End of the 3 vote rule

Last week the Encinitas city council repealed the controversial 3 vote rule. The rule that was put in place last year made it so that during a meeting a 3 vote majority would force an item to be placed on the agenda for the next following meeting. the 3 vote rule allowed for the practice that had been the rule before to continue, being that the mayor could direct the city clerk to put anything s/he chose to be put on the agenda. After the council revision, it only requires a 2 vote minority to place something on an agenda (essentially a motion, and a second). Of course any action on an agenda item (any real policy-setting or decision making) still requires a 3 person majority.

The rule was highly criticized as silencing and restricting of the council minority voice and was often dubbed  as 'agenda tyranny' by many people on the online community.

Now, this was one of the most divisive issue I think I've seen this year, and its all bogus. The old rule was that one person had all the power regarding the tiny issue that is putting things on an agenda for a meeting during an earlier meeting; that person was the mayor. That is true 'agenda tyranny,' when one and only one person can dictate the agenda. The rule that was put in place (the 3 vote rule) was a HUGE step away from that agenda tyranny. Everyone came out all up in arms against this led by the ever warping and twisting Teresa Barth. Barth, who was in search of a good divisive campaign issue to twist into something its not in order to try and run some good smear campaign tactics, especially considering the attorneys threw the $15 thousand dollar harassment case back at her because there was nothing there. I could make my usual comment right now about how she owes the public back that $15,000 (Phil Cotton's monthly salary), but that would be redundant. Ooops, looks like I kind of just made the comment. Some people even went to fraudulently say that the rule was a violation of the brown act and other laws on governance.

Here's the facts. Before the 3 vote rule, it was all at the mayor's discretion, and it didn't matter what the rest of the council thought. The 3 vote rule empowered the council to essentially override the mayor and enforce that with a majority, an item HAD to be placed on the agenda. The 3 vote rule was the exact opposite of what it got twisted to be portrayed.

All that being said, I think it's excellent that the city revised the policy to a simple two person minority; i just despise the way the minority bastardized this procedural rule. I think theres nothing wrong with a two person minority in order to get something on an agenda; after all, I realize that someday maybe the side I support won't hold its steady majority, but at that point it might be time to move out of the city anyway.

I'm sure that the comments that ensue will all be about how terrible I am, and how tyrannical and evil the council majority is.

Bluff Collapse on Neptune

As you may or may not be aware by now, the bluff behind a house on Neptune gave out today and collapsed. From the early reports I heard no one was injured, thank god. This raises an interesting question that (surprisingly) don't have an opinion on. Who is responsible for bluff maintenance: the city, or the property owners? I would assume the city just because that would ensure uniform maintenance procedures and see to it that it gets done instead of leaving it in the hands of someone who could be negligent. However, I'm not truly sure of this opinion and don't really know the arguments on either side.

For once I don't really have a firm opinion on the subject that I am blogging on, but I would love to hear yours! Please feel free to (respectfully) comment on your stance at who's job it is to maintain the bluffs?