Feedback -- Columnist’s views provoke 2 readers

I do not believe that 10,664 Costa Mesa voters will be

“disenfranchised” by Councilman Chris Steel’s eventual removal or

resignation from office for at least two reasons (“Better for Steel to

resign with honor than be hanged by it,” July 4):

1. I suspect that thousands of the people who originally voted for

Steel would not do so today (i.e. given the alleged false and/or

misleading statements that he has made to date, and his continuing

failure to accept full responsibility for what he allegedly did.

2. If the next runner-up eventually takes office, the 9,192 people who

voted for Heather Somers will be “re-enfranchised.”

In my opinion, this is an appropriate result given that Steel should

never have been on the ballot in the first place because two of the

required 20 signatures on his nominating petition, for whatever reason,

simply did not match the relevant voter registration card and should have

therefore been routinely “kicked” by the City Clerk’s Office. And he

should have received a routine “Dear Chris” letter from the City Clerk

telling him that he had an insufficient number of valid signatures on his

nominating petition.

With respect to the foregoing, the real issue is what difference would

it all make? How was or would any past or future Costa Mesa City Council

3-2 votes -- where Chris Steel voted in the majority or minority -- be

changed if the next runner-up were on the Costa Mesa City Council

instead? I suspect that many -- if not most -- of these 3-2 votes would

not change.

With respect to this whole matter, I see many parallels between the

predicament that Steel now finds himself in and the predicament faced by

former President Richard Nixon during his Watergate years. Both made

incriminating statements that any attorney would have advised them not to

make.

Those incriminating statements were recorded with their knowledge and

consent. Both initially attempted to put forth public positions that were

contrary to the facts of their respective cases to generally fool the

public and to specifically fool their own supporters.

Both attacked the honesty, integrity and motives of the messengers --

i.e. their accusers, adverse witnesses and news media. And both attempted

to hide behind legal technicalities to thwart, subvert and/or otherwise

delay the lawful criminal and civil legal processes instituted against

them.

MICHAEL W. SZKARADEK

Costa Mesa

Perhaps Chris Steel should have taken counsel with Sir Walter Scott

who wrote “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when ‘first’ we practice to

deceive.” The word first is in quotes because in order to put this

unfortunate matter into perspective, we need to deal with what first

happened and what was intended by that event.In the July 4 Pilot, de

Arakal wrote that Chris Steel says “his actions were unintended technical

infractions of the election code borne out of ignorance and haste, not

criminal intent.”

These may not have been Chris Steel’s exact words, but de Arakal has

so reported them and we can justifiably work with them to evaluate the

matter.

Keeping in mind that Steel has submitted quite a few nominating forms

in the past, that he knew what deadline he had to meet with the

nominating form, that he accepted the signature of a husband for his

wife, that he is the one who signed at the bottom that the signatures

were those of the individuals whose names appear and that he signed under

penalty of perjury, Costa Mesans ought to be asking themselves, if this

was an unintended technical infraction, did Steel also then inform the

officials that a husband signed for his wife when he turned in the

completed nomination?

Presumably, Steel did not advise officials. So, are we not justified

in concluding that Steel intended to deceive election officials? This was

the “first” event, and it bears all the indications of deception.

Many people might shrug and dismiss the deception as trivial. Those

people should ask themselves if Steel deserves our charity when it is

clear that he had so little respect for the election process and for the

covenant he sought to make with the voters that he waited until the last

minute to hurry about seeking nominating signatures, that he then

accepted an invalid signature, signed the nominating papers and turned it

all in without turning a hair. One would be forgiven if one asked if

Steel is really as sincere about his dedication to public service as he

claims when, in fact, his service is founded on deception.

De Arakal suggests this was a sinless clerical error. Steel was not

acting in the capacity of a clerk when he took the steps discussed above.

My copy of Webster’s defines error, in the context in which it is being

used in this discussion, as “something incorrectly done through ignorance

or carelessness.” Clearly, Steel did not err in this matter as he surely

must have known exactly what he was doing.

Lastly, de Arakal has written “I still believe that the case against

Steel is a ‘political’ lynching.” De Arakal is not the first person who

has reached this conclusion. The word “political” is quoted because, to

this point, there has not been introduced a shred of evidence that any

identified individual or political opponents of Steel’s have colluded,

whether legally or illegally, to deny Steel a seat on the City Council.

To put a point on the question from de Arakal: Who from Costa Mesa is

calling the shots in this matter at the office of Tony Rauckauckas, the

Orange County district attorney?

Without commenting on de Arakal’s acumen as a movie critic, his

attempt to equate Steel’s current dilemma with that of an unfairly

accused movie character is not a credible perspective.

Considering all the above, Steel should resign from the Costa Mesa

City Council.

DAVID J. STILLER

Costa Mesa