HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 - CC-4 - Additional Documents - 11/5/2019From: Geoff West <gtwest@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 4:28 PM
To: FARRELL HARRISON, LORI ANN; FOLEY, KATRINA; MANSOOR, ALLAN; STEPHENS,
JOHN; MARR, ANDREA; Arlis Reynolds; CHAVEZ, MANUEL, GENIS, SANDRA
Cc: GREEN, BRENDA
Subject: Change of Order Of Business on Council Agendas
Dear City Manager Farrell -Harrison, Mayor Foley, City Council Members and City Clerk Green,
I write to you today regarding an item on the Consent Calendar segment of the agenda for the City Council
meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 5, 2019. That item is Consent Calendar item Number 4, Proposed
changes to the December 2019 and January 2020 City Council meeting schedule and Modifications to order
of business for City Council meetings.
First, it is curiously ironic that a change of such magnitude is placed on the Consent Calendar - a segment of
each council meeting agenda reserved for items considered routine and that can be considered in a single vote
without discussion. If ANY item calls out for discussion it is THIS item!
I have no qualms about the first issue addressed - the schedule of meetings in December and January. If the
staff and council, in their collective wisdom, feel this change is appropriate in order to accomplish pressing city
business, despite the fact that a meeting on December 17th pushes up against most people's holiday plans, then
I'm OK with that.
However, the second issue - the change in the order of business - is an entirely different story. I have read the
entire staff report and the proposed resolution on this change and, without further explanation, I'm very
concerned that these changes result in de facto restriction of public participation.
I do appreciate the conversation I had earlier today with City Clerk Brenda Green in which she clarified some of
my concerns.
The change proposed retains the Public Comments segment in the same position as in the current order of
business. However, based on the way the staff report presents it, a person wishing to address non -agenda items
AND one or more Consent Calendar items would be restricted to 3 minutes for their total
presentation. Currently that person has 3 minutes for non -agenda items AND 3 minutes EACH for any Consent
Calendar item they - or the mayor, a member of the council, member of the public, City Manager or other staff
member - pulled for separate discussion. It is unclear whether an item on the Consent Calendar that a member
of the public discusses is actually "pulled" and would be voted upon at that time.
And, since the actual consideration and vote on Consent Calendar items falls later in the proposed agenda
change - following Council Member Reports, Comments and Suggestions; City Attorney's Report and City
Manager's Report - there is NO WAY for a member of the pubic to know which, if any, item might be pulled
for discussion at that time. And, based on the language of the staff report and resolution, it appeared that
members of the public would be prohibited from participation in the discussion of these items at that time - a
clear violation of Section 54954.3 of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Ms. Green cleared that up. She told me that if
an item is pulled by a council member, mayor, city manager for separate discussion, members of the public
would have a full 3 minutes to offer comments on that issue. I appreciate that clarification.
Over the past few years we've seen an increasing number of issues included in the Consent Calendar, more than
a few of which seemed to be mis-placed there due to their complexity and/or impact on the community. As a
result, several of these have been pulled by members of the public for separate discussion. And, recently, at
least one of those items took more than an hour - I think it may have been two hours - to flesh out. I certainly
understand the frustration members of the City Council may have had about that, but it would seem that the
issue was one that was mis-placed on the Consent Calendar in the first place. The public should not be
punished for that issue. Ms. Green also advised me that the placement of issues on the Consent Calendar is
currently under discussion. That's encouraging.
And, over the past couple years some individuals repetitively pulled items for discussion for, seemingly,
irrelevant reasons. I agree that it is unnecessary to have the Warrant pulled each meeting to remind you of our
legal costs. However, that is NOT a violation of rules. If that has played ANY role in these proposed changes
it seems to be punitive, draconian and ill-advised and certainly doesn't seem to serve the public well.
Quite honestly, this proposed change reeks of the attempts to quash public participation we saw by the previous
administration - something that created significant public outcry - just as this may also do.
I respectfully request that you NOT restrict/prohibit public participation on important issues by implementing
this change. Please DO NOT include Consent Calendar items under Public Comments. Please DO NOT
prohibit public comments during discussions of Consent Calendar items pulled by officials or staff. Please DO
NOT prohibit members of the public from pulling items for separate discussion. If "time" is an issue, it is
within your purview to reduce the amount of time each speaker has to, for example, 2 minutes. I don't
recommend that as an option.
Thanks for considering my opinion. No reply is necessary. I will watch the council meeting Tuesday to see
how this issue plays out.
Geoff West
714-349-8713