The Ojai Post

Initiatives can’t get on the ballot without voter signatures. Monte Widders didn’t refuse to place the initiatives “on the ballot for the voters to decide.” He refused to allow signatures to be collected to qualify to place the initiatives on the ballot.

This isn’t a harmless gaff. Mr. Bradigan has been writing about this subject for two years, effectively casting himself as an authority on constitutional law. Ojaians look to him for guidance on an issue he himself has confused. At the very least, he has an obligation to get the facts right.

Regarding the appellate court’s decision, Mr. Bradigan writes:

“...Widders was finally released from the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” purgatory...

...others are quick to ascribe motives of naked self-interest to Widders’ decision to seek the opinion of a judge as to the constitutionality of a chain-store-banning initiative, and so gin up billable hours for his law firm, imagine the hue and cry had he exercised his twice-affirmed legal authority to just kick it out altogether.”

Mr. Bradigan’s repeated mantra that there were only two options available to Mr. Widders, sue Furchtenicht or toss his initiatives, is both false and irresponsible. Though completely fictitious, Mr. Bradigan nonetheless cleaves as stubbornly to this myth as those who cling to the debunked libel that Obama is a Muslim.

There were indeed alternative choices. And therein lies the point that has eluded Mr. Bradigan in his two year cloud: choices. Notwithstanding council’s superb job of glazing over Ojaian eyes with terms like “declaratory relief,” this issue was never about the law. It was about choices. It was about how government chooses to resolve disagreements with its citizens. Does council sue first and ask questions later? Or does it make a good faith effort at constructive resolution over a cup of coffee? In this particular case, Jeff Furchtenicht graciously offered to drop his initiatives if council merely placed the topics of chain stores and affordable housing on a council meeting agenda for discussion. Constructive, zero-cost solution, right? Council’s response? Lawsuit (then schedule the topics anyway). Astonishing.

Regarding Monte Widder’s ““damned if you do, damned if you don’t” purgatory,” Mr. Bradigan portrays Mr. Widders as some kind of tragic figure, faced with only two heavy choices: sue Furchtenicht or toss his initiatives. Mr. Bradigan intends that we pity poor Mr. Widders, who, despite his grave misgivings, had no choice but to sue a fellow citizen. Nonsense. Mr. Widders profited handsomely from unnecessary litigation he pitched to council, while dismissing more constructive options, such as Mr. Furchtenicht’s zero-cost solution.

Mr. Bradigan goes on to note with interest council incumbents Sue Horgan and Rae Hanstad’s sudden and inexplicable reversal of their dogged support for the lawsuit during the OVN candidates’ forum. The lawsuit’s champions were apparently caught flat-footed by audience ovation for Betsy Clapp’s condemnation of their choice to sue one of Ojai’s citizens. If reelected, Ms. Horgan’s knee jerk disavowal of the lawsuit will no doubt prove as hollow as her previous vow not to seek reelection in 2008.

Contrary to Brett Bradigan’s claims, Councilwomen Horgan and Hanstad did indeed have a choice in 2006. In 2008, Ojaians also have a choice -- change or more of the same.

Author's note: this rebuttal was submitted to OVN in response to Brett Bradigan's editorial, "Populi Vex", published on October 24, 2008. Though my rebuttal corrects both errors of fact and omission found in Mr. Bradigan's editorial, he nonetheless refused to publish it.