Here is a roundup of some of the most thought-provoking reader comments of last week. Click on each topic’s headline to see the article in question. Comments are selected by our editors and subject to editing for grammar, spelling, clarity and length.
How bad does a decision have to be before an assistant principle gets fired? This wasn’t about embarrassing someone. It was about communicating that the student’s gayness and desire to get married aren’t OK.
The school district says that the situation should have been handled privately, but I fail to understand what the “situation” was. That the kid went “off script”? Were all the other kids that went off script also disqualified from the competition?
This is anti-gay discrimination plain and simple. Apologizing isn’t enough.
— MickLak / April 4
While I don’t condone [Assistant Principal] Abell’s initial actions, I commend him for his apology. Whether the apology was forced by his employer or done by his own accord, it’s difficult to do and is really all he can do.
Suspending him won’t undo his mistake, nor will it change any bias he may have. However, accepting his apology and including him in an open dialogue to improve school and district policies in order to protect [gay] students, faculty and staff just might.
— Sdterp / April 4
How cool would it be if the Fullerton Union High School District stands up and states that the assistant principal’s actions were discriminatory and violate the district’s no-bullying policy?
— Dsocialme / April 4
Nguyen is showing the public three things:
(1) She is a totalitarian who believes she can use her political position to punish those who speak in a manner she does not approve;
(2) She is ridiculously thin-skinned for a politician; and
(3) She does not care a whit about fact-finding before portraying as fact politically advantageous hearsay.
— OCTruth / April 4
It seems the council would learn from mistakes and stop throwing good money after bad. From what I heard about this trial: Add up hours for court time alone at $495 per Jones Day attorney, three at each hearing … equals $18, 562.50 for courthouse time only, not any prep and travel time. Then they appealed, and lost again.
When will they stop wasting taxpayer money? When will the council boys wise up?
This article prompted a friend to ask:
Q. How many Jones Day lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. At least three, and it’s really expensive, but the lights still don’t go on.
— My Town / April 4
The argument that the citizens of Costa Mesa are “anti-democracy” because they want our elected officials to govern in accordance with the law is absurd.
Costa Mesans have spoken passionately at City Council meetings about, among other issues, moving the charter initiative to the November ballot. This request was not about thwarting a vote on the charter — in fact, quite the contrary. We made this request so that we would be voting on the charter initiative during an election when there would be a larger, more representative, turnout.
At this moment, it appears as though that will be the case. We feel that this charter initiative is worth fighting against for the good of Costa Mesa. Now it looks like we are closer to having a fair fight.
Incidentally, kudos to Mr. [Nick] Gerda for penning a well-written, comprehensive article.
— Jay Litvak / March 30
This is unreal!
Let us count how the people’s will has been bypassed in this process:
(1) The $158-million [hotel subsidy] is passed as a “discussion” item;
(2) The “Giveaway 3” [council members who voted for the subsidy] don’t show up to a special meeting to discuss the matter;
(3) The Giveaway 3 refuse to put this item on the ballot for a vote;
(4) The mayor is threatened with having his ability to place items on the agenda challenged;
(5) [Councilwoman Kris] Murray threatens removing the mayor pro tem title from [councilwoman] Lorri Galloway because she has the audacity to place an initiative that would give people the vote?
It is time for the people of this community to take back their city and stand against the bullying tactics of the Giveaway 3.
— NotSorryForMe / April 4
The dark side of privatizing. I’m not opposed to it, but it’s certainly not the panacea the Costa Mesa City Council makes it out to be. This is a perfect example of how private companies act eerily like unions. Anti-competitive practices are apparently not exclusive.
Say what you want about Democrats and their union masters, but it appears that Republicans have theirs as well.
— Don Draper / April 3
Who negotiated this contract? Giving any company a contract with no ending date and beyond the current terms of all the City Council members does not seem legal.
If I were a resident of Costa Mesa, I would be extremely concerned. Give them the six-year notice immediately. If the council thinks that getting $500 meals and gifts is status quo and not a conflict of interest, vote them out and find residents with integrity who will not accept such gifts.
— Cacityguy / April 3
Santa Ana says that the new city attorney [Sonia] Carvalho “is a frequent speaker on topics related to ethics (and) the Brown Act.”
This should be interesting.
— Junior / April 3