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-
No comments:
Post a Comment