Tilting At Windmills

If you missed the emergency meeting of the City Council at 11:30 Tuesday morning, you’re in the vast majority. The third floor conference room was virtually empty. Three residents, a handful of staff (hopefully on their lunch break with nothing better to do), the City Manager, the City Attorney, The City Clerk and four out of five Council members was about it.

What was so important?

Arguments for and against the two citizen supported initiatives on the November ballot had to be filed no later than 5:30 that evening. Mayor Schweitzer and Mayor Pro Tem Murdock called the meeting to seek Council approval on the arguments they had written opposing the “Brea Accountability Act” and the “Brea Open Governance Act” but oops… once again they had the cart before the horse.

The sharp eye of our City Clerk, Cheryl Balz, discovered that, before anything could be written, Council had to formerly delegate the task — which it had never done. City Attorney, Jim Markman, took blame for the oversight and Council set about fixing their blunder.

But first, Matters from the audience.

Up strode Mr. Glenn Vodhanel. Having somehow become the recipient of the rough drafts by Schweitzer and Murdock, he was justifiably livid… but calmly leveled over a dozen succinct questions at Council regarding the content of the drafts — none the least of which was to challenge the pointed attempt to use character assassination to attack the credibility of the measures. Obviously pointing the poison pen at Mr. Vodhanel, the drafts suggested him as the sole source of the challenge to the status quo and described his work as the “spiteful effort of a single individual.”

Really? Did they overlook the fact that several thousand registered Brea voters, almost as many as voted in the last election, felt these matters were worth consideration?

Really? They felt that this sort of childish retribution best represented Council’s position on these initiatives?

And, as Mr. Vodhanel returned to his seat, the only response was the Mayor’s angry retort, “Where did you get access to [private] counsel documents?” Mr. Vodhanel appropriately declined to answer.

The Mayor then made inquiry of the City Attorney on the matter and was reminded that he needed to conclude Matters from the Audience before asking questions. Oops again.

The only other person to speak, Keith Fullington, was quick to remind Council that what he had just witnessed more than justified considering the Open Governance Act.

Cleaning up their act.

To handle the necessary housekeeping, a motion was made by MPT Murdoch to delegate the writing of the arguments (and rebuttals if necessary). This was followed by a painfully long silence. With crossed fingers, I hoped the motion would fail due to lack of second.

Then Councilman Garcia muttered his second and the fireworks went off a day early.

Roy Moore, after getting clarification from Mr. Markman that delegating the task meant also giving up his right to review and approve the language, said that he was not at all comfortable with this approach. No other discussion followed and, as we’ve grown accustomed to seeing time and time again, Schweitzer, Murdock and Garcia lined up in favor of the motion and Roy Moore abstained. (Note: Councilman Simonoff was out of town on business and unable to attend. I can’t imagine he would have been any happier about this turn of events than was Councilman Moore.)

With most of the mess carefully swept under the rug, and with no further legal or compelling reason to even acknowledge that draft arguments had been written and circulated to Council the week prior (can you say Brown Act violation?), Mayor Schweitzer quickly adjourned the meeting and everyone scattered like rats leaving a sinking ship.

So, where do we go from here?

Within the next few days final arguments for and against the initiatives, as well as Mr. Markman’s “Impartial Analysis” of the measures will be posted on the city website. I’ve read these documents (I made specific request of the City Clerk to email them to me the moment they were part of the official public record) and you owe it to yourself to do the same.

Mr. Markman’s “impartial” analyses is loaded with the usual legalese and boilerplate language for which he is well known. He is quick to point out a couple of components as potentially not being legal, and clarifying why he felt they would be challenged should the measures pass in November. They’ll be challenged if for no other reason than the healthy legal fees that will be another windfall to his firm.

Here’s what I want you to do. Check the city website (if you have trouble, the City Clerk can be reached at (714) 990-7757), download and read all documents. C’mon, it will take the average reader less than twenty minutes to get through everything.

If it’s all clear to you and you find it easy to reach your own opinion on these matters, and I have no reason to think it wouldn’t be, vote.

Fewer than 25% of all registered Brea voters cast ballots in the last election. I know that you weren’t one of the slackers. Rock the vote in your neighborhood, will ya!

If you still have questions on these matters, talk to your friends and neighbors about it. Share what you know. Listen to what they have to say. I trust you’ll be able to reach a decision and I’m counting on you to vote on these initiatives in November.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” ~ Generally attributed to Edmund Burke

11 thoughts on “Tilting At Windmills

  1. It follows that we’re going through much of the same stuff here in Redondo Beach, as at the last city election, we had less than a stellar turnout similar to yours. Voter apathy runs rampant these days.

    Take solace in the fact that coming this November, you’ll have a high voter turnout, as the National issues are prominent. Everyone that’s registered should vote.

    • Mike… I so hope you’re right, we need every knowledgeable voter to remember that every vote counts and that the other they (fourth person plural) will ruin the country (state, county, city) if allowed to continue having free reign (I know, rein…).

  2. “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” If that doesn’t motivate you I don’t know what will! Less than 25%!? That hurts!

    • Suki… thanks. There is so much about Brea too that is great, that’s why I live here. But you’re right on about the underbelly… the problems generally are found there.

  3. I signed the “Brea Open Governance Act” and am onboard with it. I am concerned about the cost of administering to it, but it seems to insure that the requestor(s) will pay those costs. But I’m very much on the fence with the “Brea Accountability Act”. It just seems too vague and open to disputes over median incomes and puts in question whether future legislation is intended to encourage relocation of lower income Brea residents?

    So is anyone making less than the median a lower income resident? Peronally, if a potential employer stipulated some of the conditions in this law on me as a potential employee, I would just say forget it and move on to a better opportunity. I’m not looking for an argument or to upset anyone, but I will probably vote “NO” on the “Brea Accountability Act”.

    • Stephen… thanks for wading in. I, too, support the “Brea Open Governance Act,” and also the “Brea Accountability Act,” and don’t see any appreciable cost associated with compliance on either. While the City Attorney has, in his “impartial analysis,” pointed out concerns for several legal difficulties, it’s his job to pick nits and I’m not sure it isn’t time to start setting new precedents and guidelines.

      If you want to see a classic example of vague legislation, take a look at AB1X26 (and subsequent legislation designed to mid-course correct the ambiguities) which dissolved Redevelopment Agencies.

      It looks like Brea might save the “Tracks at Brea” project but the community building planned for the Birch Hills Golf Course and the much needed third parking structure downtown, if you’re counting on RDA money, are history.

      The city is desperately trying to save the parking structure project, earmarking “dump fund” monies to underwrite the parking component, and Sir Murdock the Pool Boy is trying to tap city reserves for his ill conceived and totally unwanted new public library as the anchoring floor of the structure.

      I encourage you, rather than tilting at windmills, to vote yes on both initiatives and let nature take it’s course, while spending your energy and influence giving the library idea the proper burial it deserves.

Comments are closed.