Anaheim Officials Aren’t Game

When I last talked to Anaheim Councilman Richard Chavez a year ago, he’d been arrested after joining other pickets in blocking a Vons entrance during the contentious grocery workers strike. A matter of conscience, he said.

Now, his conscience has acted up again, and it’s costing him dearly: going to Angels games.

And not just going to the games: It’s sitting in the suite reserved for council members and their guests. The suite with the good view and the free food.

Where I come from, we call that livin’ large.

But to protest Angels owner Arte Moreno’s decision to change the team’s name to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Chavez says he won’t go to the stadium for Tuesday’s home opener. Nor, he told me Friday, would he attend that night’s game against the Dodgers in Anaheim. Nor, he says, will he attend games at Angel Stadium as long as the matter is unresolved.

Maybe you have to be a baseball fan to appreciate the sacrifice, but trust me, it’s a miniprofile in courage. I’m not confusing Chavez with Gandhi, but those suites are sweet.

What gives, I ask Chavez. Are you always protesting something? “I don’t think I’m going to jail over this one,” he says, laughing. “Early on, I decided if we were not able to resolve this that I’d be doing my own personal protest and not attending ballgames.”

For how long? “I guess, indefinitely.”

He says he’ll give his four-ticket allotment per home game to family, friends, charities or other groups. For Friday night’s game against the Dodgers, Chavez gave his tickets to his 14-year-old son and Chavez’s parents. He says his son is bummed he isn’t going with his father.

Chavez says he didn’t discourage his family from going; nor is he asking other fans to boycott the stadium.

“It’s my personal thing,” he says. “When you’re dealt with unfairly, you’ve got to stand up to the issue. We’ve got a billionaire [Moreno] who I think is dealing with the citizens in a very unfair manner.”

If the city loses in court, Chavez says he’ll reassess his boycott. But as long as the situation is in limbo and he continues to think Moreno is being unfair, he’ll watch the Angels on TV.

“It’s a wonderful way to get away, to be able to go to the ballgame,” he says of the suite. “I love baseball. It’s probably the only sport I really pay a lot of attention to.”

But just to show you how complicated this conscience business is, consider the decision of council colleague Lorri Galloway. She will attend Tuesday’s opener, but in a weird irony, she’s not even a big baseball fan. Which is to say, it wouldn’t be a sacrifice to her to miss the game.

She’s going, however, because she thinks it’s her responsibility to attend -- especially because the council has asked Angel fans to support the team. “I think it’s an obligation that if you ask someone to do something,” she says, “I feel you’re obligated to do it.”

That doesn’t mean, she says, that she isn’t angry with Moreno. “I feel there’s an anger, actually, a passionate anger over something that’s been stolen from us. But it’s been stolen by management and ownership, not the players.”

So, there you have it. The baseball fan is staying home, and the nonfan is going. You’d have to say both are following their consciences.

Mayor Curt Pringle and Councilman Harry Sidhu also have indicated they’ll boycott Tuesday’s opener, but I couldn’t reach them to ask how long their protests will continue. Nor could I reach Councilman Bob Hernandez.

Going to the ballpark usually doesn’t involve matters of principle. Galloway says she thinks it’s the right thing to do and doesn’t know if the lingering anger over the name change will affect her enjoyment of the game.

What she fears most, she says, is hearing the stadium announcer say words she never wants to hear: “Here are your Los Angeles Angels

*

Dana Parsons can be reached at (714) 966-7821 or at dana.parsons@latimes.com. An archive of his recent columns is at www.latimes.com/parsons.