Sunday, Feb. 25, 2007 column by Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty -- Once in a while, we get a letter to the editor that keeps coming back, like a boomerang. That describes a letter the Opinion section received earlier this month from retired Bakersfield teacher Sue Coats, who wrote in defense of Ward 3 Councilman Ken Weir.

The cyclical path Coats’ letter traveled helps explain the controversy swirling around Weir, the growing tensions on the Bakersfield City Council and the need for citizens to keep their elected officials accountable.

Coats is Ward 6 Councilwoman Jacquie Sullivan’s aunt. In letters to The Californian, she has been one of Sullivan’s staunchest supporters.

That support now has spilled over to Sullivan’s ally, newly elected Councilman Weir.
She also holds a mighty big grudge against her niece’s political rival, Stuart Gentry, who ran against Sullivan and lost in 2000. And that brings us to Coats’ defense of Weir.

On Feb. 1, Coats wrote defending  Weir’s integrity. The Californian had reported Weir participated in a Jan. 17 closed-door council session regarding a former client’s lawsuit against the city. Weir is an accountant. Until Sept. 30, developer Gordon Downs was his client. Downs and others are suing the city over the newly adopted Hillside Ordinance.

Initially, Weir dismissed suggestions his attendance violated state conflict of interest laws. But his private Bakersfield attorney, George Martin, subsequently advised Weir to recuse himself from the case. A few days later, Weir lashed out at The Californian and made light of his alleged conflict during a speech before the Bakersfield Congress of Republicans.

That prompted Gentry, a Bakersfield businessman and a member of the city’s Fire Civil Service Commission, to file a complaint with the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, alleging Weir violated state conflict of interest laws. An investigation is under way.

In addition to testifying to Weir’s character, Coats wrote in her Feb. 5 letter to The Californian that City Attorney Ginny Gennaro should be blamed for failing “to protect the members of the council from conflicts of interest.”

She blamed Gentry for causing dissension on the council. And she blamed Ward 5 Councilman Harold Hanson for giving Gentry a political forum by appointing him to the Fire Civil Service Commission in 2005 over Sullivan’s objection.

Coats was told to revise her letter because it had factual errors. Among them was blaming Gennaro for Weir’s lapse.

Gennaro is not the city’s “conflicts cop.” Elected officials are supposed to keep their own noses clean. Coats’ revised letter was published in the Opinion section on Feb. 8. 
But the saga didn’t end.

Last week, we received an e-mail from Coats asking to have an apology published because Hanson had called her to say he did not appoint Gentry; Ward 4 Councilman David Couch did.

Although I wasn’t sure why it mattered who appointed Gentry and wondered why the focus had shifted from Weir to Gentry, I e-mailed David Couch. You could almost hear him  sputtering  at Hanson’s accusation.

To end the back-and-forth, I checked council minutes for Feb. 9, 2005. It turned out neither man appointed Gentry. Only two people applied for the appointment  — Gentry and Shawn Brandon. Council members cast written ballots — members Irma Carson, Zack Scrivner and Sullivan voted for Brandon; members Sue Benham, Mike Maggard, Couch and Hanson voted for Gentry.

And then a funny thing happened. As is the procedure, the vice mayor, who was Maggard that year, made the motion to approve Gentry’s appointment.

The minutes indicate the vote was unanimous. It appears Sullivan joined in the approval vote.

Wait. We are not done.

Thursday afternoon, I received a message from Coats withdrawing her apology letter. It was a mistake, she said, explaining Hanson called her again to tell her he remembered it wasn’t Couch, after all. It was the entire council.

What does this all mean?

Not a darn thing. This is not about who appointed Gentry, or Gentry’s motives for complaining to the Fair Political Practices Commission, or about The Californian’s reporting of  wrongdoing. It is about elected officials obeying the law.

Weir’s own lawyer has told him he was not suppose to attend the closed-door session. The FPPC now is demanding more information about Weir’s business and real estate holdings. The political watchdog agency has given him 30 days to provide it. And on Feb. 15, as he faced another deadline for making state-mandated financial disclosures, Weir stepped away from his appointment as the city’s alternate on the powerful Local Agency Formation Commission, which oversees annexations.

Under laws passed by voters and the Legislature, elected and appointed officials, including city council members and key employees, are required to publicly disclose their economic interests — land holdings, earnings, investments, etc.
 
Why? To assure citizens that the people they elect and the staffs they hire are putting the public’s interest before self-interests.