Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Agenda Tyranny

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams

When the city manager cancelled this week's regularly scheduled city council meeting, it created ripples throughout the community of involved citizens.  As the election approaches a growing number of voters are becoming attuned to what is going on at city hall.  They want to witness how this council majority and the mayor behave as public servants.

The reason given by Gus Vina, city manager, through his secretary/ personal assistant, was that there weren't agenda items.  What a coincidence that city council candidate Lisa Shaffer had just 3 weeks prior recommended that each agenda should contain a running list of requested agenda items that hadn't yet been scheduled. Of course her request was ignored. She'll need to get elected to incorporate this good suggestion.

This means the community must cull through the records to figure out what is being ignored.


Agenda Tyranny is the name given the great struggle citizens took on as the council majority re-wrote the council policies over time to require a 3 person vote to place something on the agenda. Over a series of meetings, public speakers rose to protest and question during oral communications and in January 2011 when this was placed on the agenda. What follows are some of the key arguments that shouldn't be lost amongst the 400 video clips or hundreds of hours of video archives on the city website.

First Jerome Stocks sneers at the notion of a minority request with a sarcastic motion. Bond is amused.


Teresa Barth not only clarifies the isssue of marginalizing the public, she adds an important time limit (that got cut), makes agenda requests on the spot, gives substantive answers to Jim Bond's grilling just before he cuts her off for responding too completly (?), correcting more Bond misrepresentation and more.


There are so many good public speakers, but this personal favorite is a man new to council meetings who called Jim Bond on his deliberate obfuscations. He spouts Brown Act and his all time favorite revisionist history anecdotes to wear down opposition. It just didn't work and he just keeps digging - as is his habit.



The council majority really seems to believe that if they are okay with a decision they don't have any obligation to listen to or acknowledge another perspective. Jim Bond only has 3 more meetings regardless of this election's outcome, so there's something this writer will celebrate.