I'm sure the City Council didn't intend to give an interesting seminar in civics last night, but that's what happened.
If you watched the Council meeting -and really, what self-respecting SCV geek couldn't on a matter this big- you saw Frank Ferry and TimBen Boydston argue persuasively on two major points of contention in Kellar & Ferry's revised Norms and Procedures document (by the way, it didn't get voted on and is therefore tabled, but who cares when the conversation was so interesting?)
Informing on the Media
Perhaps the biggest change in the proposed document was the new procedure requiring City Council members to "inform" certain City staff of any "interview or comments" the Council member had with the media. Specifically it read like this:
McLean, after organizing her thoughts for several minutes, didn't like "shall" at all, so she told Ferry & Kellar to reformulate the command with a "should." No self-respecting City Councilperson "likes being told what to do," she said. Satisfied with Ferry's response, she soon ended her comments on the Norms & Procedures.
Kellar didn't have much to say about this other than to remark that, golly, of course the wording wouldn't require him to report to the City Manager that he talked to a Signal cub reporter about the latest Rubber Ducky Charity gala thing. Let's use "common sense" folks, he told the crowd, "We're not taking away your constitutional rights here," he concluded.
But Ferry at least attempted to justify the spirit of the "norm," saying in effect that the rule was built so that the City could function more effectively, react to situations in a unified & efficient manner and avoid being "blindsided," a word he used several times that night.
I'll give Ferry points for trying. SCVers, as a lot, do trust their City government, at least according to the latest small sample of residents polled recently. SCVers like that the City is responsive, customer-focused, and agile, and Ferry wants to continue that legacy. He wants a customer-service oriented government, and in his view, being customer-friendly means team work among the Council. It means the five members of the City Council collaborate with staff, yield to their expertise most of the time and overrule them at other times, but above all, work together to present a unified front.
It's worked for 25 years after all, and, as Ferry pointed out, Santa Clarita is in the black and relatively trouble-free even after a once-in-a-generation recession.
Yes it worked for 25 years, so why do we need a change now? TimBen Boydston presented an equally persuasive case that the norm, as worded, was probably illegal and violated not only the US Constitution but the California Constitution as well. I'll spare you the details of his 20+ minute presentation, but I have to say I was somewhat proud of Boydston when I heard him say, "I'll never feel compelled to report my conversations to the City Manager or Ms. Ortiz."
We know Boydston has a flair for the dramatic, but you have to admit, it's good to have a guy on the Council who takes seriously his charge to represent us, who realizes the interests of the City Manager's office aren't always necessarily in our interests. This is what why we have representative government, after all. This is why we have checks and balances.
And besides, I think Ferry's expectation that the City shouldn't be "blindsided" is naive. Look. Government is political. That is to say, it's about the exercise of power by different groups of people. Power attracts certain types of people, people who often have strong opinions about things. It's naive to think they'll all get along or row together in the same direction all the time. Ferry & Kellar seem to think all five Councilmembers ought to pull the oars while the City Manager steers the boat; Boydston has a more realistic view: sometimes the rowers will disagree, will talk to passengers in the boat about how & why they disagree, and that's ok.
On this debate, I give the win to Boydston and I hope the City drops the requirement for Councilmembers to inform on their conversations with media.
Who decides what gets on the agenda?
For me, this was the real meat and potatoes of the night. I love this topic. There are political scientists who spend their careers trying to answer the question above, and it turns out its much thornier than one would think.
The first issue one has to tackle when answering this question is, how do you define the problem? Take Boydston's attempt to agendize City Council Term Limits, a topic he brought up last night. What exactly is the problem that needs solving? Boydston didn't tell us, so we're left to guess: Is it that the longer a Councilmember serves, the more comfortable he gets and the more temptations he faces? Or is the problem with our at-large system, which seems to (recent examples aside) favor incumbents and thereby makes it easy to serve term after term?
How you define the problem determines what solution you offer. Maybe the problem isn't Councilmember corruption & cronyism at all; maybe it's the at-large system that favors incumbents. This is important: what if Boydston presents a solution that doesn't actually address the problem? Should Boydston alone get to decide what the problem actually is before a solution is presented?
Problem definition aside, Boydston made clear last night that he thinks a single Councilmember ought to have the power to place an item on the agenda. He did not like the way the Norms and Procedures document spelled out the agenda process (italics are changes to the document, regular text is what was in the old document):
On this matter, the exchanges between Boydston & Ferry got a bit testy at times. Boydston seemed to resent the idea that he had to clear items with the rest of the Council before they were put on the agenda. After all, Boydston reminded us, he talks with the public, knows their concerns and represents them by trying to agendize important items. This is his duty and he takes it seriously.
