.
.
.
It may be fair to call the Council majority’s treatment of the City’s “Recommended Map” for its districts a “horror show” — but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have its moments of comedy!
Mayor Tom Tait wants to have another chance to vote on the Recommended Plan for Districts that was passed on to the City Council by the panel of the retired judges on the Advisory Committee on Electoral Districts. In fact, he called for such a vote to be agendized at the latest meeting of City Council on December 15. While the Mayor was stripped of his right to agendize items between meetings by the City Council during a special meeting on September 30, 2013 — yes, the “finger puppet” meeting — asking for an item be be agendized during a City Council meeting has always been enough to get the City Manager to place such a meeting on the next agenda.
Until this past week, that is.
As Art Marroquin reported in yesterday’s OC Register, Tait’s request to put his item on the agenda was rejected by the City Staff because he has run afoul of the dreaded “Simon Says” rule. The City Manager cannot legally place a Council member’s item on the next agenda unless that member does the equivalent of first saying “Simon Says” — which in this case requires that a request for a new meeting come only during a segment of a Council meeting officially designated as “Council Communications.” As Paul Emery, the (giving him the benefit of the doubt) terrified City Manager, apparently believes, he must remain ever vigilant not to place an item on the agenda — which he has the discretion to do himself, of course — if it does not take place during the formal “Council Communications” segment. (What City Manager ever wants to hear the Council admonish: “I DIDN’T SAY ‘SIMON SAYS’!”)
Marroquin’s article — which someone gave the Onion-esque title of “Mayor upset over his item not being on the next agenda” despite that this deals with the arguably serious matter of the denial of full voting representation to the City’s Latinos — explains as follows the City Staff’s rejection of Tait’s request to agendize his item as follows:
If Tait had wanted the item placed on the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting, then the mayor would needed to reiterate the request during the council communications portion of the agenda, per a council policy established in 2012, said city spokesman Mike Lyster.
…
“Given the constraints presented by the council policy manual, this was the best way to allow for consideration of any and all maps,” Lyster said in a statement.
Tait called it a “tortured interpretation of the rule” and the first time this has happened in Anaheim. In the past, Tait said that other council members were able to add agenda items that were not mentioned during council communications.
…
“This is unprecedented, and I think it’s a violation of the law for them to exclude this,” Tait said Friday afternoon.
(And we at OJB would like to say, not for the first time: “Poor Mike Lyster.”)
How is it, you may ask, that an experienced Council member like Tait did not realize that he had to follow the “Simon Says” rule? That’s easily answered: no such rule existed until now. You can, seriously, go through the Council minutes and count all of the times that Council members have had their agenda items reserved based on requests that do not occur during the formal “Council Communications” period. They are plentiful.
Tait also might have been acting under the belief that the City Staff were operating under a “Mother May I?” rule, in which Tait’s request could have been denied at the time with instructions that he could take another action to achieve his objective. For example, his request might have been met at the time with the City Manager or City Attorney piping up and saying “I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor, but we are not in the ‘Simon Says’ portion of the meeting. Either you say it during Council Communications or it didn’t happen.” But, of course, they didn’t — and Tait had no reason to know that “Simon Says” rules were now newly in place.
(Emery and City Attorney Michael Houston are technically the ones at fault here, because as soon as Tait began to ask for the item to be agendized at the supposedly improper time one of them should have turned around and yelled out “Red Light!” and not given a “Green Light!” until the next Council Communications period. Technically, however, this would have immobilized Tait and the other Council members and thus disrupted the normal flow of business.)
Given the above, his violation of the “Mother May I?” principle would have normally led to the City Manager placing the item on the agenda on his own authority — the City Manager always has a “green light” — but either Mr. Emery himself really doesn’t want to see such a vote take place … or else someone is leaning on him very heavily to prevent it from happening. That person would likely be a City Council member with terror-inducing control over Emery’s continued employment. (It could conceivably be an organized crime figure, some supernatural villain, or a neighbor’s dog that only Emery can hear talking, but experts consider any of those much less likely.)
