Followup on Vaitla/Chapman Commission Proposal
December 06, 2024
By Elaine Roberts Musser
On the Davis commission issue that was proposed by Mayor Chapman and Councilmember Vaitla, in which a commission must first ask permission of the City Council to put a commission-initiated task on their agenda, the bad news is the proposal passed 5-0. The good news is Councilmembers Partida and Neville will review the results of this proposal over the next year and make any necessary tweaks to it. Both of them saw major flaws in this proposal, but saw that three votes were going to approve (Chapman, Vaitla, Arnold), notwithstanding the many problems in the proposal. Apparently Mayor Chapman said he is stepping back from the whole thing because of all the criticism he received. He is leaving it to the two women on the City Council to take the fallout from this approved proposal.
What is important to note is that the worst parts of the original proposal were removed, as were some elements of the ever-evolving/vague proposal. That was as a direct result of all the criticism, according to Vaitla & Chapman. (6 citizens spoke against the proposal at the City Council meeting, no one spoke in favor; several letters went to City Council in opposition.) A single council member cannot veto a commission agenda item, which was a clear violation of the Brown Act. Informational or educational items can still be put on a commission agenda without permission of City Council. Agenda items to be reviewed by the City Council will be put on the consent calendar at the next City Council meeting, to avoid lengthy delays. But make no mistake, the proposal micromanages commissions in a way that makes it difficult for them to represent their constituencies. Stay tuned for further developments!
"A single council member cannot veto a commission agenda item, which was a clear violation of the Brown Act."
If it is a violation of the Brown Act, are there plans to sue the City? If the city attorney doesn't suggest not violating the Brown Act, how else can the Brown Act be enforced without a lawsuit?
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | December 06, 2024 at 02:26 PM
Delay can often be almost as good as veto. The council rule commission can’t discuss anything council is discussing to legislate in — without permission move commission to irrelevance if council does not grant permission… ie veto.
Public input from commissions is blocked as default unless get permission to weight in as comission. And commission block meeting together- even communicating-as individual on council proposal by brown act. Thus works to reduce organized input by commissioners who are often most knowledgeable.
This reduces input dialog, and diversity view points in favor of efficiency.
Posted by: Alan Lorax | December 07, 2024 at 04:44 PM