October 20, 2006
MAYOR, 3 COUNCIL MEMBERS VIOLATED RULES
by Jack Lee
BREAKING NEWS: A review of the Chico City Council's Policy and Proceedures indicate the Mayor and three City Council members have acted in violation of the rules and possibly unethically as well.
According to a provision in the rules governing the council agenda, established around 1998, the council should have placed the Global Warming Initiative under "Reports and Communication" before it became an agenda item. Under the Reports and Communication section it would normally have been summarized and then council could decide if they wished to place it on the agenda and this would have required a majority vote. Since the four liberals on the council appear to have joined forces, this may have only been a formality, yet it would have been an important step that might have allowed for more preparation before the issue came before a regular council session.
The basis for this proceedural rule came about when some cities introduced highly controversial issues that a municipality may have had little or no authority over, such as "Impeaching the President" or banning "Capital Punishment" or some such hot button topic that came in the form of a resolution or non-binding initiative, just to make a political statement during an election time.
The policy in question here provided a sort of buffer to keep the city council from being abused by such issues, special interests or even by a few of their own members, for political gain during an election year. The fact this policy wasn't followed and was skipped over tends to ad credence to the speculation that this latest vote on "Global Warming" became an opportunity for political grandstanding. At least two members of the city council members stood to gain some advantage with their base of supporters by pushing this initiative through without the usual debate and research, which is often referred to as "due dilligence." This angered Council members Bertagna, Wahl and Herbert, who wanted more discussion, saying they didn't have enough information to make an informed vote and were concerned this initiative could potentially obligate the city to a number of costly ventures. The two council members who stood to gain by fast tracking this issue were Maureen Kirk and Mayor Scott Gruendl. Not surprisingly, they were aided by the other two liberals on the city council, Holcombe and Schwab, which caused a council divided once again between liberals and conservatives, although the council is supposed to be by definition a non-partisan elected body.
The timing and methodology by the four council members wreaks of manipulation and this brings discredit to the City and this Council. They used this election time opportunity to cozy up to a special interest group and voted in an initiative that has still not been fully explained and leaves some of the other council members wondering what costs may be in store for the city if this initiative is sustained and it's influence fully exploited.
Gruendl, Kirk, Holcombe and Schwab.... you have recklessly violated the rules and it appears you have done so for your own self serving agendas and not for the public good. The people of the City of Chico deserved better and now that this little charade has been exposed, I expect we'll get better.
Posted by Post Scripts at October 20, 2006 01:00 PM
Comments
Giggle.
Posted by: Libby at October 20, 2006 04:52 PM
I wasn't going to vote for them anyway.
This is why people don't trust politicians. Even our little city council people don't play straight and then they go to be higher up officials. We really need better candidates.
Posted by: Cassandra at October 20, 2006 08:44 PM
This is truly unfortunate. There are lots of rules governing public meetings, and they need to be taken seriously.
For example, I just finished doing everything I could to ensure that I upheld every rule of the Brown Act in doing a live videoconference to Wednesday's CUSD Board of Trustees meeting from Philadelphia area of Pennesylvania where I was on business. It was the first time a motion or vote had every been cast live via the internet for CUSD's board. My teleconference appeared live in the Council Chambers via a PC monitor placed where I usually sit. I was able to see and hear the entire meeting and interact as if I was there.
To legally pull that off I had to rent a public accessible meeting room in PA, post the agenda on it, and have the location in PA agendized as well. I also got a witness to view that in fact the agenda had been posted there. I also had to figure out a way to make my web video appear on Cable Channel 11 like any other member speaking in the chamber. It was all paid out of pocket, with no public money used.
I did extra "due diligence" in that case because I know that should any board member make a procedural or rules mistake, somebody will catch it and call us on it.
So, I wonder if in this case of the City Council if it was simple oversight or if it was arrogance.
I'm sure we'll know soon.
Posted by: Anthony Watts at October 20, 2006 09:53 PM
Anthony, I appreciate you comments. Thank you very much for all that you do for this community too! As a local citizen, your help has really made a difference. I hope you continue to stay involved for as long as you want....we sure need people like you.
Posted by: Jack at October 20, 2006 11:13 PM
To our readers (and there's about 5000 of you now):
I just wanted to make a few things clear in the wake of this controversial story on the city council. The story was something that just happened by accident. A conversation led to an idea, an idea led to a little research and the research turned up some facts. So there it is, nothing more than that. Nobody put me up to it or handed it to me. And lastly, I had nothing to gain by writing it, because I'm not personally aligned with anyone or any group involved in this election.
So, if any of those council members I mentioned want to publish their thoughts here, great. I would remind them and everyone else, this is a public forum and all views are welcome. Let's hear what you have to say!
Next, I hope by now you know that Tina and I try very hard to call em as we see em. What we write often comes from the heart. It's mostly a reflection of our personal values and our desire to put something helpful out here, even if it means holding our political friends accountable.
Speaking of being held accountable, I'll include ourselves in that as well. Tina and I have printed a lot of your criticisms too. This is how it works here and it's ok. So keep it coming, good or bad!
Well, about thats it. Thanks for being here and I hope you all have a safe weekend! I look forward to Tina's next article to be published Monday....and no, I have no idea what she's going to write, we'll all just have to come back and see, but I know it's going to be good!!!!
Posted by: Jack at October 20, 2006 11:46 PM
The truth is the liberals on the council know what to kiss and when. Without University influence there would be no liberal majority on the council. Vote to take our town back.
Posted by: Ron Acevedo at October 22, 2006 10:07 AM
"This is why people don't trust politicians. Even our little city council people don't play straight and then they go to be higher up officials. We really need better candidates."
Speaking of which, did you read that little expose in the ER about the "debate" between our Repug and Dem candidates for the House. My Lord. Is this the best we can do? On either side? Maybe the ER managed to make them both sound stupider than they are, but they both sounded pretty stupid.
Posted by: Libby at October 24, 2006 08:28 PM