Last week the Encinitas city council repealed the controversial 3 vote rule.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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There are some areas of your comments that show your bias and lack of fear of letting the facts interfere with your story.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that Barth's complaint was NEVER determined to not have merit. It was determined that she was not an employee.
It was Barth thT kept Gaspar'sotion from becoming a black hole of agenda topics. Otherwise nothing would have changed.
Why are you allied with Stocks? You've already said you see the need for pension reform, and he's the one blocking it.
ReplyDeleteAnd what, specifically, is your problem with Barth?
Chris, apparently you never actually read the report the legal firm put out about Barth's claims. After they determined she had no ground because she was not an employee they then went on to look at her claims piece by piece. They looked at each specific instance of what she claimed was harassment against her and other and in their professional opinion they determined there was not one single event that she described that constituted harassment of anyone.
ReplyDeleteAnd W.C. I don't necessarily consider myself a Stocks ally, just a supporter of the council majority. I am/was a Dalager supporter before all else. And although I realize the problems with the pension system, I think we need a reform instead of an abolishment, I also am not willing to reject politicians because of one issue that we don't have in common. In Encinitas, to me, the majority is the lesser of all evils.
My problems with Barth are her antagonistic polarizing demeanor, her true disdain for anyone who has ever been an employee of the city, her endless need to twist and turn things into divisive campaign issues, her inability to stick to the issues that leads her to take false claims (such as the harassment case) in order to further her political career. She's also blatantly rude to people.
How about open government? The majority fights transparency and open government at every turn.
ReplyDeleteAnd fiscal mismanagement... the roads, the real estate transactions, etc.
What is there to like about the majority?
If you were a personal friend of Dalager, that doesn't seem like a reason to keep supporting the majority now that he's gone.