Our City Council does a lot of good things out of good values. We should all be grateful for a city that is so safe, so business friendly, so family centered. The city is run by staff which are courteous, responsive and professional, so much so, that they serve as a model for other communities. The councils have provided leadership which through the years has kept to the course with long term planning, using responsible fiscal policy. We choose to live here, because it is an excellent choice, and the local government is why. While no city is perfect, we need to remember how blessed we are to be here, and show gratitude for it. I share the above values, and applaud our local government and thank its employees. Because I share these values, I was among the first to apply for the open council seat.

And so it was with some regret to have to withdraw from the pool of candidates from which the council planned to pick a new council member. I thought my background of volunteerism which included four years on Castaic’s town council would make me a viable choice. I would not be seeking the position out of a need for significance, but out of civic responsibility – as something I “should” do, like jury duty. So far, so good.

Something kept nagging at me though, something that would not dislodge itself from my thinking even after I heard the explanations from the council as to why they would not hold a special election. Monetary ramifications might be a believable reason, but at least equally believable, after looking at the budget, is that such reasoning is used only as an excuse. As the council wanted to appoint someone anyway, why not appoint the candidate who came in next place in the election? That previous election was already paid for, and demonstrated in order of votes, the will of the people. Problem solved, right?

So, there might be another, hidden problem. Perhaps the rest of the council didn’t want that runner-up on the council again at all at all. What on earth could that candidate have done that was so bad? Having been involved in politics enough to guess, I would speculate that while some council members may have, as they said, wanted a candidate that would “serve all the people,” overall the council may have instead wanted a candidate who would go along to get along, and so is more interested in “serving all the council’s collective interests,” while the council tells themselves that what is best for the council is automatically best for the community. It’s a dangerous belief that one can subvert the system, if they believe doing so is for the good of the system, or its citizens. Ah, the slippery slope of politics, “party-appointed” candidates, and political machines. Yes, I know, welcome to Human Nature 101. But being human also means we can choose, and choose to change.

I hope the above guess is not true, but such is undeniably the case across the national political spectrum and so not beyond the pale of possibility here. But regardless, when something doesn’t seem quite right, it’s usually because something really isn’t quite right. Not knowing exactly what that is, and as one not wanting to support anything that is wrong, or has the appearance of such, I decided to step away. I hope justice will prevail, and that in retrospect the city council will be seen to have made a wise and ethical decision. Either way, we should all wish the appointed candidate success not only for his sake, but for the community’s.

Richard Hood lives in Valencia (Bridgeport).