Jennifer Delson, of the L.A. Times, wrote today about the Santa Ana commissioner resignations in the wake of the removal of Thomas Gordon from the EPIC/Gang Commission. Here are a few excerpts from her article:
Two days after a Santa Ana commissioner was removed from his post, two other city commissioners who had been criticized for comments on an Internet blog are resigning. Art Pedroza and Luis Rodriguez, both members of the Housing and Redevelopment Commission, gave notice Wednesday. The other commissioner, Thomas Gordon, was removed by the City Council on Monday.
Councilman Sal Tinajero, who pushed for Gordon’s removal, said the resignations of Pedroza and Rodriguez were “not a smart move. They would be better to serve the community.”
Tinajero said he tells appointees to commissions: “I don’t mind you criticizing staff. We need to question why we are conducting business the way we are.”
But Pedroza said it appeared that there was no room for dissent in the city government and saw no reason to continue serving on the redevelopment commission.
Councilman David Benavides disagreed: “I think we are trying to make our government more open, and having commissioners is one way that we can get different voices in our government. Someone who steps down is giving up that opportunity.”
“They saw that they were just rubber stamps because our government’s censoring these people at every level,” Councilwoman Michele Martinez said.
You have to laugh at Benavides’ comments about the Santa Ana City Council trying to make our government more open. Who is he kidding? Martinez tried to do just that on Monday night when she presented an agenda item that would have compelled the City Council to televise all of their Council meetings and make them available online in a searchable archive. But Benavides and company refused to second the motion, allowing it to die.
The truth is that the Santa Ana City Council, with the exception of Martinez, wants to shut the residents out of City Hall. It is ridiculous for Benavides to try to spin otherwise.
As for Tinajero’s comments about serving the community, what does he know about that? We all know now that Sal is for Sal. He doesn’t give a damn about anyone else. But he is right about one thing. Removing Thomas from the EPIC/Gang Commission was not a smart move. I bet Tinajero wishes now that he could take it back. Sorry Sal! You’re finished in Santa Ana.
Ch.1 section 54950 of the Brown act states:
Public commissions,boards, councils and other legislative bodies of local government agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business.The people do not yield their sovereignty(power) to the bodies that serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created.
This past Monday the removal of a sitting commissioner was on the council agenda. this commissioner’s responsibility was to aid in the conduct of the people’s business as is stated in the Brown Act.
Speakers(The people, 13 of them) addressed the legislative body that serves them to explain why a servant of the people (commissioner Gordon)) was to be removed from his responsibility to do the people’s business. The council under the direction of the Mayor proceeded with the vote without an explanation of the removal. This violates section 54950 Ch.1 of the Brown Act. As it clearly states ” The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created.
Chapter 1-purpose and scope- of the Brown Act also states:
Where matters are not subject to a closed meeting exception, The Act has been interpreted to mean that all of the deleberative processes by legislative bodies(council), including discussion, debate and the acquisition of information, be open and available for public scrutiny.
This did not happen in the removal process of Mr. Gordon in spite of speakers ( the people ) demanding for an explanation.
How can a 6-1 vote occur with no public sharing of information? How could they know what they where voting about? Possibly serial meetings occurred. The public was demanding reasons for removal of a commissioner that had the responsibility to aid in the conduct of the people’s business.
The Brown Act does not say the commissioner is responsible to aid in the conduct of the council members’s business.
Was there a Brown Act violation? If so the remedy is reinstatement and misdemeanor penalties.
The truth of the matter is…that
unless Thomas had not been blogging
and making a difference…..they
probably could have simply asked
him to step down without cause.
That means anyone that could muster
four votes out of seven. Actually,
they were being rather forth coming
by discussing the issue and actually calling for the action.
It puts them in a tenuous legal
situation…in that…Thomas can
claim “the cause” was strictly
a personal attack to influence
a future election! If so, he
may make some cash on this deal
if he finds willing legal help.
