Originally posted 04/18/07
There is a great scene in Mel Brooks’ “History of the World Part I” where Empress Nympho (played by Madeline Kahn) needs to pick out her eunuchs. Hiding among the very large men, supposedly made large because of their castrations, is a considerably smaller — and uneunuched — Josephus (Gregory Hines). As the Empress goes down the line of naked men she points at each man and in her high pitched voice declares, “No, No, No, Yes, No, No, Yes, No, YESSS!” Sort of the same reaction I had to reading my Ciudad de Long Beach Muestra de la boleta electoral; Elecion Municpal Especial.
As you probably heard the City Council rushed through some Charter Amendment workshops and public hearings and decided their proposed changes to the City Charter are so incredibly important that it is worth it to spend $750,000-1,000,000 on a special election—evidently the City is flush and we can afford to waste money on matters that could wait until a previously scheduled election is to occur. Despite their “commitment” to more police officers and new found desire to plant 20,000 trees, the three-quarters of a million dollars on some Charter amendments seems like useful spending.
So we have an election, nothing to do now but vote—and put forth our opinions on the various propositions. Props A through G are to amend the City Charter; Prop H is a tax proposal. Here they are:
Proposition A Role of Mayor and Council
This proposition would increase the Mayor’s power, in fact it gives the Mayor power. Currently the Council only needs a majority (5 votes) to override a Mayoral veto. Prop A will increase that number to 2/3 (two-thirds) of City Council (for those who may be math challenged that would be 6 votes) for a veto override. Further the Proposition would give the Mayor a line item veto of the City’s annual budget. So far, so good. If this proposition stopped here I would be in favor of it because the Mayor is the only one in the Council Chamber who is elected in a city wide election and this would increase the responsibility and more importantly the accountability of the office holder.
But they went too far and added to this Proposition language that weakens the override language for some vetoed items to only be two-thirds of members present, if only six are present that would mean four members could override the Mayor’s veto—less than a majority of total members. I could get around this and still support the Proposition, but they did not stop there and had to add one more bit of meddling, the removal of members of Charter-mandated commissions.
Currently the Council may remove a Commission member only in the case of incompetence, malfeasance and misfeasance, neglect of duty or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. That sounds fair doesn’t it? Not fair enough, because there is no political cause to remove a good Commissioner that Council does not agree with—unless Prop A is passed. Proposition A includes language that would allow the Mayor, with approval of two-thirds of the City Council, to remove a member of a Charter-mandated commission for any reason. This becomes more important when we get to Proposition B.
DENNIS VOTES NO ON PROPOSITION A
Proposition B Establishment and Definition of Commissions
I covered this in my Post “Whose Ethics” on February 16th. Prop B would create an “Independent” Salary Commission to set the Council salaries and an Ethics Commission to “advise” the City Council on ethics regulations. Also included is a Redistricting Commission to review and recommend new City Council Districts every ten years. This last one I do not have much of an issue with—to me it is inconsequential to the first two Commissions in this Proposition.
The establishment of Council appointed and confirmed Commissions to set Council salaries and advise on ethics removes the Council from accountability to voters and residents. If an ill-advised proposal from either commission is adopted, after negative public reaction the Mayor and council can remove and replace any commissioners they desire, under Prop A, to get the outcome they desire. Not very ethical but legal. Anyone who needs a commission panel to “advise” them on what is and is not ethical should not be in public office nor have any say in how public funds are collected or spent. Further, if members of council cannot make a solid argument to justify a salary increase (which I would not oppose—different Post) and feel it is the right decision they show an inability to make hard decisions and live with the consequences. The establishment of these commissions, as I have said, avoids accountability, dilutes responsibility and creates scapegoats to which they can point.
DENNIS VOTES NO ON PROPOSITION B
Proposition C Maximum Terms of Office
This proposition would increase voter mandated term limits from two terms to three for Mayor and City Council members and modify Harbor Commissioners terms to three four-year terms (unless fired without cause by the Mayor and Council with Prop A). I have a problem with term limits and am against them—I am one of those naïve people who think elections in and of themselves are term limits, if someone is doing a poor job vote him or her out of office. But I recognize they are “the will of the people” and as such would support increasing the limits.
