Agenda fails to mention police contract vote
Recent actions by our elected City Council members and school trustees present an interesting contrast in styles, particularly regarding advance notification and taking community input on key decisions.
First, let’s look at council’s 3-2 vote Nov. 1 to seek formal proposals for police services from “surrounding agencies,” including the county Sheriff and Brea, and, significantly, “to serve notice” on Brea “of termination of the police services contract” in 18 months.
Of course, council is responsible for providing essential services at a cost within the parameters of the city’s financial resources, and requesting bids for police service is one of council’s fiscal duties, especially since past councils rarely explored other options.
Also, if council finds verifiably equal or better police service obtainable at less cost from another source, then severing the Brea agreement might be a rational decision.
But since public safety--a matter council members and residents properly consider the city’s most important task--is involved, ample public notice before decision-making is necessary, and the posted agenda for the Nov. 1 council meeting lacked specific detail.
The agenda listing--“update on potential future options for provision of law enforcement services”--didn’t mention a possible termination vote. And a separate five-page report by City Manager Steve Rudometkin recommended continuing contract renewal negotiations “incorporating previous council concerns.”
Rudometkin added, “Should the contract renewal discussions not yield results acceptable to the council by February 2012, staff will then seek further direction....” Rudometkin’s recommendation was put into a motion by Tom Lindsey, supported only by Jim Winder.
Although one of two “alternatives” Rudometkin listed near the end of his report noted “council may also want to make a determination as to whether to trigger the 18-month termination notice,” the issue should have been put on a well-publicized future agenda.
Council’s 3-2 vote wasn’t illegal, but more specific public notice was warranted, even if the action is part of a ploy to wring price concessions from Brea. A short delay to allow greater community input before the termination vote would have been wise.
Second, let’s look at how Placentia-Yorba Linda school trustees handled the possible sale or lease of a four-acre yard between the district Educational Services Center along Yorba Linda Boulevard and City Hall.
The district has applied to rezone the land from residential to commercial, since the latter zoning is more valuable “in this area,” Superintendent Dennis Smith told me in an e-mail.
Trustees approved an 11-member Surplus Property Advisory Committee to recommend a future use for the property, allowing “community input in order to make the best possible decisions relative to the use of excess school facilities,” stated Assistant Superintendent Doug Domene in a report.
By the way, in response to my query about whether the group would tackle future projects of a similar nature, Smith noted, “The committee will only be presented information regarding the…yard property. Once their recommendation has been presented to the board…their responsibilities end.”
First, let’s look at council’s 3-2 vote Nov. 1 to seek formal proposals for police services from “surrounding agencies,” including the county Sheriff and Brea, and, significantly, “to serve notice” on Brea “of termination of the police services contract” in 18 months.
Of course, council is responsible for providing essential services at a cost within the parameters of the city’s financial resources, and requesting bids for police service is one of council’s fiscal duties, especially since past councils rarely explored other options.
Also, if council finds verifiably equal or better police service obtainable at less cost from another source, then severing the Brea agreement might be a rational decision.
But since public safety--a matter council members and residents properly consider the city’s most important task--is involved, ample public notice before decision-making is necessary, and the posted agenda for the Nov. 1 council meeting lacked specific detail.
The agenda listing--“update on potential future options for provision of law enforcement services”--didn’t mention a possible termination vote. And a separate five-page report by City Manager Steve Rudometkin recommended continuing contract renewal negotiations “incorporating previous council concerns.”
Rudometkin added, “Should the contract renewal discussions not yield results acceptable to the council by February 2012, staff will then seek further direction....” Rudometkin’s recommendation was put into a motion by Tom Lindsey, supported only by Jim Winder.
Although one of two “alternatives” Rudometkin listed near the end of his report noted “council may also want to make a determination as to whether to trigger the 18-month termination notice,” the issue should have been put on a well-publicized future agenda.
Council’s 3-2 vote wasn’t illegal, but more specific public notice was warranted, even if the action is part of a ploy to wring price concessions from Brea. A short delay to allow greater community input before the termination vote would have been wise.
Second, let’s look at how Placentia-Yorba Linda school trustees handled the possible sale or lease of a four-acre yard between the district Educational Services Center along Yorba Linda Boulevard and City Hall.
The district has applied to rezone the land from residential to commercial, since the latter zoning is more valuable “in this area,” Superintendent Dennis Smith told me in an e-mail.
Trustees approved an 11-member Surplus Property Advisory Committee to recommend a future use for the property, allowing “community input in order to make the best possible decisions relative to the use of excess school facilities,” stated Assistant Superintendent Doug Domene in a report.
By the way, in response to my query about whether the group would tackle future projects of a similar nature, Smith noted, “The committee will only be presented information regarding the…yard property. Once their recommendation has been presented to the board…their responsibilities end.”
posted by Jim Drummond at 12:00 PM
<< Home