This story clears up a lot of suspicions on what really goes on in and behind Council Chambers. The fact is that the Council members rarely remain in their seats during the entire meeting, and usually can be found with their attention turned to conversations they are having with others at or around their seats. Sometimes they are missing and whenever that absence is remarked upon by a constituent from the podium, Eric Garcetti is quick to reply that they do have their audio outside of the chambers to keep CMs apprised of the comments. Now we see the bigger picture on that situation.
"Automatic 'yes' votes allow time for back-room dealing at City Hall - Thanks to voting software, City Council members can hold meetings, give interviews, even grab a smoke while deciding the day's issues."
By David Zahniser and Maeve Reston, L.A. Times, March 8, 2010 5:37 p.m.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-backroom9-2010mar09,0,194476,full.story
You have to wonder why this charade is tolerated when you have this body so full of itself that they constructed their own "rules of decorum" for speakers in the Council meetings last year, with the penalty of banishment from speaking again at the podium for a specified number of days. This was a thinly veiled action that was mainly directed at Zuma Dogg who has continually pointed out their shortcomings and has been often indelicate in making these comments. However, the free speech issues are at issue and he's presented a case in federal court to challenge the practices.
Jan Perry, presiding over the Council meeting a couple of weeks ago. She's often needing cues from assistants with the procedures during the meetings, but had no trouble cutting Zuma Dogg's time short quickly one day because his voice was "too loud." Perry cut off his microphone, telling him, "You're done," as he did not comply with her complaint. Then she had him banned from 30 meetings- "meetings," not "days"- for a profanity uttered after he was cut off. I have heard others with louder presentations over the last few months that have not received any such "warning" and see that this enforcement of these "decorum" rules is all subjectively applied when they get irritated with a speaker, and usually but not always, it's Zuma Dogg. CM Perry that day was totally off in her count of "minutes remaining" for public comment, and on another day during a special meeting, she was calling for "general public comment" when there is no "public comment" allowed if it's a "special meeting"- and theh she reached the end of a short agenda, almost caught by surprise judging from her reaction to that news.
Well, on the behind-the-scenes level of Council chicanery, you now have an "auto pilot" permanently set on the electronic voting mechanism to produce a "Yes" vote for any phantom council member. Reading the story shows just how detached the CMs have become from their expected job of being attentive to what's going on AND to STAY there while this is all going on. I usually see Alarcon and Cardenas as the ones who appear above the rules by their comments and the way they handle discussions and questioning of department personnel. A lot of arrogance with not too much purpose other than trying to look like they know what they are doing. Really, they are aware that they are on t.v. and they play all this up for the cameras so the uninitiated can believe these guys are sharp, which they are not, at least not sharp enough to have good solutions.
The real potential for procedural disaster would be to be with too few CMs present to constitute a quorum, thus no action of legal effect could be conducted by the Council. If quorum is lost and a vote is taken, that result should be void- but with the very loose application of everything they should be doing, who is going to make that deterimination? There is not "traffic cop" in the council chambers to keep track of these things. We see in the story that "listening" would be a few steps above what's really happening, since audio is not present in many of the examples for any comprehension by a CM of what's transpiring before a vote. They are often not even aware that a vote is happening when they leave if the are conducting a backroom meeting.
One other item that is mentioned gives us an example of another imbalance of access to these CMs who are supposed to represent us. The meetings and conversations are often with "lobbyists" as noted in calendars of the CMs. Consider WHO is getting the most attention by CMs during or outside the meetings: A "lobbyist" who is paid by a client is the agent with the job of getting the client's desired outcome agreed to by a CM. Like the pharmacy reps that visit the doctors offices to get their brand of medicines prescribed. What about the private citizen, the regular man or woman who wants to have Council members hear and fairly evaluate their 2-minute comment - sometimes only 1-minute is allowed if there are very many seeking to speak?
Let's see now. A lobbyist in the office of a CM to make their pitch on something for their clients that is a one-on-one encounter of a conversational style vs. the public commenter at the podium who gets no feedback or direct exchange with any CMS, while the CMs go about the regular business? They may or may not be listening at all. Who's the one that you would expect gets their point or points across for the CMs to consider?
And to close on this topic for now, what about the NEW members of the Council, Paul Koretz and Paul Krekorian who had to learn about this system and DID NOT REVEAL it or challenge it? It seems that when you come into the Council you are with 'em or again' 'em, so the compliance with theses secrets seems to be more important to them both, than to bring it out for the public's knowledge and reaction to this practice. But they did NOT say anything of the sort and were not the ones responsible for exposing the practice. Good job for David Zahniser and Maeve Reston, L.A. Times reporters. Koretz and Krekorian get some demerits for lack of action that should have been taken on their parts.
It comes down to the CMs guilty of more failings that a CM should be handling properly. Other cities noted in the story do not allow a vote to count for their members who have left the floor. So in L.A. we only give lip service to things that the City Council considers not to be too important- like voting on motions. And that just doesn't sit well with me, at least. Next March we will be voting for all the even numbered districts' CMs. A lot of changes should be made and the more you examine with city council, the more reasons you see for change.
Posts
