9. The Damage Can Be Undone, but ONLY If Proposed by Vanderbilt, and ONLY TODAY
It’s time to explain the asterisk in the title.
When I say that James Vanderbilt should “Reconsider” the measure passed on April 7 that could permanently cripple future Anaheim City Councils, I don’t mean that he should “Rethink” or “Review” or “Regret” that measure. I mean that he should offer the appropriate parliamentary motion listed in “Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 11th Ed.”, which can be made (1) only by someone who voted in the majority on a measure (2) passed at the immediately previous meeting that (3) he or she now thinks should not have been approved.
That motion is a “Motion to Reconsider.” If he knows exactly what he wants to replace it with, he could instead move to “Amend a Previous Motion” — that’s why there’s an asterisk there, because he could do either — but at this point the motion to Reconsider is probably more appropriate. A similar, but better, proposal could then come back in some subsequent meeting. The point is that he — and the rest of us — don’t have to be stuck with a bad decision made on April 7.
(In case you’re wondering: yes, the Anaheim City Council does use Roberts Rules of Order. This can be done.)
Roberts Rules introduces the concept of a Motion to Reconsider this way, on page 315 of the 11th Ed.:
Reconsider … enables a majority in an assembly, within a limited time and without notice, to bring back for further consideration a motion which has already been voted on. The purpose of reconsidering a vote is to permit correction of a hasty, ill-advised, or erroneous action, or to take into account added information or a changed situation that has developed since the taking of the vote.
A motion to Reconsider has the highest priority of any motion under Roberts Rules. It can be made at any time during the meeting when it is eligible for consideration — although the obvious time for it to be made today would be during the Council Communications period just following Public Comments. It has some special characteristics, the first three of which are not present in other motions:
First, it can only be made by someone who voted for the motion at the previous meeting. That means that only Kris Murray, Lucille Kring, or James Vanderbilt can bring the motion today. Tom Tait and Jordan Brandman cannot.
Second, it can only be made either at the same meeting where the initial vote was taken (too late for that!) or at the very next meeting. In other words: either Vanderbilt moves to reconsider placing the measure on the ballot TODAY or it cannot be reconsidered at all.
Third, it is only proper when no action has been taken on the basis of the vote that cannot be undone without violating any person’s vested interests. No interests have vested at this point; as this was passed more than a year before the election, the Council could still affirmatively cancel the election.
Fourth, it requires a second at the time that it is made, but it doesn’t need to be considered at that same moment (although in this case it probably should be.) If it’s not considered immediately, any member can bring it up. The body can’t even adjourn while a motion to reconsider has been called onto the floor.
Fifth, both its merits and the merits of the previously motion that it seeks to undo are debatable.
Sixth, it is not amendable, although (again) one can bring a motion to “amend something previously adopted” rather than a motion to reconsider — there’s just no need to do so here, when ample time remains to consider how the proposal might be amended.
Seventh, it can pass on a majority vote.
Eighth, as always, the Chair of the meeting (here, the Mayor) has the ability to rule on any challenge to the propriety of the motion. Any opinion offered by the Parliamentarian (here, the City Attorney) is merely advisory and the Chair need not accept it. The Chair’s ruling with respect to the motion can only be overruled by the body by a 2/3 vote — which would not be likely here.
(A few other characteristics listed in Roberts Rules would not apply here.)
The proper format for the motion is listed on Roberts Rules pages 330 to 332.
10. Come On — Is Doing This REALLY OK?
Yes, it is. It’s part of the rules used by Anaheim to govern procedure. Under most conditions, it isn’t until the following meeting that an action by the Council becomes truly finalized.
At the time Vanderbilt voted for this measure, he was championing the ideals of fairness and honesty. He didn’t yet realize — because it had not yet happened — that the Council Majority would refuse to pass his amendment to remove the similar biased language from Mayor Tait’s proposal to limit bonding authority in the next item, Item 34, leaving Vanderbilt feeling that he had no choice but to oppose it on “fairness and honesty” ground — which he did. (Many people have been hammering on Vanderbilt for this vote; I’ve explained to those who have done it in front of me that he was simply being consistent with his commitment not to support any proposed amendment that still contained a biased title — even one where both he and Tait had tried to remove it.)
