San Diego may have missed its chance to participate in history.

Toni Atkins, Donna Frye and the City of San Diego mishandled the friend of the court appeal of the California Supreme Court’s ban on same-sex marriage licenses.

While they adhered to the letter and spirit of the law, Atkins and the city missed an opportunity to lead the appeal at a state level.

Many have said that, as a moderate city, San Diego’s support of the appeal would have set an example for other moderate or conservative cities. With zero urgency, however, the city docketed the item last Wednesday, before the holiday weekend, and just three weeks before the deadline to sign the friend of the court brief passes.

A friend of the court brief (amicus curiae) is a document filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case, but who believes that the court’s decision may affect its interest.

Dennis Herrera, San Francisco’s City Attorney, filed an opening brief on April 2, 2007, after the Supreme Court decided to rule on same-sex marriage in December 2006. The brief aims to overturn voter-approved Proposition 22, a state initiative that restricts marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

San Diego’s vote to support the brief failed 4-4, which means the city took no action to support GLBT same-sex unions. Siding with Kevin Faulconer, Tony Young, and Brian Maienschein, much to the GLBT community’s shock and concern, Donna Frye voted not to support signing the brief.

The GLBT community directed its outrage on Tuesday at Frye. But while the councilmember isn’t off the hook, she’s only partly responsible for the council’s inaction.

San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, Long Beach and West Hollywood are all on board. The question is: Why did Atkins and the City of San Diego wait until Sept. 4 to docket this issue, when San Francisco filed the opening brief April 2, 2007 and Long Beach filed as early as the end of April?

Atkins docketed the item in open session, and, from a legal perspective, in due time. The Gay & Lesbian Times alerted her to the issue in June, and she contacted the City Attorney’s office for help docketing the item. After she sent a second memo in July, Atkins worked with the City Attorney to present the case Tuesday.

But, the window of opportunity to docket this item opened months ago – Atkins was asleep at the wheel. As a lesbian-elected official, she is responsible for addressing items that concern this community. And, she is responsible for doing so in a timely matter. Now, the councilmember says she followed the letter and the spirit of the law.

But what about the spirit of leadership? Who took the helm? Certainly not Atkins. And certainly not Frye.

Frye said Wednesday she didn’t receive a heads up that the item would be docketed. She didn’t research the issue or read the brief until it appeared on the docket last week.

Atkins, as sponsor of the measure, should have, even informally, given Frye a heads up (keep in mind, Donna’s not off the hook). The Gay & Lesbian Times published an editorial on June 21 urging Atkins and the council to take initiative and sign the brief.

So, what took them so long?

We’re staring a Sept. 26 deadline in the eye, and now there is one more obstacle.

Frye’s “no” vote Tuesday stunned the GLBT community. Be clear: Frye’s vote was consistent with her campaign, true to form 100 percent. She campaigned on a platform of open government, due public process, and equality. And, according to Frye, she supports the brief – but did not support the way the item was handled Tuesday. Members who spoke in public comment were only given one minute, not the usual three. Frye said she would support the measure Sept. 18, when it’s scheduled to appear on the docket again.

Too little, too late, Donna.

The rigidity of Donna’s leadership style didn’t suit this case, for a number of reasons. Her principles were in conflict. She had to weigh whether to approve the brief, which she does in fact support, or vote no, and allow the public more time to weigh in on the issue.

She made the wrong choice. A strong leader manages those conflicts with an understanding of deadline. Now, the council will vote Sept. 18 to reconsider the item. What if one of the supporters (Republican Jim Madaffer, for example, who was taken to task for his “yes” vote) pulls out? It’s a stalemate, again. Or, if the council agrees to sign the brief, there’s always a possibility that Mayor Jerry Sanders will veto it. In that case, the council wouldn’t have the two weeks necessary to docket the item again and override the mayor’s veto before the Sept. 26 deadline. The mayor’s office, Wednesday, went on record saying the mayor does not have a position on this issue yet.

A good leader knows when to change course. San Diego’s support of the brief could have influenced the Supreme Court. This is one case where Donna’s idealistic model of government conflicts with her duties. Flexibility, in this case, needed to override rigidity.

It didn’t – at our expense.