Most members of the Bakersfield City Council won't say how they're planning to vote on Ken Weir's proposal to remove Russell Johnson from the planning commission.

I'm putting Weir down in the for column — it's his proposal. Sullivan has said she's for, Benham has said she's against. Hanson, Scrivner and Couch won't say, but gave some comments that backed up what I already expected, based on how the council has broken in the past — Couch against, Hanson and Scrivner for. It takes five votes, so that leaves Carson as the swing vote, and she has given no indication, at least to me, of which way she's leaning.

Carson, Hanson and Scrivner all gave some variation of, "I'm not deciding until I get there," or "I am going to listen with an open mind."

I think those statements are not quite true — and yet true.

I think all the council members have an idea how they're going to vote. They know what the issue is, and how they feel about it. But they're also allowing for the possibility that someone, in public comment or another council member, will say something that causes them to change their mind. So they're leaning, but going in with an open mind.

However, if they say which way they're leaning, and then they don't hear something that changes their mind, opponents will accuse them of not listening — even if they made a good-faith effort to listen.

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that all council members will be willing to listen to the same degree. And it certainly doesn't mean that factionalism on the council isn't playing a part. All it means is that politics is keeping them from telling the whole truth; it's putting the council members in a no-win situation.

From my point of view of wanting to tell readers everything I can possibly find out about this, that's kind of sad.