I forgot what happens when a member of the public gets up to speak about a topic he or she is not in favor of when some or even most of the Council strongly supports the topic.
It happened to me a long time ago when I opposed giving Terranea a rebate on the Transportation Occupancy Tax that the then Council very much supported.
You see, when you make comments for up to three minutes using your opinion, every member of the council seems to have almost unlimited time to make comments about your comments and sometimes those comments from them feel more like attacks.
Council members are politicians, and don't let anyone even try to get you to think otherwise. When they have all that time in front the camera and on the record to make comments about your comments to them, sometimes it seems like campaigning to oppose your comments and support the topic you came to question or object to.
The truth about how anyone could have the ability to counter that is to run for a Council seat ant then they would be in a position to critique comments from others.
Councilman Brian Campbell offered a wonderful comment praising my and my work on this blog and I know he is now one of the "Gang of Three" that brought the Charter City matter to the forefront.
Councilman Anthony Misetich did not participate in commenting about my comments and he too, is one of the "Gang of Three" along with Mayor Pro Tem, Tom Long.
I did make a terrible and regrettable comment that could have been misunderstood about non-prevailing wage workers versus prevailing wage workers and I completely apologize for that.
I didn't follow my written comments well enough and I misspoke.
I don't mean to slight non-prevailing wage workers but there are differences in the way prevailing wage work is controlled and some of the oversight of the contracts that are mandated. But good workers are good workers, whether they receive the prevailing wage or not.
I am completely confident that our city staff is on top of every contract our tax money and any other money is spent on.
I am still 'mildly' opposed to having Rancho Palos Verdes becoming a Charter City but I know that 'mildly opposed' is about as opposed as I am going to get.
There are real benefits in becoming a Charter City and I know I need much more education about the good, bad, and ugly parts and I hope to learn which questions to ask to help me decide whether I remain as my current thinking is or become supportive.
I wonder if any Charter city in California has ever gone back to being a General Law city and if so, why and how was that done?
If a city's Charter can be changed by ordinance, then that means at least three out of five Council Members must approve the change because ordinances are normally voted up or down by the City Council and would R.P.V. fall into a type of city that has that?
If it does, could a future Council makeup vote to end term limits?
See, there are really many questions to ask and find answers for.
I must also repeat something I told the Council tonight. I strongly believe any person who even blinks to think that any R.P.V. Council member now or into the future would ever try and consider what the foul folks on the Bell Council did, that person missed their bus to the funny farm because they are crazy!
Dr. Michael Brophys used "honor, integrity, and truth in his remarks tonight. I must state that our City Council members to a person have all of those in abundance and I have to remind all of you that, perhaps, Dr. Brophy also made comments tonight that were not truthful, but they were a bit dishonorable, and it demonstrated again, that his integrity is questioned by a more than small number of our city's residents.
During Dr. Brophy's comments that were supposed to last no more than three minutes, but he took longer, he claimed that if his plan failed it was because of the city using "death by 10,000 cuts".
In truth and in fact, the vast majority of cuts were actually begun and continued by those in support of Marymount's Expansion plans.
Dr. Brophy stated that the issues that began causing the "death by 10,000 cuts" started when the college applied for its expansion, "ten years ago."
Dr. Brophy also stated that the Application for the Marymount Expansion that was eventually approved this year was "presented in 2005" according to his comments this evening.
Now I know I never graduated college. But if the "death by 10,000 cuts" began "ten years ago" on an expansion project that had it 2005 application approved in 2010, I think I remember that if you take 2005 from 2010, that would probably end up with something that is a single digit looking exactly like a "5".
Now also in truth and in fact, Marymount's expansion supporters attempted to put at least one hold on the process, Dr. Brophy had to have one meeting postponed on his expansion because he was in Cuba, and except for a one-month delay, just about every one of the "death by 10,000 cuts" actually originated because of something Marymount's supporters or administration did.
Some of the cuts must have been when Marymount caused the progress to stop when it decided to try and become a four-year college.
Dr. Brophy also stated that there are "no do overs". Well, if he is telling the truth with honor and integrity, why is he attempting to have a do over with his Marymount Plan when The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project has already been approved?
It seem like a do over to me when he and his Communications Director state in public that everything already approved in the Expansion Project is included in the Marymount Plan and the initiative.
Dr. Brophy didn't get what he wanted from the Planning Commission and so he aborted on-campus student housing and he opted for a do over, in my book.
Now the fact that our City Council could have approved on-campus student housing without any recommendation from the Planning Commission seems to escape Dr. Brophy's grasp and he never really talks about that.
Instead he wants a do over when he himself publicly stated that "there are no do overs".
Back to the Charter city matter.
I was pleased that several Council members have some trouble with having the vote as soon as March, 2011. I was very pleased that they don't have to decide on when to have the election until this December.
I feel that with the Marymount initiative looming over our heads, trying to ramp up the marketing and lobbying for the Charter city vote should not come before November 2 and it appears the majority of members think that same way.
Yes Tom, I do understand that the Charter committee will be set up to market, sell, do outreach and support the Council's vote to become a Charter city.
But since there is no community advisory group to weigh the pros and cons of the matter to offer open, honest, and transparent objective opinions about the matter, I still have to consider the committee a unpaid lobbying group.
We don't see anything like that on the Traffic Safety Commission, Planning Commission, Emergency Preparedness Committee or any other Commission or Committee in the city, or am I missing one that is basically a lobbying forum for the Council's opinion?
The biggest news of today came from Mr. Anthony Amalfitano. I spoke with him very early this morning and he is just waiting for the health inspector to give him the go ahead to open the Bakery.
I think the next time I am even mildly opposed to something the Council really supports, I'll write to them or a letter to the editor and avoid getting spoken to after I make my comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment