or dollars on a special election. The council has functioned before at less than full strength, and it can doubtless do so again. The voters of Cathedral City should have the final say — at the regular general election already on calendar for November of this year.
News out of Cathedral City this morning is that first-term councilmember Sam Toles, who recently took a full-time job in New York City, has tendered his resignation from the council.
The resignation is not immediately effective, and is couched in so many weasel words that it leaves open the possibility that Mr. Toles may not actually leave the council for some time.
Of course, Toles’s decision to leave the council now raises a whole storm of political speculation involving him and the possible role of sociopathic “five-star-mayor” Kathleen Joan DeRosa in his decision to go.
Quite frankly, but for the “Game of Thrones” nature of local politics in Cathedral City, Mr. Toles should probably have laid down his council seat when he accepted full-time employment in Manhattan. Certainly, by remaining on the council, Mr. Toles put himself at ever-increasing risk of criminal prosecution for not residing in the constituency represents, an issue that may also confront the lame duck mayor in the future. At some point, something had to give.
And now, something has given. Six months from now, with Sam Toles gone and presumably forgotten by much of his erstwhile constituency, an objective examination of his legacy may prove less flattering to him than he and his supporters might have hoped. Considering the relative thinness of Mr. Toles’s legislative résumé, and Mr. Toles’s inability to handle criticism very well, it is doubtful that his legacy will be capable of being burnished.
Nonetheless, those of us who pay attention to Cathedral City politics are curious to know whether this sudden resignation may have been the result of pressure from the lame-duck incumbent mayor and her political claque, which has always been disturbingly ready to prostitute its own ethics to do her bidding.
Already, City Hall sources tell me, speculation is swirling that DeRosa and her claque may have applied pressure, even extortionate pressure, on Mr. Toles to depart. Speculation also has it that DeRosa and her claque will be pushing to appoint incumbent city clerk Gary Howell to fill out Mr. Toles’s unexpired term.
Such a preference is not surprising. Howell is the ultimate crony, who has been appointed to numerous remunerative boards and other bodies over the course of the last decade and a half. (Full disclosure, Gary Howell ran against me for Council in 2002 with DeRosa’s tacit support. I beat him and went on to serve two full terms as councilmember.) Howell was not elected city clerk, but was appointed to fill out the unexpired term of late city clerk Patricia Hammers, who died during the pendency of the Fair Political Practices Commission’s investigation of DeRosa’s campaign finance practices. If Gary Howell gets appointed to succeed Sam Toles, it will be not because of his qualifications, but to reward a dependable, longtime crony.
Also throwing a potential monkeywrench into matters is the possible departure of Chuck Vasquez from the Council as a consequence of the criminal proceedings currently in train against him. If Mr. Vasquez is convicted or if the matter ends with a plea bargained disposition, Chuck will have to go. If Mr. Vasquez goes, the Council will be down to a minimum quorum of three. DeRosa and her claque and allies will argue strenuously that appointments will need to be made to bring the Council up to full strength.
Such arguments, while politically convenient to DeRosa and her allies, lack strength and honesty. Indeed, there is substantial precedent for the Council functioning, and functioning adequately, at less than full strength. In November, 2004, then-Councilwoman Kathleen Joan DeRosa was elected mayor. Because she was running from a safe seat in the middle of her term, it became necessary to address the vacancy created by her election as mayor. The Council deadlocked two to two on the issue of a successor, and so, rather than appoint a successor and thus anger at least half of the constituency, the Council went for a special election.
Because of the mechanics of a special election, it was not possible to hold such an election until the late spring of 2005; the council thus met as a body of four for a period of nearly six months, with no apparent long-term damage to our local body politic.
Thus, if history be our guide, there is no immediate need to rush to an appointment when the November elections are barely 150 days away. Even getting a special election up and running this close to the regular election at which both Toles and Vasquez would have been facing the voters anyway would take a great deal of time, cost a lot of unnecessary taxpayer dollars, and produce, in the end, Council members serving terms of almost derisory shortness.
By the same token, a council of four would probably deadlock two to two on the issue of who to appoint. Toles has suggested that the Council appoint his mother to succeed him. Such a suggestion is risible. We do not appoint dynastic successions in a democratic body politic, and the question of whether the individual in question has the slightest degree of political qualifications is very much an open one. Appointing Gary Howell, who tried unsuccessfully to get elected back in 2002, and who apparently assumes himself entitled to the seat, would be a slap in the face to Cathedral city voters.
Given the impracticality of calling a special election this close to the general election, and given the very real political fallout that might result from an attempt by lame-duck DeRosa to pack the council, the only defensible course of action for the council is to abide the outcome of the November general election. Even with a council of three, there is still quorum to do business, and the integrity of the political process remains unsullied.
Of course, City Hall sources are all well-nigh unanimous in telling me that DeRosa does not intend to go gracefully or quietly when she ceases to be mayor. Her apparent intent is to try to pack the council with as many of her supporters as possible so that she can continue to influence our politics from behind the scenes. Failing that, she intends to do what she can to scorch the earth and leave as many poison pills as possible behind for her presumptive successor Stan Henry.
The only way to prevent such political shenanigans is to let the people vote at the November election provided by law. We have survived a short council before; we will survive it again. No thanks or kudos to George Samuel Toles.
