Missing the real story on the Postmus/Biane war of words
Our metro editor, George Watson, and I were remarking today how certain significant news items seem to fly by, practically unnoticed, while things we think are less important get a bigger reaction.
Case in point - a story George wrote in yesterday's Sun regarding a war of words between Paul Biane and Bill Postmus. Here's the lead:
Hours after county Assessor Bill Postmus accused Board of Supervisors Chairman Paul Biane of staging a political coup d'etat, Biane responded Tuesday by saying he knew of one occasion when the assessor had gone to a rehabilitation center for substance abuse.
The story has gotten plenty of reaction in the blogosphere. What's interesting is what people are focusing on (Postmus' saucy accusation) and what they're not (Biane's rather startling admission).
Let's put this in context. Rumors of Postmus' drug use and rehab stays have been floating around the county for a couple of years, intensifying when the then Board of Supes' chairman went MIA during wildfires in his district. His colleagues on the board clammed up, the county fought tooth and nail to block our efforts to get access to Postmus' schedule (which may have proved that he was in rehab), and as recently as last week, Biane expressed shock at news reports that Postmus may have been using meth. Here's Biane's direct quote from last Friday:
"I am extremely concerned about the allegation of illegal drug use by Assessor Bill Postmus. I call on the assessor to publicly and personally refute this allegation if it is untrue. Otherwise, the assessor should resign his post immediately."
Four days later, Biane was telling us: "I think it's fair to say that I know he has been to rehab once. In 2006, I was aware that he was leaving for rehab."
To be fair, going to rehab and illegal drug use aren't necessarily one and the same. But Postmus was chairman of the board in 2006 and he was in rehab. Is that not something the public ought to know about? More to the point, how reckless was it for the board and top county administrators to deliberately block efforts to make this information public?
Let's take it a step further. When Postmus decided to leave the board to run for county assessor, he did so with the backing of people like Biane who were clearly aware of his problem. And what about Postmus himself - a man whose life, it appears, was being ripped apart at the seams? Did his "friends" - Biane counts himself among them - simply stand back and allow it to happen?
Whose interests were really being protected here?
Comments
I wonder why the voters in San Bernardino County regularly elect the Assessor who will lie and say I will keep property taxes lower. Taxes are set by state law. The Assessor cannot give lower taxes to anyone, unless he is cheating and breaking the law. It would be more sensible to look at experience and knowlege of the law. Promising low taxes is the mark of a lying politician.
Posted by: Angela | August 14, 2008 11:33 AM
One of the points I keep trying to make is that inaction by the BOS in the past has created a situation where they have very little control over the situation now. They can basically pray that Ramos finds enough evidence to arrest Bill or that Bill resigns. Otherwise, there simply is not a lot the BOS can do about this situation. Few seem to understand that an elected official cannot be removed from office based on unnamed sources and hearsay.
That being said, I think we all know why they did nothing two years ago. First, remember they are proponents of "transparency" and cleaning up San Bernardino County after Eaves and Co. sullied our reputation. Had they been serious about it, of course, this information would have come to light and perhaps it could have been dealt with. But, I think it is safe to say "transparency" is simply a catch phrase for there are those that want to appear to be doing the right thing all the while with a lot to hide. They didn't want to see this issue come to light because of the scrutiny they may face themselves due to their own similar problems.
I find Dick Larsen's call for drug testing to be interesting in that it will challenge those who talk self-righteously but have the most to fear to take a test or defend their reasons for not doing it. I believe all SBCo. elected officials should voluntarily take a drug test in the next 72 hours to show they are sincere about this issue.
Posted by: Sharon Gilbert | August 14, 2008 2:19 PM
Mr. Lambert asks "Whose interests were really being protected here?" In order to answer that question you have to go back to the period about which this question is addressed. You will find that current assessor Williamson was attacking the Board with a suggestion that Proposition 13 did not require each county to increase assessments automatically 2% each year and in fact suggested our Board consider no increase in taxes for 2007 because of the outstanding growth we had enjoyed in 2005 and 2006. (Dates may be out of sink). That did not sit well with the current Board members and Bill Postmus had announced he would be running against Williamson for that office. The answer to Mr. Lambert's question is that the whole Board wanted a change in the assessor's office and any news of Mr. Postmus' problem would certainly end in Mr. Williamson continuing as assessor. I had at that time asked some local Republican political office holders why they were so fixed on Postmus and they quoted his power on the Board, his power in the Republican Committee and his cooperation about the "automatic" increase of assessments.
In addition I spoke with the Jarvis group who also supported replacing Williamson and said Williamson's claim was flawed and that proposition 13 only suggests the Board can vote to waive increases on a year to year basis. I never understood their opinion. I also failed to understand their position on Proposition 90 the next year.
Now they have reversed their stand and appear to support the proposition to limit governments access to eminent domain. I am a professed conservative and think today that Williamson's offer to support a waiver for the automatic increase to be in my best interest. I wonder if that was in Williamson's best interest. It certainly flies in the face the party to which he owed his allegiance.
Posted by: Carl E. Atkinson Jr. | August 21, 2008 2:44 PM