Monday, January 16, 2012

Tuesday's Meeting and Righeimer's Charter

As mentioned in an earlier post, HERE, Tuesday is another Costa Mesa City Council meeting and this one, like all the others within the past several months, promises to drag out until the late hours of the evening.

One thin
g that is NOT on the agenda is the new, second draft of Jim Righeimer's Charter. I've gone over this new document - it's a couple pages longer than the first draft and, in theory, folds in most of the questions and suggestions the council voted on last week. You can view that new, possibly last, version of the charter at the City web site, HERE - there's a handy link there for you in the box titled "The Latest Headlines" that looks like the image above. I expect the council will be VERY happy to hear from those of you that feel additional changes need to be made.

For example, in the new draft there is a new section - #603, Voluntary Participation In Employee Organizations. The text of that section reads as follows: "Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502, city employees shall have the right to refuse to join or participate in the activities of employee organizations and shall have the right to represent themselves individually in their employment relations with the public agency."

And, as anticipated, Section
604, Voluntary Municipal Employee Political Contributions, remains. This is the latest iteration of Righeimer's Paycheck Protection Plan that was soundly defeated more than two decades ago, just as it deserves to be defeated this time around. For me, this one is a deal-breaker - the single issue that will cause me to vote AGAINST this charter in June. Once it's there, it's there and, based on the segment added dealing with a Charter review in 10 years, it's there for at least a decade.


I d
id NOT find a segment added to address Ethics and Conduct, even though the council voted for them to be included. Funny, I wonder why that might be excluded?


I did NOT find a segment that addressed council member qualifications, even though the council voted to include language about it. Personally, I think it's important to codify a set of minimum qualifications to run for City Council - being a registered voter, residence in the ci
ty for a pre-determined period of time, etc.

So, grab an early dinner and head over to City Hall for the meeting that begins at 6:00, following a Closed Session that begins at 5:00. I'm going to bring a pillow this time...

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Rob Dimel said...

Sections 603 and 604 are baffling, as membership in the associations is already voluntary. With regard to the payroll deduction, my assumption would be that is in regards to PAC activity; which in fact is also voluntary.

It all sounds nice but is really moot.

1/16/2012 11:58:00 PM  
Anonymous unanimous said...

should be no problem with codifying 603 and 604 then! great news.

1/17/2012 06:18:00 AM  
Blogger valan2 said...

They did, in fact, include a section on Council qualifications. Only, instead of spelling them out, so we know what they have in mind, they say, "the qualification...shall be established by ordinance." (Section 201, end of first paragraph)

That means this, or a future Council, can establish or change the qualifications by a 3-person vote. Leaving it this open-ended establishes the very thing people are worried about: that the Council can make up their own rules.

As the saying goes, "Be afraid. Be very afraid."

1/17/2012 09:27:00 AM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

valan2, I did see that and reached the same conclusion you did. The door was left WIDE open for corruption. Qualifications of a council member should be part of the Charter and not left to the capriciousness of this or future councils. It's the obligation, responsibility and right of the voters of this city to determine just what qualifies a person to be considered as an elected leader.
Righeimer is a perfect example of just why the definition of council qualifications is an essential part of the Charter, if we're going to have one. He came waltzing into our city and, a few months later, wheedled his way on the Planning Commission.

1/17/2012 09:56:00 AM  
Anonymous Why object. said...

Why would anyone object to 603 or 604? They are no-bargainers. The City has NO business collecting union or association dues, and members should not be required to fund political actives with their dues money. The provision for individual representation is also critical, as evidenced by the events of 2011. Bernardino was not representing the wishes of some employees, and they effectively had no voice. Union leaders can say otherwise, but they know better.

1/17/2012 10:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Mary Ann O'Connell said...

Today's events in WI could be a game changer for this council and the GOP in general. I am sure they are all watching closely.

1/17/2012 03:08:00 PM  
Blogger Colin said...

Regarding the lack of Ethics and Conduct - they say write what you know. I wonder how long Jim Rig stared at that blank piece of paper before moving on ?

1/17/2012 03:40:00 PM  
Anonymous hypocrites said...

Just like the government has no business telling me what to do with my religion, body, or in my home, they have no business telling me what gets deducted from my paycheck and what does not. This is a republican ideal. Get out of my life republicans, you are worse than democrats.

1/17/2012 09:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Stop Nanny-state-gate said...

Regarding sections 603 and 604:

Why should the city regulate the agreements grown working men and women vote to impose on themselves? Note that these decisions are made by a vote of the affected people, unlike council mandates, where three men can make unwise and unpopular decisions for a city of over 100,000 people.

The councilmen’s charter proposal demonstrates hyper-regulation of working men and women, but deregulation of themselves and of greedy outside developers and contractors who want to pay less but give less and keep more for themselves. This charter proposal is no other than a grab for power and money at the top and an effort to limit working men’s and women’s ability to support their families.

1/20/2012 01:04:00 PM  
Anonymous CMtaxpayer said...

Comments here suppport my repeated contentions that these guys are not true conservative, small government Republicans. If the Central Committee endorses them, they aren't either.

I thought membership in the employee associations was already voluntary. Thanks for confirming it , Dimel. So what's to regulate? This is just grand standing.

"Hypocrites" put it right: "Just like the government has no business telling me what to do with my religion, body, or in my home, they have no business telling me what gets deducted from my paycheck and what does not." I only disagree with that post where it says "this is a Republican ideal" It most certainly is not. This is a Nanny State ideal. The Councilmen are indeed hypocrites of the most cynical sort.

The people who comment here are not the ones we need to reach. Talk to your neighbors, talk to your friends, make sure they know what is really going on.

1/20/2012 07:44:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home