Ferry remarked that this change was just a formalization of existing policy on the Council where Councilmembers look for visual cues from other Councilmembers on whether an item should be agendized for future meetings. Sometimes the other Councilmembers agree an item should be put on the agenda, sometimes they don't. The system works, he argued, it just needs formalization.
The two tossed this back and forth for a bit before Ferry invoked a bit of that good old fashioned checks and balances.
"You don't want any single member, me included, to drive the discussion week after week in front of the public," he said.
He then pointed to Bob Kellar, reminding us that Kellar had a bit of controversy in 2010 over his comments about illegal immigrants. What if Kellar, in his passion and zeal to solve the problem of illegal immigration, tried to agendize the matter again and again for the City Council?
"How do you control Kellar when he wants immigration on the agenda 200 times in a year?" Ferry asked.
He compared it to Congress & the State House, saying that any single Legislator has to hop through multiple hurdles and use some of his political capital and power before his item gets put on the agenda before the entire body. And he's right.
It was an excellent point, and one that Boydston had no answer for. Boydston seemed to say that such abuse just wouldn't happen, neglecting to realize that powerful people occasionally abuse their power.
On this matter, I give the win to Ferry. We don't want any single Councilmember to dominate the agenda or the debate, or to use tactics to delay or promote certain issues unless there is at least majority agreement on them. I have enough faith in the City Council that any good faith problem put forward by one of its members will make it to the agenda, as several of Boydston's pet issues already have.
Overall, tonight's unlikely debate underscored to me that Santa Clarita is changing and growing. We're 25 now. We've made it through our uncertain and angst-filled teens, graduated college, and are just about to move out of our mother's basement. The separation from the County is a distant memory for many, our population is more diverse, and in the years ahead, we will not see such a unified City Staff & Council.
But that's ok. It's nothing to be afraid of as long as we have open exchanges like the one last night.
-----------------
On norms and procedures, Ferry and Boydston are both right and wrong
If you watched the Council meeting -and really, what self-respecting SCV geek couldn't on a matter this big- you saw Frank Ferry and TimBen Boydston argue persuasively on two major points of contention in Kellar & Ferry's revised Norms and Procedures document (by the way, it didn't get voted on and is therefore tabled, but who cares when the conversation was so interesting?)
Informing on the Media
Perhaps the biggest change in the proposed document was the new procedure requiring City Council members to "inform" certain City staff of any "interview or comments" the Council member had with the media. Specifically it read like this:
Councilmembers shall inform the City Manager or the Communications Manager of any interview or comments made to the media about City projects or issues.Notice the word "Shall" not "should" or "will" and the word "any." A standard dictionary will tell you that "shall" implies a command, while "will" is more of a prediction, not a command, and "should" seems to have a built-in opt-out clause inside its single syllable. "Any" would seem to include just about every conversation under the sun a Councilmember could have with the media. It's sloppy wording and probably shouldn't have made it this far. But it did.
McLean, after organizing her thoughts for several minutes, didn't like "shall" at all, so she told Ferry & Kellar to reformulate the command with a "should." No self-respecting City Councilperson "likes being told what to do," she said. Satisfied with Ferry's response, she soon ended her comments on the Norms & Procedures.
Kellar didn't have much to say about this other than to remark that, golly, of course the wording wouldn't require him to report to the City Manager that he talked to a Signal cub reporter about the latest Rubber Ducky Charity gala thing. Let's use "common sense" folks, he told the crowd, "We're not taking away your constitutional rights here," he concluded.
But Ferry at least attempted to justify the spirit of the "norm," saying in effect that the rule was built so that the City could function more effectively, react to situations in a unified & efficient manner and avoid being "blindsided," a word he used several times that night.
I'll give Ferry points for trying. SCVers, as a lot, do trust their City government, at least according to the latest small sample of residents polled recently. SCVers like that the City is responsive, customer-focused, and agile, and Ferry wants to continue that legacy. He wants a customer-service oriented government, and in his view, being customer-friendly means team work among the Council. It means the five members of the City Council collaborate with staff, yield to their expertise most of the time and overrule them at other times, but above all, work together to present a unified front.
It's worked for 25 years after all, and, as Ferry pointed out, Santa Clarita is in the black and relatively trouble-free even after a once-in-a-generation recession.