Happily for Tait, there is another way to get what he wants, under the new “children’s game” rules of the City government — but it would take coordination and finesse! He can just wait until one of the Council majority to make a motion during the public hearing and the immediately — before anyone else can call to close debate — recognize his ally Council member James Vanderbilt to make a motion to reinstate the Recommended Map with the election sequencing of 1, 3, 4, and 5. (To be really sharp, Tait could then move to divide the question on a proposed ordinance, voting on the map first and deferring a decision sequencing for later.)
He would have to be careful, because someone on Council — either a shrieking Jordan Brandman or a droning Kris Murray — might start objecting to the Voldemort-level atrocity they argue is taking place on the Council dais and cast a spell for an immediate vote on the underlying main motion. Tait could, however, repel this spell by using the “I’m ruling that out of order because it goes against the very purpose of parliamentary debate” charm.
At that point, either Brandman or Murray could cast the “overturn the decision of the Chair!” spell, but this spell requires a 2/3 vote of the Council, and so Tait and Vanderbilt can block it regardless of what the fifth Council Member, Lucille Kring, wanted to do.
(It’s worth noting that at this point that — given that she is running for office, that the map is going to propose harms the people in Northwest Anaheim who she said on Dec. 15 that she was trying to protect, and especially that all of this is on video and she is running for re-election and Disney has already shown that it’s not going to spend lots of money to help her anyway — Kring might then decide to work out some compromise with the Mayor rather than looking like she too is nuts without getting the benefit of it like her colleagues do. If she talks to Pringle or one of his agents directly, though, OJB suggests that she wear a wire and bear in mind that illegal contracts are not enforceable.)
So: either way, Tait can get his vote and — unless Kring has had enough of this malarky — at least give proponents of the People’s Map the satisfaction of saying that at least there was a real vote on it.
This is your Weekend Open Thread. Talk about that, or anything else you’d like, within reasonable bounds of discretion and decorum.
“The City Manager cannot legally place a Council member’s item on the next agenda unless ..”
This has nothing to do with “legality”; it is a council policy issue.
Read the Council Policy manual. It will keep you busy.
And why don’t you answer your emails?
okay, what
What didn’t you understand?
“.. this case requires that a request for a new meeting ..”
Do you mean a request for an agendized item at the next meeting?
Tenuous as the validity of the “simon says” rule may be, does it matter that there WAS NO (second pre-adjournment) ‘Council Communications’ at that meeting, with the first (post public comments) one (usually ignored except to respond to public comments striking too close to home) occurring before the item in question was EVEN BROUGHT UP, since the sustained outcry / disorder in the audience caused adjournment of the meeting ? (Sort of a public safety / ‘force majeure’ action ? ) Or is that part of the “simon says” argument ?
Can you obtain and post the refered to policy?
*Please…..under the Web Page Boredom Clause……we demand equal right to say NO to Posting City Policies here. This is supposed to be a Blog…..not a Clog! If someone however has the temerity to post the appropriate response link access……we would approve of that.
Just the pertinent policy clause dipships.
I could. But because I believe that you’re aligned with a potential counterparty, I’ll wait until I get a formal request from them in the process of litigation and take my time to compose a proper brief on the subject.
Clearly the City staff has forgotten this little gem that they enabled based on a throwaway line from Murray at her EFFING swearing in ceremony! A speech got Murray a fully fledged policy for changing the City Charter, but the Mayor is refused a specific request for second reading?
PATTOO, Part 1: Kris Murray Out-Kleptos Herself with the “Anaheim ‘Taxpayer Protection’ Act”
BY
CYNTHIA WARD
– MARCH 9, 2015
“Murray first proposed the initiative at her swearing-in ceremony following her successful bid for reelection.”
http://voiceofoc.org/2015/03/anaheim-council-tables-murrays-anti-tax-measure/
Here are the Minutes of December 9, 2014, the Swearing In ceremony for Vanderbilt, Murray, and Mayor Tait, as dutifully recorded by the hard-working and long-suffering City Clerk (poor woman is trapped between me and my CPRA requests and the Council majority, and that cannot be fun. Gladly she does not appear to be someone who drinks. )
http://records.anaheim.net/cityclerk/0/doc/1478336/Page1.aspx
or as a PDF
http://records.anaheim.net/CityClerk/PDF/uu4o1tgxu4qqa2lc0wwmbtii/2/20141209.pdf
“Council Member Murray further stated she would also propose a charter amendment to require a two – thirds vote of the Council to place any local tax measure on the ballot, which would ensure Anaheim had the same level of taxpayer protections in place as a general law city. She ended her remarks stating all of these goals she would strive to work towards, alongside the other members of the City Council.”