Beyond all that, though, Vanderbilt’s primary responsibility it to be a steward for the City of Anaheim. And there’s one changed situation that has provided added information that should lead him to conclude that the action he participated in was hasty, ill-advised, or erroneous. And that is the sudden discovery that the Council Majority plans to come back to the City Council to seek $2 million from the General Fund because its projections for revenue from ARTIC — as predicted here and elsewhere — were so MASSIVELY FLAWED.
Two weeks ago, Councilmember Vanderbilt didn’t know that this was upcoming. Now — just in time to reconsider the motion — he does. He knows that the criticisms of the Council’s reckless spending, which will place such a great burden on future Councils, have been borne out. He has seen just the first shoe drop — of which will be many such shoes — and he should probably realize that this discovery wasn’t “sudden,” but was deliberately held back until after Kris Murray’s motion rendering practically impossible any future gate tax (or other taxes) had passed — with his support.
What he knows now is that he was used and, by omission, deceived. And what he should also know is that the people who had voted against taxes in the ’80s and the ’90s and the ’00s and in 2010 may never have imagined that a Republican majority in Anaheim’s City Council would someday spend the City into a stupor and make any attempt by the City Council to resolve it in effect impossible. Once in place — and Disney can spend as much money on this as it wants! — this provision will never, ever be removed.
Luckily, Vanderbilt — along with Tait and Brandman — can still rectify this error. But it has to happen tonight — and the motion to Reconsider it has to come from Vanderbilt. No one else with a conscience can do it. This, it’s not unreasonable to say, is why he’s there.
Vanderbilt is certainly smart enough and more than honest enough to do the right thing. Now he just needs to be courageous enough to admit that he got bamboozled — but that now he’s going to fix things — while he still can.
I was intrigued by Vanderbilt’s votes at the last council meeting, and your analysis makes sense. I wonder to what extent Mr Vanderbilt is adequately being briefed by the city staff. It is apparent that they carry on with whatever instruction they receive from the council majority, many times blindsiding the Mayor. I wonder what their fiduciary duties are. As Cynthia well describes in a related thread:
” It is time to face facts, the streetcar is a dead project, the Feds have said they are not interested, and we need to shift funds from that future boondoggle to the boondoggle already built. This is especially critical when it is the SAME staff who cooked the books to get ARTIC passed, using the SAME fictional numbers sold to the Feds (Not very convincingly) to claim High Speed Rail riders into the ridership numbers, as though the fictional passengers on a non-existent bullet train are here today, and able to eat in the restaurants leased to suckers who failed to perform due diligence in checking Natalie Meeks bullshit meter against reality. I feel sorry for them, but only just. Yes you should be able to trust numbers offered by the City, but you listen to Meeks for 2 minutes and you know not to. I would not buy a used car from her if I had to walk in a blizzard, why would anyone believe her numbers for the train station?”
“I wonder to what extent Mr Vanderbilt is adequately being briefed by the city staff.”
You don’t have to wonder.
To what extent are ANAHEIM RESIDENTS being adequately briefed by City Staff? Answer- HARDLY. Chair-warming City Manger Emery looks like a kid in detention at most meetings, only RARELY breaking his usual SILENCE to read meeting schedules or other bulletin-board info during “City Manger Comments”, the meeting segment SPECIFICALLY CREATED for transparency by his predecessor. One recent public Commenter went so far as apologizing for keeping Emery up.
The upcoming Budget Hearings are sure to follow his 2-year formula of pushing aside informational content for 5-minute information-free feelgood videos (Cost=??), and further OMITTING Dept. schedule from the Agenda, reducing the public’s prep opportunity. Public Info requests are routinely deflected, deferred, or ignored, and Emery, along with BFF City Attorney Houston, decided to re-hire disgraced Angels ‘negotiations’ bungler Charles Black, dismissing any thought of prior Public or Council input. (and WHICH landfill is the “public Input” from the former Angels “Workshops” resting in?)
“Adequate” would be a refreshing change, with fervent hope of a miracle from the City’s supposed ongoing search to fill Emery’s ‘interim’ post.