-xxx-
News out of Cathedral City this morning is that first-term councilmember Sam Toles, who recently took a full-time job in New York City, has tendered his resignation from the council.
The resignation is not immediately effective, and is couched in so many weasel words that it leaves open the possibility that Mr. Toles may not actually leave the council for some time.
Of course, Toles’s decision to leave the council now raises a whole storm of political speculation involving him and the possible role of sociopathic “five-star-mayor” Kathleen Joan DeRosa in his decision to go.
Quite frankly, but for the “Game of Thrones” nature of local politics in Cathedral City, Mr. Toles should probably have laid down his council seat when he accepted full-time employment in Manhattan. Certainly, by remaining on the council, Mr. Toles put himself at ever-increasing risk of criminal prosecution for not residing in the constituency represents, an issue that may also confront the lame duck mayor in the future. At some point, something had to give.
And now, something has given. Six months from now, with Sam Toles gone and presumably forgotten by much of his erstwhile constituency, an objective examination of his legacy may prove less flattering to him than he and his supporters might have hoped. Considering the relative thinness of Mr. Toles’s legislative résumé, and Mr. Toles’s inability to handle criticism very well, it is doubtful that his legacy will be capable of being burnished.
Nonetheless, those of us who pay attention to Cathedral City politics are curious to know whether this sudden resignation may have been the result of pressure from the lame-duck incumbent mayor and her political claque, which has always been disturbingly ready to prostitute its own ethics to do her bidding.
Already, City Hall sources tell me, speculation is swirling that DeRosa and her claque may have applied pressure, even extortionate pressure, on Mr. Toles to depart. Speculation also has it that DeRosa and her claque will be pushing to appoint incumbent city clerk Gary Howell to fill out Mr. Toles’s unexpired term.
Such a preference is not surprising. Howell is the ultimate crony, who has been appointed to numerous remunerative boards and other bodies over the course of the last decade and a half. (Full disclosure, Gary Howell ran against me for Council in 2002 with DeRosa’s tacit support. I beat him and went on to serve two full terms as councilmember.) Howell was not elected city clerk, but was appointed to fill out the unexpired term of late city clerk Patricia Hammers, who died during the pendency of the Fair Political Practices Commission’s investigation of DeRosa’s campaign finance practices. If Gary Howell gets appointed to succeed Sam Toles, it will be not because of his qualifications, but to reward a dependable, longtime crony.
Also throwing a potential monkeywrench into matters is the possible departure of Chuck Vasquez from the Council as a consequence of the criminal proceedings currently in train against him. If Mr. Vasquez is convicted or if the matter ends with a plea bargained disposition, Chuck will have to go. If Mr. Vasquez goes, the Council will be down to a minimum quorum of three. DeRosa and her claque and allies will argue strenuously that appointments will need to be made to bring the Council up to full strength.
Such arguments, while politically convenient to DeRosa and her allies, lack strength and honesty. Indeed, there is substantial precedent for the Council functioning, and functioning adequately, at less than full strength. In November, 2004, then-Councilwoman Kathleen Joan DeRosa was elected mayor. Because she was running from a safe seat in the middle of her term, it became necessary to address the vacancy created by her election as mayor. The Council deadlocked two to two on the issue of a successor, and so, rather than appoint a successor and thus anger at least half of the constituency, the Council went for a special election.
Because of the mechanics of a special election, it was not possible to hold such an election until the late spring of 2005; the council thus met as a body of four for a period of nearly six months, with no apparent long-term damage to our local body politic.
Thus, if history be our guide, there is no immediate need to rush to an appointment when the November elections are barely 150 days away. Even getting a special election up and running this close to the regular election at which both Toles and Vasquez would have been facing the voters anyway would take a great deal of time, cost a lot of unnecessary taxpayer dollars, and produce, in the end, Council members serving terms of almost derisory shortness.
By the same token, a council of four would probably deadlock two to two on the issue of who to appoint. Toles has suggested that the Council appoint his mother to succeed him. Such a suggestion is risible. We do not appoint dynastic successions in a democratic body politic, and the question of whether the individual in question has the slightest degree of political qualifications is very much an open one. Appointing Gary Howell, who tried unsuccessfully to get elected back in 2002, and who apparently assumes himself entitled to the seat, would be a slap in the face to Cathedral city voters.
Given the impracticality of calling a special election this close to the general election, and given the very real political fallout that might result from an attempt by lame-duck DeRosa to pack the council, the only defensible course of action for the council is to abide the outcome of the November general election. Even with a council of three, there is still quorum to do business, and the integrity of the political process remains unsullied.
Of course, City Hall sources are all well-nigh unanimous in telling me that DeRosa does not intend to go gracefully or quietly when she ceases to be mayor. Her apparent intent is to try to pack the council with as many of her supporters as possible so that she can continue to influence our politics from behind the scenes. Failing that, she intends to do what she can to scorch the earth and leave as many poison pills as possible behind for her presumptive successor Stan Henry.
The only way to prevent such political shenanigans is to let the people vote at the November election provided by law. We have survived a short council before; we will survive it again. No thanks or kudos to George Samuel Toles.
-xxx-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)