Agreed that her speech was “Council Communications” for purposes of the Minutes, but she did not ask for future agenda item or even specifics in her speech. Note that Murray was not requesting that staff take action. She was simply mentioning she WOULD PROPOSE the change to the City Charter. Based on what could have been a throw away line in a SPEECH, staff ran off and drafted an entire change to the City Charter, and brought that fully formed policy back to the City Council to be voted on. They skipped entirely any steps to put that on the agenda and see if Murray had a majority of the Council support before expending what had to be significant staff time for ONE COUNCIL MEMBER. Please remember, the electeds hold very, very limited authority of their own, they act as “The City” only as a majority. Murray may use her own staff for her own initiatives, but expending staff time of City Attorney, City Manager, and Economic Development department needs an order from the Council majority, or at least something ordered for a future agenda so that staff may return with enough info to present possibilities. This is standard for every government entity in California.
And yet… the independently elected Mayor asks for a SECOND READING of a Map already approved once in an open and public hearing, and is denied Agenda space by his own staff?
I am sorry, but I think Tait needs his own attorney on his own dime to start reviewing this stuff. No, not advocating for Greg, (he is capable but conflicted as m case is still pending against the City) which is where The Bear Burner will go immediately with this. Tait needs someone who knows and understands government process and the laws that govern the government, and he needs to get to the bottom of this, along with the Charter violations of stripping his staff, among other issues.
I think those involved in the CVRA lawsuit need to review this as well, as the whole enchilada (probably a bad metaphor, sorry) is clearly intended to continue disenfranchising Latino voters, using any tools at the disposal of the power structure, no matter how outrageous. The Council and their enabling staff CANNOT allow anyone not on their team to be elected, it is no longer even a matter of politics, I think it is a desperate effort to cover what is rapidly beginning to look like criminal fraud.
With all due respect to Mr. Diamond, I don’t think staff are fearful for their jobs, at this point I think they are fearful of an investigation of past deeds taking place, should the tilt of the Council move away from the stranglehold of the Crazy 3. I genuinely believe that criminal actions are taking place at Anaheim City Hall, I have no problem saying it out loud, and invite them to litigate that statement so they can explain to the Court what they mean. Go ahead, Kris, open that door. Because I sure as Hell am going to if I can. And I suspect I can.
IT IS ON.
I think that the upper staff may have the motivation that you mention towards the end. (Their patron Pringle certainly does.) As I recall, Emery had the city agree to some hellaciously favorable severance agreement as a condition of his taking the City Manager’s job. I presume that Houston has reason to expect that he would be well taken care of as well were he terminated. But lower staffers — maybe not the department heads, but below that — are probably terrified. The firing of Cristina Talley probably had its desired effect on the City Staff when it comes to the sending “get in our way and you will be steamrolled” message.
Tait would of course be vilified for “suing his own City” — but what is one to do when a loved one is kidnapped? One acts ethically and within the law to get it back. Yeah, he needs a great lawyer with nerves of steel. If the City’s lawyers keep on having to resort to technicalities in order to get by the likes of me as their opponent, I think that it’s a fair presumption that they can be beaten readily by a big firm with lots of resources. (Well, we already saw the ACLU did it once, and Talley’s settlement seems like it was pretty favorable….)
I don’t know that Tait has to sue. He does need a better understanding of his rights under the law and his City Attorney is unlikely to offer him that info. He could use the bully pulpit that is his to expose the misdeeds of his colleagues, or perhaps draft a complaint to the Feds, given the unlikely scenario of the DA taking action. He has lots of options, but they all begin with his understanding what his rights are, because he is getting screwed. We are so past mere political disagreement an policy issues. Way beyond that.