So, did anything happen last night? Did James get your letter?
A little touch from the previous meeting that Fitzgerald caught, and I’m not sure anyone else did (or did you mention it somewhere in your trilogy?) After James voted for the Disney Protection Act, Mayor Tait muttered, “Et tu, Brute?”
I’ve just been noticing Carolyn Cavecche’s mendacious posts on the OC Tax Blog, one of them attacking some allies of mine in HB, but you-all should enjoy this one on Kris Murray’s heroic Taxpayer Protection Act…. A little taste:
“The Anaheim Taxpayer Protection Act is being proposed by Anaheim Councilwoman Kris Murray, a strong advocate of lower taxes and of generating city revenue through a focus on economic development in the city. If the council votes to pass the amendment, it will go before Anaheim voters at the next regular election. General Law cities are already required to meet the higher threshold, but not Charter Cites such as Anaheim.
“At the Orange County Taxpayers Association, we closely monitored the last election in Anaheim, and we were troubled that some candidates proposed raising all sorts of new taxes such as utility taxes and even a tax on not only your ticket to Disneyland but all entertainment venues in Anaheim. Thankfully, none of these candidates were successful in getting elected, but once Anaheim increases the size of its council to seven members and moves to district elections in 2016, it is very possible that candidates favoring tax increases could join the council.
“Anaheim has a history of taking a positive approach for generating city revenues. Rather than raising taxes on the backs of all residents, the city focuses on maximizing revenue in its resort area. The resort area plays host to millions of annual visitors from around the world, who are taking part in conventions, attending an Angels or Ducks game or enjoying the Disneyland Resort. In fact, more than 50 percent of all city revenues are generated from the resort district, which makes up only five percent of the city’s land.”
http://www.octax.org/#!Anaheim-to-Vote-on-Protecting-Taxpayers/cjqs/4FF482FA-5D40-434D-9C56-2ACAB0664894
“Some candidates [in the last election] proposed raising … utility taxes … but were not successful in getting elected?” That would be Measure N and klepto Kring who thankfully failed as Mayor but is still up there backing Kris Murray and OC Tax. How twisted is that?
These people are so twisted they have to screw themselves into their clothes.
They argue that Measure N was not introducing, raising, or extending a tax. It was instead just part of a settlement agreement, they say. It didn’t pass, so we didn’t get to sue them over it. Oh well.
BUT pinche Cavecche is claiming that “some candidates last fall were talking about raising utility taxes” – what else could that refer to but Measure N, and Kring is on Cavecche’s side. But Cavecche implies that it was some “radical leftist” like Dr Moreno that wanted to “raise utility taxes” and so we need PATTOO – I don’t think you’re quite getting how twisted Cavecche’s lies are.
I think Cavecche is something of a simpleton – a sort of garden variety Klepto wannabe. My guess is that “utility tax” rolled out of her mouth. I doubt if she or her “organization” (a front for Pringle) even knew about N.
By the way is it just me or does Cavecche look an awful lot like Dose Wagner? Are they ever seen together?
I’m gonna be writing about her in my upcoming OC Tax piece… She used to be real friendly to me when she was an independent Orange Mayor on the OCTA Board, she’d call me up and tell me if I got something wrong and give me extra info… then she gradually stopped returning my calls… Cynthia said “Don’t take it personally, she’s working for Pringle now and he orders his friends not to talk to his critics.”
“Don.” A Don sized-dose.
I’ll update this post a bit later, or possibly post a new one, unless Cynthia wants to tell the story first.
“we were troubled that some candidates proposed raising all sorts of new taxes such as utility taxes and even a tax on not only your ticket to Disneyland but all entertainment venues in Anaheim”
Another outright lie. Murray is saying the same thing.
A gate tax could be structures that way, Zenger, but it could (and would) also be structured differently.
The notion that a $1 tax on Disneyland entry would also mean a $1 tax on movie theater entry is a flat-out lie. Like other sales taxes, a gate tax would almost surely be proportional. So it might be $0.99 on Disneyland entry and $.12 on theater tickets — or, if it applied only to tickets above a certain value, $.00 on theater tickets. It might sweep in the Angels and Ducks tickets, as well as the higher priced concerts at local venues, but wouldn’t add much to (most of) either of them. Frankly, a 1% sales tax is not going to faze someone buying a $60 concert ticket; if they can handle the $60 they can handle the 60 cents.
