Response to ‘Appointed’ letter
Mr. John Michael Carey’s Letter in last week’s Sun (“Appointed versus elected city clerk issue,” Thursday, Oct. 23, Sun Newspapers) questioned some of the assertions that I had put forth in a prior column urging a “No” vote on Measure EE. In response, I sought clarification from our current City Clerk, Linda Devine.
Mr. Carey’s letter takes exception to my statement that the City Clerk attends closed session meetings of the City Council. My statement was based on the fact that the roll call for the closed session meetings, as recorded in the minutes, always includes the City Clerk. However, Ms Devine clarified that she only attends the beginning of the meeting when the roll call is taken and when members of the public can speak. Therefore, Mr. Carey is correct that she is not present to during the ensuing closed door discussion between the Council, City Attorney, and/or City Manager.
But this raises the question, “Why not?” Ms. Devine explained that this is just not done in Seal Beach. However, there is no law that prohibits a City Clerk from attending closed session meetings, and some City Clerks do in other cities.
Maybe instead of voting on whether to appoint the next City Clerk, we should be voting to give the City Clerk access to closed session meetings. Otherwise, how can we be sure that discussions and decisions stay within the narrow confines of what is allowed behind closed doors? This is currently the job of the City Attorney, but he is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Council.
The second issue Mr. Carey raises is the role of the City Attorney vs. the City Clerk in determining whether a document can be released to the public. He is correct that our City Attorney makes a legal determination as to whether documents can be withheld. However, our City Clerk generally reviews all of the documents and can question the City Attorney’s determination if she thinks he is being overly restrictive. Ms. Devine informed me that this is not uncommon, and that her advocacy for her constituents has resulted in getting documents or portions of documents released that would not have been released otherwise.
As a community activist, I often receive letters from the City denying my access to public records. My reassurance that this denial is appropriate is the signature of a City Clerk who understands her responsibility to the electorate.
Cathy Goldberg
Seal Beach
Revenue loss under Measure DD
In a recent Letter to the Editor, the City Manager for Seal Beach took “a moment to provide some essential facts” about the proposed cut in the utility users tax (Measure DD). Curiously, the Letter failed to mention that DD will result in an annual loss of revenue as high as $300,000. How could this not be considered an “essential fact”? This Letter was published a week or so after the City mailed out a glossy flyer which described Measure DD in very positive terms, but again made no mention of any revenue loss.
Was this “essential fact” intentionally omitted to prevent voters from questioning how the resulting loss of revenue would “protect a critical source of funding for essential City services”? This certainly appears to be the case, and if so, the City is engaging in campaigning that is inconsistent with the intent of California law. This law allows public agencies to spend money to educate voters on upcoming ballot measures. However, it does not permit the use of public money or resources to attempt to advocate, influence, or encourage “yes” or “no” votes. One of the key factors that helps distinguish between proper and improper campaigning by a public agency is whether the information presented is “relevant to both sides of an issue, including potentially positive and negative impacts.” The City’s “informational” campaign is clearly not presenting the potential negative impacts of cutting the utility tax.
I asked a representative from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to review the flyer that was sent several weeks ago. She agreed to read through it, but her review was limited to looking for so called “magic words,” such as “Vote for” or “Elect”, which the FPPC uses as evidence of advocacy. The flyer passed this simplistic test, and therefore, was out of the purview of FPPC. The representative said it is common for cities to hire campaign consultants who know how far they can push the envelope without getting into trouble.
Be that as it may, the question remains as to why our City Manager feels compelled to spend taxpayer dollars to convince taxpayers to vote for a tax cut? And the cost of this campaign is not small change. The City Manager contracted with a PR firm in April to run the City’s campaign for $27,750. This includes design of flyers, but not printing and postage. Friends with campaign experience tell me that the City’s flyers likely cost about 70 cents each to print and mail. With 13,000 residential addresses in the city, each round of flyers may be costing us about $9,000. The City sent out the second round of flyers last week. Add it up, and we have about $45,000 spent so far and it’s not Election Day yet.
Enough is enough. I am voting “No” on DD…”No” to misinformation, “No” to undermining the budgetary process (see my Letter to the Sun 10/16/14), and “No” to the City Manager’s wasting money on campaign consultants and glitzy flyers.
Robert Goldberg
The opinions expressed in Letters to the Editor are not necessarily those of the Sun. The Sun welcomes Letters to the Editor. Letters should be 300 words maximum. Letters should be e-mailed, signed by the author and include the author’s address and phone number (the latter two are for verification, not publication).
The Sun reserves the right to accept, edit, or reject letters for any reason. Unless otherwise indicated, all letters sent to the Sun are understood to be intended for publication. E-mail letters to: editor@sunnews.org.