The Public Heaing is The Most Important item on the agenda… we must flood the public hearing portion with as many people as possible if they’re going to go forward with this “new do over” we must let him know at the beginning of the meeting they can take agenda item 26 and shove it!!
Talley settled? I didn’t know that.
Tait needs to get in there week after week armed with the law (him being a lawyer and all) and HAMMER those miscreants. “Mr. City Attorney can you please explain exactly what you are talking about? Because in Plaintiff v Defendant the exact opposite of what you are advising here was ordered by the court, and upheld all the way through published appeal.” And he needs to do it over and over again, never backing off. The City Manager clearly understood what the independently elected Mayor was asking for, it was a valid request for a SECOND READING of a map that had already been approved once, and I don’t care if the Mayor asked in the context of the PUBLIC HEARING instead of the Council Communications, how often do the others do that and get away with it? If items for future agendas can only be requested in Council Communications then how did Jordan just do it in the course of a Public Hearing? I hope Tait corners the SOB at the meeting, and demands to know why his request was not honored when the policy is not imposed on any other leaders, and is bent to the point of accepting Murray’s grandstanding speech as a demand for a policy. “Mr. City Manager, did you or did you not understand the intent of my request? And Mr. City Manager, why did you choose not to honor my request?” Don’t let him up off the ground until he admits he is working for the other 3 exclusively.
The City Manager understood the Mayor’s intent, to deliberately defy the individual that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of voters appointed to speak for us is a slap in the face to the taxpayers covering his disgusting salary.
You don’t do that unless you have plenty to hide, because clearly getting fired doesn’t scare him, that golden parachute is so huge he is better off getting fired. So if you aren’t afraid of being canned, what else is left? Fear of jail time?
And that is not even counting now TWO possible cases of potential criminal acts by mid-level City employees trying to cover for their bosses (a third is only a civil violation, so far, unless the civil violation was intended to cover criminal fraud by others) we have uncovered during recent litigation, (by accident, and with more to go before the Stadium case is over, if Cynthia Ward is bitch enough to pursue the hard line questioning she is entitled to.) That threat of very real consequences is likely to make the mid-level (and knowing they are expendable) staffers willing to roll over on the higher-ups who put them up to really stupid actions, thinking the City Attorney is taking care of them. You think that might be WHY they had the two “expendable” staffers do it instead of the higher ups more responsible for the deeds? Ya think? Those two (maybe 3) saps must be laying awake at night, even if they dodge the bullet of criminal charges their careers are over, nobody is going to hire them and they didn’t negotiate the kind of “kiss my ass” packages that Emery did. You think someone might roll over to get out of the doghouse? I’ll bet those two (3 if you count the civil violations guy) know a LOT about what is going on at City Hall…
How about a City Attorney and outside Counsel acting on his orders behaving in a manner that appears so abusive that a bar complaint may or may not be in the process of being written? You think they are going to sit and take the threat of not bringing home the $400 an hour bacon because of orders from higher ups?
Anyone ever watch the video of the City Council meeting when citizens of Bell realized they had been completely screwed? That was ONE TENTH of what Anaheim has been trying to shovel out the back door to their buddies. The cover-up of misdeeds in Bell was child’s play compared to the garbage Anaheim is pulling. We are seeing the beginning of the end, (for them) and like someone drowning they are now taking under everyone around them, even those who were trying to help them. They are nervous, they are scared to death, from at least 2 of the Council majority (the third merely stupidly follows the others) and the mid-level staff being used as human shields to protect their department heads from having to do the dirty work. NONE of them wants anyone on the Council with the authority and the inclination to ask questions. They HAVE TO control the Council even if it means screwing entire sections of the City to hold onto that control.