But nobody proposed any taxes at all (if you don’t count Kring and Brandman and Eastman – N, an embarrassment that even the Kleptoblog won’t go near), and certainly not “all sorts” of new taxes. This is obviously the next Big Lie.
Pretty soon the Kleptoblog will be rationalizing that it’s not a big stretch to go from being open to an idea and an outright endorsement of it, and that for all practical purposes it’s the same thing. That’s next.
Go look at the video posted by boy wonder at Anaheim blog. The candidates forum at “the influence” (creepiest kleptochurch where ament and Murray reportedly attend) ASKED about these types of taxes in a total set up and then sat on the video until needed, so they could claim “the taxes are coming! The taxes are coming!”
Dude, I don’t know who you are, but “kleptochurch” is the best thing I’ve read in a long time.
Its only Cynthia, I was posting remotely from my ipad and OJB didn’t recognize one of its own. Here is the post from Captain Cover-up.
http://www.anaheimblog.net/tag/gate-tax/
But yeah, Klepto-church would be about right.
“Influence Church
On July 25th Influence Church closed on its first of many properties. Only God could have engineered this miracle. It is only the beginning of all that God has in store for this kingdom movement for Jesus!”
They scored themselves a nice deal on a decommissioned post office (is it still a miraculous event if it turns out a “friend in high places” who is NOT a deity had a hand in deeply discounting a Federal surplus property? and am I going to Hell for not giving God the full glory due Him here?)
they also get one Helluva deal on a FREE Christmas program compliments of the Anaheim taxpayers, as it is THEIR PARKING LOT that serves as the “official” Christmas tree of Anaheim Hills. Note that in West Anaheim the tree and community event/lighting celebration is Twila Reid park, a public space with great visibility. In Central Anaheim it is Center Street Promenade, which is technically a “private ownership” space as it belonged to RDA but nobody questions the public access of the space or the event that engages the public, as Center is the gathering place for Colony folk. And in Anaheim Hills….it is the out-of-the-way no-visibility parking lot of a church that HAPPENS to be the home worship center of the head of Chamber and Council majority leader Murray. Not a park, like the big open space where they used to do the fireworks (oh wait! THAT has been taken over by the Chamber too!) Public funds paying for a quasi-religious symbolic gesture on PRIVATE CHURCH PROPERTY, approved by a Council where the member who attends the church votes to approve the funding. I am no fan of the ACLU but this deal is screaming for a church/state intervention.
So yes, there WAS discussion or suggestion of gate taxes, but it was THE INFLUENCE CHURCH or whoever put up the loaded question posed within their sacred walls during the candidate forum, which was a TOTAL SET UP so they could have the video at the ready.
Step one: Set up a phony dragon.
Step two: Offer to slay said dragon, and rescue the village.
Step three: Accept the gestures of gratitude offered by the villagers. No, no, really, no need to toss rose petals at the feet of the hero/heroine, simply make those checks out to SOAR, and send to….
oh yeah, Step Four: Split the haul with the dragon….
Aw, well, I though maybe there was a new kid on the block.
BTW, it’s not “Captain.” It’s Corporal Cover-up. Klepto noncom grade. Not officer material.
Uhhh. Okay. Soccer fields and Starbucks? The front lines. Stop it yer killin’ me.
I’ll have a double mocha latte frappe vente with cinamon and chocolate spinkles. And a crucifix.
But wait! There’s more! This guy could give Spitzer a run for his money in the ego department. Lots of accomplishment in the “sphere of influence” of THIS world. Don’t see a whole lot of talk about those he has influenced on behalf of the next one. With all the space this bio eats up, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of room for Jesus on the page. http://www.philhotsenpiller.com/bio/
If I had found this video randomly, I swear I would have pegged it for a mockumentary.
“Leveraging who you are for Christ.”
It almost sounds like a pitch to sell more municipal debt.