The Peace and Justice commission is comprised of political appointees. Membership carries some prestige in some circles. Additionally membership conveys at least a little bit of political clout because the committee has liaison with staffers and council members. There has been, at times, controversy and contention over who gets appointed. All of these factors suggest that the appointment powers of the council and school board are relevant when running campaigns for election.

On top of that, there is the Berkeley branding thing. Peace and Justice fairly regularly garners Berkeley national and even international attention.

Aside from just preserving the image (myth?) of Berkeley as the ultimate progressive town in the US, that press attention also helps to convey more power and support back on the pols who make the appointments. A good example of this dynamic in action is the committee’s and council’s actions and statements in relation to the controversy about the Marine recruiting center. Council, especially the mayor, got a national platform over that issue.

None of this would necessarily be so horrible except for three things: a) as you say, it takes up council and staffer time and serves as a distraction from government dysfunction; b) the committee expresses opinions (such as in the matter of the Marines) with which large segments of the population disagree, tarnishing the reputation of the town from the perspectives of some of us; c) the political structure both keeps elected officials at arms length from the pronouncements of the committee and distributes political power in a way that favors incumbents – all while accomplishing very little that is actually productive for the city.

-t

Very sad.