Keep demanding the truth, Mayor Tait. Good will win in the end. Kindness is not being wimpy, Kindness is not being a doormat. Kindness is ensuring that public funds and public assets are used for the public good, and NOT for the benefit of a select few who put leaders into office. Kindness is stopping the mugger from harming the little old lady, even if we break the mugger’s arm in the process. Stripping the City we love of the good things we should all be enjoying is the equivalent of calling my kid ugly or stupid. Yeah we are going to kick your ass in defense of what we love. I’m ready to be kind to my City, and defend her with everything I have. I am glad to see so many others of like mind coming together despite serious differences in political views. Funny, those out in the cheap seats know corruption when we see it, I don’t know how the Council majority and their enabling staff think they are getting away with it. They are way outnumbered.
Some of your comments should be their own story.
(NOT meant as a criticism!) 🙂
My friend, I hope that someday those comments (with a whole lot of other very ugly stuff on file) will create the backbone of some Federal indictments and at least 3 complaints with the CA Bar.
Yes Vern, someday we will put all of this together into one big wad of gooey sludge for the world to be repulsed by. We bypassed Bell a long time ago. Now they are just spinning it to stay out of jail. Do they think if they leave office without being busted it somehow excuses them? It seems like they think the worst thing that can happen to them is not getting re-elected, how can they not know what thin ice they are on? Or do they assume the taxpayers will defend them because their misdeeds were in the completion of their duties of office? Sorry, ripping people off to benefit your friends, lying and misrepresenting “facts” to cover for the ripoffs, intimidating in any way possible those who stand up to you, and getting downright huffy when the public fails to recognize your unique brand of “leadership” is NOT in the line of duty. Get your own damn defense lawyers people. Line them up now…
Oops! Could be wrong. Looking it up….
Well, this is unsettling! She DID tentatively settled for $650,000 — which is the last I remember of the case — but then the not-100%-complete settlement fell apart, so she UNsettled, and the Judge ruled that the City couldn’t make her REsettle, so it’s still headed for trial. But between her $750,000 demand and the City’s $650,000 offer, I think that the distance between them is small enough that it’s likely that they’ll settle down and settle again.
http://www.anaheimblog.net/2016/01/07/10329/
And so it begins: the Kleptocracy will now support Correa with abandon, as predicted. A lame story about a fake poll.
Here’s the howler, a little revisionist history from the Klepto’s scribe to make Baby Jordan feel better about himself:
“Brandman was Correa’s strongest opponent; with his exit, this race looks like Correa’s to lose.”
And this in spite of the fact that the “poll” cited showed Dunn with a higher favorability % and Brandman now where near Correa, either. Honestly, you couldn’t make up this sort of lame servility.
Zenger why do you go over there? You don’t know where those pixels have been. Use some Purell please.
Are you kidding? Where else can you go to find out where the next klepto-scam is coming from?
Point taken, they are very good at telegraphing their next move. I just can’t find a gas mask that holds off the stench long enough to wade through the sludge to read their next moves. David where did you get your mask? Can I get a coupon online for it?
It’s like being a coroner and performing a dissection, I suppose. Somewhat unappetizing, but someone’s got to do it occasionally.
The Cunningblog just deleted a comment made by the nutfruit James Robert Reade that was critical of Correa – accurately – as a pathetic, habitual public office seeker.
These are the sorts of things that need to be understood. Disneyland can use help in Congress, especially when transportation appropriations come up.
Even if the poll was off by a factor of 25% Correa still kicks Dunns ass.
Keep whistling in the dark, but the election isn’t being held this month.
Kind of like Superman whipping Batman … no contest.
Correa has super-powers? I’m impressed.
The power to cloud men’s minds, like the Shadow? I’VE SEEN HIM DO IT!
If Mr. Irons continues to be relatively well-behaved, we won’t mention his sheet metal shop. Welcome back, now have some manners!
Screw you.
Shivas Irons = Pinky. The Irvine Troll’s comrade.
No, Pinky is much worse and more hateful. Damn, some of you people are bad guessers.
Have you seen the HUGE marijuana dispensary billboards off of the 55 Frwy. in Santa Ana – and maybe elsewhere …. ?
No — do they list a phone number?
I haven’t noticed them, but Al Mijares was bitching about them at the Thursday Reefer Madness festival.
Btw, doesn’t this thread belong there? http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2016/01/our-damn-parents-put-on-a-marijuana-workshop/