The issue appeared suddenly on the radar of Santa Claritans. Soon after, a City Council meeting was held to discuss, and possibly move the issue forward.
Dozens of people showed up to the meeting – it was standing room only. Overwhelmingly, the public spoke up in protest. We watched with anticipation as person after person after person, on all ends of the political spectrum, opposed the direction of the Council, hoping they would pause and think before voting – or even delay the vote pending further study.
Amidst cheers and jeers Mayor Weste called for silence, but her efforts were in vain.
Four of the City Councilmembers spent the balance of the time explaining why the opposition was misguided and mistaken.
Then, it happened – one by one, the Council continued on their path and ignored the near-unanimous voice of the community and voted 4:1, with Kellar as the lone ‘nay’ vote.
And just like that, the campaign contribution limit was raised from $360 to $1,000.
That was how things went down on July 13 2010.
Oh yeah, and then it happened again last night, only this time the opposition doubled, but the outcome was the same – 4:1, library takeover.
How many of these spectacles can our community stomach? Why even have “public participation?” Even if the public is mistaken about an issue, doesn’t that at least send a signal to the Council that the public is perhaps not adequately informed?
Loading ...
I try not to post serious replies but this is the definition of insanity. I understand voter ignorance and apathy in SCV (all too well) but our City Council has been fat and happy for so long they forget the fundamentals of politics. They’re shrewd when they need to be but the not-so-quietly building unrest in town will bite them in the ass sooner or later. Ironically, events like this make the pro-recall election crowd seem more and more viable.
Did Ferry even know that there were people there?
Here’s a link to a detailed story on LSSI which one of the library supporters tried to read, in key parts, to the City Council, not that they would have listened. The detailed information is quite surprising:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA456252.html
It certainly makes you wonder about the amount of brain function which the City Council members actually used on their own. Oh wait, they didn’t. It was an unlawful serial meeting under the Brown Act. Hernandez and Pulskamp did all of the thinking, and told the Council members how to vote.
Bill Reynolds, today we are brothers.
ND, wasn’t I telling you some time back that the election donation vote was the council’s virginity-losing moment? Some time ago, all it took was 20 kids with skateboards to make the council panic and change course. With that vote, they saw that they could face a virtually unanimous opposition, take a vote, and it was a done deal.
Mike, actually I think it was the public that lost its virginity…..we all got ******
This hasty decision by the Santa Clarita City Council, with no PUBLIC discussion among the Council members before the vote, has all of the hallmarks of unlawful “back room decision making”, violating the Brown Open Meeting Act.
The actual method of conducting the illegal decision making is called serial meetings or daisy chaining, using one or two people as messengers to all of the Council members, building a majority vote in the back room so that no meaningful public discussion between the Council members was necessary before the vote.
Having watched the meeting, it was clear to me that Asst. City Manager Darren Hernandez was that messenger.
That’s Bell-a Clarita.
The public’s remedy is to quickly make a written complaints to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Public Integrity Section, Attention: David Demirjian, Esq., stating that a serial meeting Brown Act violation has occurred and demanding that action be taken by his office against the majority of the Santa Clarita City Council and senior City staff.
Yeah but… Demirjian did nothing about the Mayor Dude campaign. I’m still holding my breath on that one.
@J, thank you for sharing all of your legal expertise. I am not being facetious either. I read what you say and understand YOUR interpretation of the facts and the law. I frequently do not agree with your conclusions however and never agree with your conspiracy theories. I am just glad I am not paying you by the hour!
I will not go into a lengthily debate here (I know, you guys are welcome). I will simply say that even without factoring in the specific Library fees currently collected by the County of Los Angeles (COLA), the monies earmarked just from regular taxes contributed by the residents of Santa Clarita are still sufficient to run our own library system and STILL have money left over. That should be an indicator that we really have been “donating” a tremendous amount of money in excess of what we have received back in services.
Under any scenario I envision, the residents win. In my opinion the choices are:
1) The County gives us that additional revenue per our negotiated separation agreement and we spend it locally.
2) The County can no longer collect it from us, as there is no direct benefit (nexus) once we withdraw from COLA Library system and we are not assessed or obligated to pay this tax.
3) The City puts a new library assessment proposition on the ballot for voter approval or rejection: We reject it, more money in our individual pockets. We approve it, more locally generated money to spend on local libraries.
Moreover, J, comparing Santa Clarita to Bell is ridiculous. Bell officials were lining their OWN pockets at the expense of the taxpayers by charging the highest tax rates in the County and overpaying themselves. Santa Clarita officials are looking to save taxpayers money and receive more bang for our buck. We are the 5th largest City in the County but Ken Pulskamp’ ranks 12th for pay rate. Our Council members make a pittance for their time, unlike Bell where Council members make $100, 000 + for serving on non-existent committees. So let’s get real here girlfriend!
Berta, the pocket lining in Santa Clarita is done with far more sophistication than you understand.
@J, as usual you vastly underestimate my acumen.
You are correct Sage! I would take it a bit further and say that the city is corrupt! The linkage between the city and business is clearly an opportunity for people to benefit below the legal radar.
There are other ways to benefit Ms. Harper; ways not available to you as a common citizen of our once great city. Acumen has nothing whatever to do with it.
@Cash, at least now I am Ms. Harper so we have made progress, thanks.
I however do not consider myself “common” or our City “once great”. I consider myself an “excellent citizen” of a “magnificent City”.
I also beg to differ but acumen has everything to do with it. NONE of you fool me…
What happened last night is another shining example of a City Council that is now convinced it is untouchable. And this treatment has been consistent on several recent issues: the Newhall Library redesign, Sanitation District hearings, campaign contribution limit increases, removal of Kellar from the Sanitation District board, and the 13th Street “at-grade crossing to nowhere.”
Like the Sanitation District issue, this library takeover was delayed until after the election and then shoved into a timeline that left no window for discussion or options. The public then must “trust” our decision-makers because if we don’t act now, we’ll lose out. Such an approach has created a decision-making body that votes on impulse without a complete set of facts; an abdication of responsibility that is not serving our city’s best interest… and one that has become a tool for staff, lobbyists, etc.
Our council also seems bent on replacing legitimate discussion of issues with weak leading questions designed to validate a vote that is decided on well before our public hearings ever take place. As a result, we get decisions and actions that are not thought through or tested… and no coherent plan moving forward. Just ignore the many good questions raised by the many qualified people and press on.
The evening’s final catastrophe was the removal of Diane Trautman from the planning commission. Diane and I do not always agree but she has been an excellent and dedicated commissioner – McLean’s failure to support her re-appointment was an abject failure of courage.
Godspeed to Diane AND kudos to Bob Kellar as well. Agree with them or not, these two leaders are committed to keeping the interest of our public on every hearing agenda. Funny how they’re also both increasingly marginalized by our council.
Dave Gauny:
I’m holding you personally responsible for this catastrophe! If you had beaten Comrade Ferry, the rest of the three members of the Politburo would be soiling their pants every time a member of the public looked at them wrong. Oh well. In three years time God willing we will decamp to a cooler clime and I will keep myself willfully ignorant of local politics.
Otherwise, I would pee on a spark plug right now to bring down the Politburo if I thought it would do any good!
@Tim, then perhaps you should not have bad-mouthed David Gauny so much during the campaign. The two people you may have swayed could have swung the balance in his favor.
Pingback: Privatization of Libraries