Controversy often results in change
Yorba Linda’s municipal controversies invariably herald two future events--an expensive, hard-fought election for City Council seats and a re-examination of practices dealing with transparency and open government.
The current debate regarding the council’s 3-2 decision to replace 42 years of agreements with Brea and contract with the county Sheriff’s Department for police services will lead to a lively, and likely negative, campaign for three council positions on the Nov. 6 ballot.
And the surrounding storm should lead to changes in practices regarding the wording of items on council agendas and choosing times for public input and council votes on key community issues.
This city’s first major controversy dealt with development and housing density issues that arose soon after the first council was seated in 1967. Lower-density advocates defeated three incumbents in a 1970 election and added two more like-minded members in 1972.
Then, a unanimous council adopted a four-page code of ethics for city officers and employees in late 1972, which, sadly, laid largely unnoticed in City Hall files until discovered during research for a new law eventually approved by voters in 2010.
More recently, a 2005 Town Center redevelopment plan drew widespread opposition that led to two new council members elected in 2006 and two more plan opponents in 2008 in a series of events that included successful initiative and referendum petition drives.
The Town Center controversy also led to some council policy changes allowing for a more transparent and open governing style, including the elimination of unpublicized ad hoc council committee meetings with no agendas and no official minutes.
(Despite the existence of a Town Center Standing Committee, the 2005 council created a Town Center Ad Hoc Committee. A distinction: standing committees require advertised meetings, agendas and minutes, while ad hoc committees then could meet in secret.)
This time around, the November ballot could be moot as far as the police service contract is concerned, since council members approved a negotiated document this week, and a July 9 deadline was set for the most favorable terms for officer transfers.
But current council members or those at the dais after the November ballot should make changes to allow greater public knowledge and participation in council decision-making.
The posted agenda for the 2011 meeting featuring a 3-2 vote to trigger termination of the Brea contract should have been more precisely worded to indicate such a vote could take place, rather than merely listing a vote as one “option” in a five-page back-up staff report.
And the April 25 vote to shift to the sheriff shouldn’t have taken place after 3 a.m. with public input starting at midnight. No rush was needed for a contract expiring May 2013.
A wise and open process was used by the 1986 council on the then-controversial issue involving the use of "safe and sane" fireworks, when they placed an advisory measure on the ballot and quickly abided by voter wishes and instituted a ban.
The current debate regarding the council’s 3-2 decision to replace 42 years of agreements with Brea and contract with the county Sheriff’s Department for police services will lead to a lively, and likely negative, campaign for three council positions on the Nov. 6 ballot.
And the surrounding storm should lead to changes in practices regarding the wording of items on council agendas and choosing times for public input and council votes on key community issues.
This city’s first major controversy dealt with development and housing density issues that arose soon after the first council was seated in 1967. Lower-density advocates defeated three incumbents in a 1970 election and added two more like-minded members in 1972.
Then, a unanimous council adopted a four-page code of ethics for city officers and employees in late 1972, which, sadly, laid largely unnoticed in City Hall files until discovered during research for a new law eventually approved by voters in 2010.
More recently, a 2005 Town Center redevelopment plan drew widespread opposition that led to two new council members elected in 2006 and two more plan opponents in 2008 in a series of events that included successful initiative and referendum petition drives.
The Town Center controversy also led to some council policy changes allowing for a more transparent and open governing style, including the elimination of unpublicized ad hoc council committee meetings with no agendas and no official minutes.
(Despite the existence of a Town Center Standing Committee, the 2005 council created a Town Center Ad Hoc Committee. A distinction: standing committees require advertised meetings, agendas and minutes, while ad hoc committees then could meet in secret.)
This time around, the November ballot could be moot as far as the police service contract is concerned, since council members approved a negotiated document this week, and a July 9 deadline was set for the most favorable terms for officer transfers.
But current council members or those at the dais after the November ballot should make changes to allow greater public knowledge and participation in council decision-making.
The posted agenda for the 2011 meeting featuring a 3-2 vote to trigger termination of the Brea contract should have been more precisely worded to indicate such a vote could take place, rather than merely listing a vote as one “option” in a five-page back-up staff report.
And the April 25 vote to shift to the sheriff shouldn’t have taken place after 3 a.m. with public input starting at midnight. No rush was needed for a contract expiring May 2013.
A wise and open process was used by the 1986 council on the then-controversial issue involving the use of "safe and sane" fireworks, when they placed an advisory measure on the ballot and quickly abided by voter wishes and instituted a ban.
posted by Jim Drummond at 12:00 AM
<< Home