Further, by increasing the term limits from two terms to three terms it would perhaps cool off the Long Beach Council to Sacramento Assembly/Senate seat exchange. We lose in this lust for statewide power as money and influence from all over the state flow into Long Beach for creation of legislation that is merely to curry favor for support in the elections for Assembly or Senate. Increasing the term limits may keep some of our City Council members focused on their local districts more and Sacramento less, hopefully reducing outside influence in our politics.
Caveat: Were there an Ethics Commission they might advise the Mayor and Council that when they drew up this Proposition it should not take effect for each District until a new individual takes office. Nothing says, “see we need an Ethics Commission, vote for Prop B” like putting a self-serving Proposition on the ballot.
DENNIS VOTES YES ON PROPOSITION C
Proposition D Election Requirements
This is seemingly a no brainer that should have been corrected some time ago, unfortunately it makes carpet bagging—like we saw in the School Board Elections—easier. Prop D brings Long Beach into compliance with California Supreme Court mandate regarding residency requirements for those seeking election to public office. Currently one must be a resident of the district in which they desire to be elected for at least thirty days before the beginning of candidacy filing period, Prop D allows carpetbaggers to wait longer before moving into a district (or give them time to move into the district if they previously moved into the wrong district thinking they were in the correct district—ask TALB and Mike Ellis how this works); if passed candidates must establish residency at least thirty days before the final filing date for candidates. Ridiculous, but that is the California Supreme Court for you. Further, Prop D prohibits candidates from running for Mayor and City Council at the same time—no hedging your bets or campaign finances here.
DENNIS IS AGAINST CARPETBAGGING BUT VOTES YES ON PROPOSITON D TO AVOID FUTURE LAWSUITS DUE TO THE INEPT DECISION BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT OF CANDIDATE RESIDENCY
Proposition E Parks in Perpetuity
I love the way this proposition was named, “Parks In Perpetuity” sounds like a cemetery. It boils down to this, a City park or recreation area cannot be sold or transferred without either a majority vote of those who chose to vote or replacement of lost park area by a two to one ratio. Sounds good, but don’t bitch to me about the lack of affordable housing because there is no where to put it. “Recreational area” designations could be a good battleground for developers versus open-spacers. A lot that has been vacant except for drug dealers and hookers on Atlantic or Long Beach Blvd could be zoned a “recreational area” and block a developer from putting in affordable apartments or condos—you scoff but watch it will happen.
DENNIS VOTES YES FOR PROPOSITION E IN PERPETUITY
Proposition F Revised Duties of City Prosecutor
This proposition removes the City Prosecutor from representing the City on disciplinary matters before the Civil Service Commission (yawwnnn), got it, okay find a labor lawyer. We needed an election for this?
DENNIS COULD CARE LESS BUT VOTES YES SO IT SEEMS LIKE $750,000 WAS WELL SPENT!
Proposition G Deletion of Obsolete Sections
I am uncomfortable with the ambiguity in the official description of the sections that will be deleted from the Charter and in reading through the material feel there is something missing from the official “impartial analysis” and language. It seems to me this Proposition will make it easier for City Council to impose new taxes on residents and businesses. The analysis speaks to eliminating mandated taxes, but also seems to eliminate a “general purpose reserve account”, I don’t like the idea of eliminating a reserve account. When it comes to voting, my motto is “when in doubt vote no.”
DENNIS VOTES NO ON PROPOSITION G DUE TO AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE
Proposition H Police and Fire Public Safety Oil Production Act
Another great title, this is a tax, funds raised by the tax are designated for police and fire departments. Proposition H assesses and additional $0.25 (twenty-five cents) per barrel tax on oil production in Long Beach raising an approximate $3.8 Million for Police and Fire. I am typically not big on new taxes but this one makes sense given the small amount of the tax to petroleum prices and the funds being designated to public safety and not for the General Fund. Too bad the first $1 million if passed cannot be put back into the General Fund to pay for this ridiculous election.
DENNIS VOTES YES ON PROPOSITION H
So there you have it, my Madeline Kahn/Empress Nympho scorecard reads “No, no, yes, yes, yes, yes, no, yes.”
What a waste of money.