In Santa Ana, a Folly Against City Attorney

The Santa Ana City Council is caught in a crazy confrontation with City Atty. Edward J. Cooper that is threatening to cause dissension just as many important issues, including approval for a proposed sports arena, are awaiting decision.

Four of the seven council members have been trying to suspend the widely respected Cooper for reasons that they refuse to make clear. The only public statement by a Cooper opponent came from Councilman Richards L. Norton, who said his recommendation for an administrative review of the city attorney’s office “was based solely on setting to rest, once and for all, the allegations and innuendoes that have been made in recent months.”

Those “allegations and innuendoes,” however, appear to be known only to Norton and the others who joined in the ouster attempt, Miguel A. Pulido, John Acosta and Ron May.

Cooper has the strong backing of the three remaining members of the council and has refused to leave. He says that the city charter requires five votes to oust him. The four anti-Cooper members are now going to the state attorney general for a ruling. And the three backing Cooper, Mayor Daniel H. Young, and council members Daniel E. Griset and Patricia A. McGuigan, are asking Orange County Dist. Atty. Cecil Hicks to launch a grand jury investigation of the attempted firing.

The whole affair is tainted by the fact that Norton, Pulido and Acosta are all either currently or have in the past been involved in litigation filed by Cooper on behalf of the city. Norton is, in fact, facing a hearing Thursday on a case concerning a swap meet that the city is attempting to bar Norton from holding at Santa Ana Stadium. Norton sued, and the city countersued.

At least in the case of Norton, it appears to us that there is a conflict of interest. That would reduce the number of votes against Cooper to three, short of a majority no matter how the city charter is interpreted.

The anti-Cooper forces can proceed with this folly. But it will carry with it a cost to the city in the form of diversion of the council from matters of importance to the electorate.