Every once in a while, someone has to sit on Councilman Bob
Yousefian. On the positive side, that's better than occasionally
having to jab him awake, or trying to get him to understand issues he
should have grasped long ago.
Perhaps the earliest example I can recall came during his campaign
for election in 1999, a failed effort. Yousefian learned city
employee associations had offered their candidate endorsements,
choices that were by all appearances based upon the traditional
formula of employee groups. Incumbents get the first nod, and after
that the picks are typically newcomers perceived as likely winners.
Yousefian didn't meet either of those standards. Worse, he seemed
to think responses given during candidate interviews, candidate
familiarity with employee issues and the record of each candidate
with regard to those issues should be the primary factors in
endorsement decisions. Sheesh, talk about tilting at windmills!
Back in 1999, Yousefian expressed his displeasure by announcing he
would henceforth stop pursuing endorsements from any group. That
included homeowner associations, newspapers and business groups.
Right or wrong in his beliefs about the tainted endorsement
process (and I happen to think he was right), he threw a public fit.
I was reminded of what I sometimes have to tell my daughter: "No
matter what your brother did, it doesn't excuse your tantrum."
Now Yousefian has thrown another fit, telling News-Press reporter
Karen S. Kim he might start skipping council meetings if some of his
colleagues don't stop wasting his time with inane proposals
calculated to smooth the road to reelection next spring, discussions
that distract the council from more urgent and potentially
controversial issues. Once again, I concur with Yousefian's analysis
of the problem, and disagree with his solution.
It was only a matter of one or two seconds after Yousefian's rant
before all eyes turned to his colleague, Councilman Gus Gomez. Gomez
hopes to be reelected soon and, as I've mentioned before, he's
already staked out an uncompromising, hard-line platform. He insists
on lauding firefighters and police officers, saluting their heroism
and willingness to work virtually for free, no matter how many
advisors urgently tell him taking such a substantive and courageous
stand is political suicide.
He could be playing a part in battles for and against rent
control, or coming up with tangible proposals for building on
perilous city revenues, or even wasting what little time he has for
