While away from WEHO for three weeks, cavorting in the Colorado mountains, Act 28, scene 25 of the continuing saga, “Big Times At WEHO Hall,” played to an SRO audience.

Joan English, a long-time city employee at a managerial level, had retired. But, it was not the retirement which raised some hackles, it was the circumstances regarding her future employment.

The details of her former salary, her benefits, pension and re-hiring at half-pay, a common practice in institutions and corporate halls where the prospect of training a new person is more daunting, slowly leaked out.

This information allowed a number of residents to rise up in indignation, or in support and express their views in often strong invective.

Ever since reports of the scandalous activities of administrators in the city of Bell surfaced a few years ago, citizens awakened to the possibility that there was chicanery in every city hall.

This is likely not so. People choose to work in government because of several factors: job security, good pension and other benefits and, often, collective bargaining agreements which aid in retaining the good stuff. Plus, it may be that some people truly feel that public service is a worthy endeavor.

The work is often dull, repetitive and government workers must deal with a clientele who are usually ignorant of how things work at city hall and usually want quick answers. However, a job at City Hall is a pretty good deal.

Yet, as we have recently learned from fiascos in Bell, Vernon, Cudahy and some other nearby cities, there are those who will enter public service because, as the infamous bank robber Willie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks, “that’s where the money is.”

Further, that view has been expressed by George Washington Plunkitt of Tammany Hall: “I seen my opportunity and I took it.”

Most of my early life was spent in and around Boston, a city with a long history of political nonsense and outright thievery amongst its civil servants. My antennae immediately extend at the mere hint of misrepresentation or “funny stuff” on the part of politicians and city administrators.

What I notice today is a tendency, no different from the rest of our society, to make sure that you “get yours” regardless of what you can give in return. A real sense of community has been lost in favor of individual reward and an increased feeling of entitlement. A cultural situation – not necessarily to my liking, but pervasive today.

West Hollywood enjoys a pretty even business climate based upon the fact that visitors continue to come here to play, eat, stay and shop in spite of tough economic times. Hotels, restaurants, clubs and ancillary services bring in lots of tax money and such cash elements as parking fees and vehicular code violations sweeten the pot.

We’ve had good management and our coffers are certainly not empty. Our may tells that we have at least enough reserves to cover two years of current budget. (Problem is the council seems to want to spend it all now.)

 This condition makes it easy to set salaries and other benefits at a higher level than the private sector might. That is usually done without much fanfare and, unless one is a keen follower of the workings of city hall, few will know anything about personnel contracts. In fact, such inquires are likely to be fended off as venturing into personal, thus private, realms.

But, as the “honey-pot” increases in size, it becomes much simpler to dip in for “just a little more”. Who’d notice since there’s so much in it? Little incursions can become habits, others notice and soon it can become a common activity.

Long tenure brings with it many reasons (excuses) for bending rules, for cozy relations with those doing business with the city (county, state or federal government). Associates further down the food chain look the other way – their turn may come one day.

Soon, it’s a culture of entitlement and noblesse oblige takes a dive. But, gold watches are still handed out to those who persevere and linger in their positions until retirement – which, in government work is often ten years before the usual age in the private sector.

It appears that work in the public sector is a lot tougher and requires a getaway sooner.

I am generally averse to “term limits”. The reason is that I still believe in principle, that principle being that people should exercise their principal franchise, that of their obligation to register to vote and to vote. Those who are able to do so and do not are in the crowd which has brought our country to its present sad and precarious state. And I damn them with an Irishman’s curse that they forever be thirsty and never find liquid sustenance..

Yet, there are times when long tenure interferes with the real intent of the citizens for a reasonable place to live with reasonable taxation, reasonable services and reasonable people administering.

Such long tenure as some of our Council-people have enjoyed could also be viewed, because of their constant supporting bloc as well, as a barrier to more current voices and ideas, keeping them from the Council. (Of course, the electorate must get off its tuchases and vote for the change.)

That is when the idea of limiting the time such folk can spend near the honey-pot and the seats of power becomes necessary.

Thus, in my long-winded fashion and without acrimony, I endorse the gathering storm to place an initiative on the November ballot which would require an effective limit on the number of years a person may serve on our City Council.