Smoke seeps out from under door

Misunderstood and blown out of proportion by the press; embarrassing and badly handled by all parties involved; an unfortunate but inevitable collision as a new mayor and new city council figure out exactly how they’re going to work together.

There were any number of spins, after our reportage on the recent dust-up between Mayor Darlene Kordonowy and council members over a controversial planning commission appointment. Briefly: Lafe Myers, one of two Kordonowy picks to fill vacant commission seats, was tabled by the council in January after an eyebrow-raising exchange at the podium between the mayor and council chair Michael Pollock. Reports said a similar flare-up occurred in committee days earlier.

Kordonowy subsequently expressed frustration with the council; Pollock and several others came forward to say there is no “rift” between legislature and administration, but that agreements were broken and protocol was breached. (Elsewhere on this page, Pollock’s one-time “media advisor” accuses the Review of “sensationalizing” the news. Note to Mr. Pollock: Next time, find a new

advisor; this one lacks rapport.)

Let’s be perfectly clear: The issue is not Lafe Myers. We’re confident the seven-person commission, which reviews land-use applications before they go to the council, can function with or without his participation. (After the recent squabble, he is one of three candidates being considered for the seat.)

At issue, rather, is the process by which commission vacancies will be filled in the future. City ordinance seems clear enough: The mayor appoints, and the council confirms or rejects. But that process was muddied by a 1996 resolution under which mayor and council supposedly agreed to “vet” applicants together.

That resolution roughly coincided with an incident in which an islander – well known, and with an established track record of public service – was nominated for the commission, only to provoke a firestorm of calls to the mayor’s office. Some interests felt the applicant brought too much “baggage”; the nomination was withdrawn before it got to the council.

So why not weed through applicants in committee? The justification seems to be that it spares unpopular nominees the embarrassment of being voted down by the council, as happened with Mr. Myers. Unfortunately, it also raises the specter of the proverbial smoke-filled room – nominations discussed behind closed doors, and appointees shot down for reasons that may have nothing to do with their qualifications.

Nothing precludes a round of candidate interviews. Nor do we expect the council to debate the merits of nominees on the floor (we don’t need any Clarence Thomas hearings, certainly); a simple yes or no will do, and the mayor can decide how to proceed from there. But as the Myers fiasco makes clear, working outside of the public purview invites suspicion and raises the potential for abuse.

Mayor and council could defang the process simply by changing the terms of planning commission service. Shorten stints to, say, two years, and get used to more folks cycling through.

It would lower the stakes for all players. Better still if it meant opening the doors and stubbing out the cigars.

Comment on this story.

COMMENTING RULES: We encourage an open exchange of ideas in our online community, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. In a nutshell, don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read.