Well, dear readers, it’s been a week. So much so that I’ll admit I tuned into the Parks and Community Services (PACS) Commission on Thursday praying for a nice, calm, boring meeting of little import.

No dice!

But first: staff comments at the Arts Commission hit the local press

Before diving in, I am pleased to say that the Daily Pilot has picked up the trail of the Arts Commission trying to test the boundaries of its municipal code powers. I was very glad to see the City’s quizzical position on subcommittees — that any subcommittee of a commission would have to get city manager approval — get appropriately called out. I wrote disapprovingly on this subject not too long ago so I’m thrilled that this issue is getting highlighted in the mainstream press.

That said, one thing the Daily Pilot story misses is that the scope-of-authority issue didn’t begin in the Arts Commission, but the in PACS Commission earlier this year. Way back in February I pointed out the fact that, very similar to the Arts Commission, the PACS Commission has substantial powers under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code that it didn’t seem to be using. By April, PACS Commission Chair Kelly Brown and Vice Chair Shyanne Wright were using those powers to wrest back some control of the PACS Commission’s agenda. In what has to be the first commission-led agenda item in a long time, the PACS Commission has been using its ordinance powers to conduct a deep dive of how it participates in the budget process by evaluating parks-related capital improvement projects.

This week: PACS continues to talk budget involvement

That discussion continued this week. I have to single out the performance of Chair Brown; the discussion on the item was remarkably insightful and substantive. It easily could have gone sideways and become a vague and ultimately unproductive conversation, but Chair Brown kept things on track. I encourage you to tune into it yourself: it’s a great example why having these kinds of high-level public policy discussions in our resident groups can be positively cathartic.

After the PACS Commissioners bantered back and forth about balancing competing priorities, the discussion eventually turned to determining what the next step might be. Everyone agreed it would be good to consolidate the discussion into a framework document for review at the next meeting. But the discussion that ensued was a lovely little primer in why it is so dang hard for our commissioners to actually do things:

What if… the Commissioners sent around their proposals via email between now and the next meeting, so they could see each other’s proposals? SORRY NO CAN DO: that’s a violation of the Brown Act, which requires debates among all the members to only occur in an agendized, public meeting.

What if… each Commissioner made up their own framework individually, and then brought them together at the next meeting to present them? Yeesh – some of the Commissioners froze at this suggestion, realizing that their powerpoint/Canva skills might not yet be ready for prime time.

What if… Staff just did all this deliberation for them, and produced a framework based on notes from the discussion, as Parks and Community Services Director Brian Gruner repeatedly suggested? Hrm. That’s partly why we’re in this mess: dissatisfaction with the role defined for the PACS Commission by Staff is why they’re spending hours talking about its duties with respect to the budget.

Enter: the subcommittee

All of these difficulties found the PACS Commissioners circling back to the elephant in the room. “Possibly,” Commissioner Jason Komala eventually asked, “we could just do a subcommittee?” That suggestion caught fire quick with the other Commissioners, including the Chair and Vice Chair. Ultimately it passed on a 6-0 vote.

As well it should. Forming a subcommittee to produce a discrete project, such as a capital improvement project evaluation framework, is exactly why the Brown Act permits them. It is impossible for seven individuals to workshop that kind of document into existence from the dais. But, give a subset of those commissioners the ability to meet on their own time, collaborate over email, and do time-consuming research and editing? That has a much greater chance of getting something produced that the other Commissioners can review, revise and clarify.

Now, just because they’ve made a motion to consider a subcommittee next month doesn’t mean they’ll actually get it. It was clear from the discussion on Thursday that some on the Commission were a bit wary of allowing just three Commissioners to steer something as important as budgetary process. But at least the idea won’t die just because the staff won’t agendize it. If it gets shot down, it will be rejected by the Commission itself: as it should be.

But what about clearing any subcommittee with the city manager?

As for the “requirement” that the city manager must bless a commission forming a subcommittee before such commission could even make a motion for the staff to look into it?

That was SO last week.

To his credit, Director Gruner backed down on Thursday from the position he took at the Arts Commission. This time he allowed the PACS Commission to make a motion to place the potential formation of a subcommittee on the next meeting’s agenda — subject only to an ok from the city clerk, rather than the city manager. He even went out of his way to say what a good idea he thought it was. In fact, he handled the entire PACS Commission meeting very well on Thursday. So I tip my hat to him: he’s correcting course in a calm, dignified and gracious manner. Bravo.

I can already see a change coming over City Hall in the wake of former City Manager Lori Ann Farrell Harrison’s abrupt departure. There is no doubt the city lost a great deal when she was asked to step aside. But I hope we are also seeing some green shoots appearing in the midst of these tumultuous times.

Next up: budget headaches and heartaches.