Sunday column: Estrada stands up for what's right
Here's a sliver of my Sunday column, in praise of Esther Estrada's motives in pushing for a City Council subpoena of key players in the Operation Phoenix scandal:
The councilwoman's fight is remarkable on several fronts.
First and foremost, it's genuinely about protecting kids. Attach whatever agenda you want to anyone else, Estrada doesn't have a political axe to grind here. She wants nothing to do with the never-ending battle between Mayor Pat Morris and City Attorney Jim Penman, but feels a need to stand up for what's right.
It also challenges those who speak about transparency, but practice something quite different.
Comments
How many in city hall REALLY want transparency? You are on the right track, Mr. Lambert, but will the truth EVER really come out? Too many politicians have too many friends in government who are friends with too many other politicians. How can one ever expect transparency? Unless those involved parties are required to speak up under oath, the truth will die with bought out contracts. And what do you draw from this Estrada/McCammack thing? Is there really something to their need to subpoena people? Why isn't the PD getting to the bottom of all of this? Should this be a grand jury thing if so many people are "afraid" of the truth? Are Morris and Billdt afraid that there are pictures of them, too? Something to think about? After all is said and done, if the kids are not any more protected today than they were when Miller, Baude and Morris set up this whole program, than we are indeed in for a LONG bumpy ride. Fasten your seat belts.
Posted by: Still Wondering | August 22, 2008 10:26 PM
To digress just a little, if you wanted to give Jim Penman a gift, it would be “Operation Phoenix Foul-Ups,” (using the nice term). Then make a bonus of handling the screw-ups the way they have been. (Imagine a Penman Administration and something like this happening. “Mister Baude, the Mayor will see you now." Gulp.)
The continued opacity leads to what’s happening. What’s taking so long? Does someone have something to hide? (Here discount the loonier conspiracies.) One can imagine an “administrative review” being confined to narrow, confidential personnel matters. If the problem is statements resulting in potential civil liability issues, say so.
Thing is, the guidance with bad news is this. Get it out, get it over with. Move on. The dribs and drabs, the running scared, one would think California native Richard Nixon gave a historic lesson in “how not to.” The answer wasn’t more effective stalling, or better cover-ups. Yet I don’t get a sense of wrong-doing so much as over-caution.
The Sun had a good idea – have independent, knowledgeable outsiders take a fresh look at OP, from founding assumptions to execution. Should be done periodically anyway. Plus, it would give some political cover to making changes without appearing simply to give up on the whole idea.
On the other hand, the process could be forced. In which case you have a kind of public trial, which (back to Watergate) might be illustrative or a political circus show-trial.
Maybe it comes down to one word: Accountability. How this matter is handled is the public's business.
Posted by: Huey McDuck | August 24, 2008 3:01 PM
When they start Hideing I SMELL Corruption
Posted by: Bill Tuck Jr | August 26, 2008 4:27 PM
Only those with something to hide or cover up appear to be ducking the opportunity to speak honestly and truthfully to the Council and the public. As many have said before, there is more to come surrounding OP and until it comes out or clean, then the shadow of doubt will fall over ALL those associated, from the Mayor, his son to the Department Heads and below. I can only hope the voters of this City remember this black eye the City has received and how it won’t heal and why.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2008 6:28 PM