Yes it worked for 25 years, so why do we need a change now? TimBen Boydston presented an equally persuasive case that the norm, as worded, was probably illegal and violated not only the US Constitution but the California Constitution as well. I'll spare you the details of his 20+ minute presentation, but I have to say I was somewhat proud of Boydston when I heard him say, "I'll never feel compelled to report my conversations to the City Manager or Ms. Ortiz."
We know Boydston has a flair for the dramatic, but you have to admit, it's good to have a guy on the Council who takes seriously his charge to represent us, who realizes the interests of the City Manager's office aren't always necessarily in our interests. This is what why we have representative government, after all. This is why we have checks and balances.
And besides, I think Ferry's expectation that the City shouldn't be "blindsided" is naive. Look. Government is political. That is to say, it's about the exercise of power by different groups of people. Power attracts certain types of people, people who often have strong opinions about things. It's naive to think they'll all get along or row together in the same direction all the time. Ferry & Kellar seem to think all five Councilmembers ought to pull the oars while the City Manager steers the boat; Boydston has a more realistic view: sometimes the rowers will disagree, will talk to passengers in the boat about how & why they disagree, and that's ok.
On this debate, I give the win to Boydston and I hope the City drops the requirement for Councilmembers to inform on their conversations with media.
Who decides what gets on the agenda?
For me, this was the real meat and potatoes of the night. I love this topic. There are political scientists who spend their careers trying to answer the question above, and it turns out its much thornier than one would think.
The first issue one has to tackle when answering this question is, how do you define the problem? Take Boydston's attempt to agendize City Council Term Limits, a topic he brought up last night. What exactly is the problem that needs solving? Boydston didn't tell us, so we're left to guess: Is it that the longer a Councilmember serves, the more comfortable he gets and the more temptations he faces? Or is the problem with our at-large system, which seems to (recent examples aside) favor incumbents and thereby makes it easy to serve term after term?
How you define the problem determines what solution you offer. Maybe the problem isn't Councilmember corruption & cronyism at all; maybe it's the at-large system that favors incumbents. This is important: what if Boydston presents a solution that doesn't actually address the problem? Should Boydston alone get to decide what the problem actually is before a solution is presented?
Problem definition aside, Boydston made clear last night that he thinks a single Councilmember ought to have the power to place an item on the agenda. He did not like the way the Norms and Procedures document spelled out the agenda process (italics are changes to the document, regular text is what was in the old document):
The City Manager is responsible for setting the agenda for Council Meetings.
Additionally, anyAnyCouncilmember or the Mayor can put items on the agenda,
with a verbal majority consensus of the Council.
On this matter, the exchanges between Boydston & Ferry got a bit testy at times. Boydston seemed to resent the idea that he had to clear items with the rest of the Council before they were put on the agenda. After all, Boydston reminded us, he talks with the public, knows their concerns and represents them by trying to agendize important items. This is his duty and he takes it seriously.
Ferry remarked that this change was just a formalization of existing policy on the Council where Councilmembers look for visual cues from other Councilmembers on whether an item should be agendized for future meetings. Sometimes the other Councilmembers agree an item should be put on the agenda, sometimes they don't. The system works, he argued, it just needs formalization.
The two tossed this back and forth for a bit before Ferry invoked a bit of that good old fashioned checks and balances.
"You don't want any single member, me included, to drive the discussion week after week in front of the public," he said.
He then pointed to Bob Kellar, reminding us that Kellar had a bit of controversy in 2010 over his comments about illegal immigrants. What if Kellar, in his passion and zeal to solve the problem of illegal immigration, tried to agendize the matter again and again for the City Council?
"How do you control Kellar when he wants immigration on the agenda 200 times in a year?" Ferry asked.
He compared it to Congress & the State House, saying that any single Legislator has to hop through multiple hurdles and use some of his political capital and power before his item gets put on the agenda before the entire body. And he's right.
It was an excellent point, and one that Boydston had no answer for. Boydston seemed to say that such abuse just wouldn't happen, neglecting to realize that powerful people occasionally abuse their power.
On this matter, I give the win to Ferry. We don't want any single Councilmember to dominate the agenda or the debate, or to use tactics to delay or promote certain issues unless there is at least majority agreement on them. I have enough faith in the City Council that any good faith problem put forward by one of its members will make it to the agenda, as several of Boydston's pet issues already have.
Overall, tonight's unlikely debate underscored to me that Santa Clarita is changing and growing. We're 25 now. We've made it through our uncertain and angst-filled teens, graduated college, and are just about to move out of our mother's basement. The separation from the County is a distant memory for many, our population is more diverse, and in the years ahead, we will not see such a unified City Staff & Council.
But that's ok. It's nothing to be afraid of as long as we have open exchanges like the one last night.
-----------------