That is why Luis and Art were
so stupid for stepping down on
their own accord. They needed
to force the Council into another
stupid move by removing them and
causing all kinds of havoc in
the community. Now, just Thomas
will be forced to carry the mail.
Mr Lomeli, you are gravely wrong!
However, if you believe that a law was violated, you should submit your complaint to the judiciary branch of the government.
#3,
What am I wrong on? I am presenting an observation and oppinion.
# 1, 2
There is substantial difference between a public official who is elected by the people thus serving in the privilege of the people and one appointed by a council member serving in the privilege of the council.
However, the concept off an impeachment is same.
In the case of elected official the majority of [people] will impeach by way of special election.
In the case of appointed official the majority of [council] will impeach by way of the motion.
The council is not required to consider any public comment which is applicable to any item on the agenda.
Therefore, no law can be violated by ignoring public comments.
#5,
Read the Brown Act. You are completely ignoring the Act by your comments.I hope you are not Fiala the self appoimted council advisor.
In this case, an explanation of and agenda item was requested and ignored. The public has the right to be informed.That is the point, not that the council is required to consider a public comment.
From the perspective of the Brown Act and applicable “sunshine laws” there is no difference between elected and appointed commission or committe members.
No elected or apointed body (i.e. council, commission, committee, sub-committee) may meet in a majority or in a fashion of serial communication which would form a majority, to discuss an item or form an opinion on an item. Unless done so with proper (72 hour) notice at a place of public business.
Even Thomas could not meet with a majority of EPIC to discuss an item. The member and the agency is liable to fines and nullification of any votes taken. The same hold true for the Council. If a DA or the FPPC determined that majority discussions took place on this matter the vote would be nullified.
The public agency has the duty to provide public comment. But of course is free to vote as they see fit. The strange thing here is nothing was in the staff report which would have made someone vote to remove Thomas. Typically this is done for attendance or lack of participation. But no evidence of any kind was presented. Doesn’t that seem a bit strange!
Solo Preguntas?
What is so bad about Gordon not being a member of EPIC?
He is not bared from attending any of this commissions meeting and giving testimony.
In fact, now that he is not barred by the Brown Act from talking about those meeting , his big mouth is un-taped.
I hope that Thomas does present a few chapters and quotes from his upcoming best seller book (insert title here) and not makes us wait until the book signing.
Come on, tell all.
Cook,
The point is not whether Thomas is now a EPIC commissioner or not.The point is the actions leading to his removal.
“The point is the actions leading to his removal.”
Mr. Lomeli do you understand legal term “removal of a board or commission member [without cause]?
Mr. Lawyer,
Do you understand Brown Act?
I thought that one had to call for discussion BEFORE calling for the vote, am I wrong? I also thought that if the vote was called prior to the call for discussion, then the vote was invalid, until the proper order was restored to the floor, and the proper procedures were in fact adhered to. Technically that would invalidate the vote, and they would be forced to go through the whole mess again.
Who is responsible for parliamentary procedures during the city council meetings?
Santa Ana’s leaders have a bit of that PRI, one party mentality, going on. It is too bad that a city with a Latino majority council has to act this way. These squabbles remind me of what happens in Bell Gardens, South Gate, Lynwood, or Cudahy.
Adriana,
That is the perception that is intended in anticipation for the coming and future elections.
It is unfortunate that those selected for removal fell into the trap.
Luis Rodriguez posted a beautiful assessment of the strategy. The post is “My Hat is Off To You Mr. Pulido!”
Hey #12,
I belive it is the Clerk of the council but the Chair is the Mayor or the Mayor Pro-Tem in his absence. Unfortunately, no one other than Pudrido knows The Roberts Rules of Order. We all know that Clownia nor Bustamonte know how to run a meeting.
Had I been on the Council I would at least raised a “Point of Order” and asked for a discussion before the vote.
And Adriana,
I belive the term you are looking for is “oligarchy”
Yes, Let us hope the similarites run their course and have most of the Council indicted along with the City Manager. That would be a neat Christmas gift.