What do the two moves have in common? Both were done with little debate and no explanation. But both leave behind a lot of questions.
Daigle expected to move up, as is traditional, from mayor pro tem to mayor. But she didn’t even get a chance to hang on to the second-in-command job.
After the vote, Daigle took the classy route and said she was “proud” of the job she had done, while adding, “I am fortunate enough to be able to serve. That satisfaction far exceeds the sting and wariness of any battle against my critics.”
Last month we argued that the council ought to have a good reason to deny Daigle the job, but none was given. It’s no use speculating, so we won’t. But we don’t think it’s too much to ask for an explanation. In fact, she has served the city well from all appearances. So has Selich, but there was no compelling reason offered to keep him as the council’s chief parliamentarian.
In Costa Mesa, it’s a lot easier to speculate when it comes to motives. Katrina Foley has long jostled with Mansoor and Bever, so it’s not a wild guess to say denying Foley was a matter of continued payback.
When Mansoor stepped down as mayor in January he said he “simply [feels] it’s time to allow someone else to take on the position of mayor.”
We guess it was simply time to be mayor again. He didn’t explain what changed, but offered, “A year has passed since then. I’m willing to make the commitment.”
These superficial and ambiguous explanations fall short of even the minimum expectations of transparency in government. Foley was the second top vote-getter, so she has a significant constituency; they deserve an explanation.
Again, we call on the Costa Mesa City Council to politically harmonize better — this wasn’t a great way to start.