Supervisor Candidates a Secret Until the Appointed Time

I’m reading and reading, and I understand all the words.

But to coin a phrase, I just don’t get it.

The subject matter is an exchange of letters between Gov. Pete Wilson’s office and the League of Women Voters of Orange County.

Oh, I understand perfectly the league’s correspondence. It’s the letter from the governor’s office that has me wondering if, as a Chicago friend might say, “they’re on the rib.”

But, no, they’re serious, because the letter is on official gubernatorial stationery. It is explaining why Mr. Wilson won’t adhere to the league’s request to identify the people who have applied to replace outgoing County Supervisor Marian Bergeson.

As League President Joan Cohen pointed out in her Nov. 6 letter to the governor:

“For the second time in a little over a year, Orange County citizens will have an appointed supervisor. If the vacancy were to be filled by election, we would know the names and addresses of all who sought the position as soon as they filed papers with the registrar of voters. . . . We see no valid reason for any part of the appointive process to be shrouded in secrecy.”

The governor’s answer came in a letter from Alice Detwiler, deputy legal affairs secretary:

“Gov. Wilson, like his predecessors, does not release the names or files of those who are considered for appointments. This office seeks to encourage all qualified individuals to apply for appointments without concern that their names will be disclosed to the public.

“Unlike candidates for elective office, who, arguably, inject themselves into the public spotlight from the moment they file papers creating a candidacy, an individual seeking an appointment maintains a reasonable expectation of privacy when he or she submits an application to the governor.

“Respecting this expectation of privacy serves the public interest by assuring the most extensive pool of candidates for each position. If lists of applicants were published, unsuccessful candidates would risk being stigmatized as having been publicly ‘passed over,’ and qualified individuals could be deterred from asking or agreeing to be considered for appointed positions. Premature disclosure of an individual’s interest in a position could also be embarrassing to the individual if, for instance, the individual’s current employer is unaware that the applicant is seeking other employment. . . . “

Aside from legal citations, information on how to apply for appointments and some other niceties, that was the guts of Detwiler’s reply.

Is she ribbing us?

The reply might hold water if we were talking about filling a spot on the Raccoon Advisory Commission or some such, but for a county supervisor’s seat--a job that is inherently an elective position--it’s a ridiculous justification.

Would the governor have us believe that someone applying for a seat on the Board of Supervisors might be embarrassed to let people know of that interest? For this most public of jobs, they want their identities concealed until and unless they get the appointment?

I’m sure people running for the office feel the same way. If they’re not going to win, they’d much prefer that people not know who they are. Kind of embarrassing to lose, you know.

By the governor’s logic, being “stigmatized” for losing an election is OK, because you chose to run. Am I missing something here? Aren’t these people applying for the Bergeson seat also choosing to do so? Are they being considered without their knowledge or permission?

Whether running for office or applying for office, they’re still going after the job.

Bergeson’s replacement will serve through 1998 and might be a decisive vote on any number of critical issues. And the governor tells us that anyone wanting that kind of public influence is entitled to a “reasonable expectation of privacy” until appointed?

Oh, my.

I asked Cohen what she thought of the governor’s reply. “They just don’t want to tell anyone what they’re doing,” she said. “It’s the same old thing as the shadow government in Orange County. It’s like, ‘We don’t need to tell people anything, we just do what we want to do.’ ”

We’ve had enough trouble in this county with the supervisors we’ve elected on our own. The governor has the only vote on this next one, and it’s not asking too much of him to reveal who’s on his ballot.

And as for those who might be “stigmatized” at being passed over?

I’m not insensitive to them, by any means. Couldn’t we all agree that some state-sponsored self-esteem counseling is the least we should do for them?

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by writing to him at the Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or calling (714) 966-7821.