Sunday, February 03, 2013

Tuesday's Council Meeting

While I was gone on my little hiatus the City of Costa Mesa released the agenda report for the next council meeting, on Tuesday, February 5, 2013.  You can read the agenda HERE.

A quick peek at it might lead you to believe the meeting might be a short one.  Well, that may not be the case, depending on how things go with Public Comments, the Consent Calendar and a couple of the business items listed.

For example, on the Consent Calendar - theoretically those items that are of a routine nature and could be approved with one vote - there are some items that might require some further explanation and separate discussion.  Item number 5, for example.  It is Warrant # 2458, HERE, - one of three warrants on the Consent Calender for that evening.  However, buried among the payments for employee health benefits, this one contains an entry dated 1/25/13 that provokes curiosity.  That is a check in the amount of $2,554,815.14 to the City of Newport Beach for "ABLE Equity Distribution".  Without knowing more, one assumes that is the 50/50 split of the proceeds remaining from the sale of the three helicopters, plus any cash left in the bank following the ill-advised dissolution of the Airborne Law Enforcement (A.B.L.E) program.  I'd kind of like to know just what that money represents - maybe someone will ask if we are now, finally, out of the A.B.L.E program.


Item #6 has a fascinating title - Resolution Establishing Receipt And Distribution Policy Regarding Tickets And/or Passes In Conformance With The California Code of Regulations As Recently Amended By The Fair Political Practices Commission.  You can read the staff report HERE.  This codifies the procedures for distribution of freebies in the City.  Makes for interesting reading.

 Item #7 is also fascinating.  This deals with the "Adoption of FPPC Form 806 Listing All Compensated Council Appointments".  You can read that staff report HERE.

Once we finish with the Consent Calendar we're scheduled to hear the New Business items.  Right off the bat #1 is the 60th Anniversary Celebration Concept and Proposed Budget, HERE.  The committee headed up by Chairman Mike Scheafer and guided by Public Affairs Manager Dan Joyce has been doing yeoman duty for the past couple months and will now present their ideas to the council and ask for $125,000 in budget dollars to proceed with their plans.  If you follow the link there are several other links that list participants, plans, etc.  This should be an interesting presentation.

Next is New Business #2, the "Consideration of Council Member Request For Rehearing Regarding Appointments of Planning Commissioners."  Former Mayor Sandra Genis, the newest member of THIS council, is requesting a "de novo" hearing of the recent Planning Commission appointments due to violation of appropriate procedures.  You can read her request HERE.  This one could generate a lot of heat - and hopefully some light, too.  You will recall that de-frocked Costa Mesa Sanitary District Director and former Planning Commissioner Jim Fitzpatrick and lawyer Timothy Sesler were appointed at the meeting three weeks ago.  If the re-hearing is granted it will be held at the council meeting on February 19, 2013, which might mean the Planning Commission would not have enough members to form a quorum on their meeting on February 11, 2013.  McCarthy and Sam Clark's terms have expired and Fitzpatrick and Sesler's appointments would be in limbo, leaving only commissioners Rob Dickson and Jeff Mathews on the dais. (NOTE: Spoke with the City Clerk monday morning... all incumbent commissioners will stay in place until replaced, so the City's business will continue uninterrupted while the council sorts out this situation.)

New Business Item #3 is the appointment of a Planning Commissioner to replace Ed Salcedo, who resigned only a few hours before the last council meeting, HERE.  At that meeting current Planning Commission Chairman Colin McCarthy was appointed to fill out Salcedo's remaining two years.  At the time contract City Attorney Tom Duarte was asked if it was appropriate to fill that slot and he said yes.  It turned out that, following some research by the City Clerk later, it was NOT OK to fill that slot so quickly - improper noticing was the problem.  You may recall that the previous council also had a little difficulty with proper noticing and it cost them Jim Righeimer's Charter scheme getting on the June ballot.  There are 13 applicants for this slot, including some new ones added since the previous meeting.  You can read those applications HERE.  It appears to me that this item will be directly affected by the decision on the previous item.

The final item on the agenda is New Business #4, appointments to the Parks and Recreation Commission, HERE.  This was put off from the previous meeting because some council members said they didn't have sufficient time to interview all the candidates.  Well, there's a whole lot more on this roster, so I hope they took time to do their due diligence this time.  There are 16 candidates for four slots open, including one guy who applied late.  You can read those applications HERE.  Late application didn't seem to bother Mayor Jim Righeimer last time - probably because he was a late applicant when Allan Mansoor appointed him to the Planning Commission only a few months after he dragged his carpet bag to town in 2006.  We'll see how this goes, and whether they will follow the solid advice presented by Daily Pilot columnist Jeff Harlan in his piece today, HERE.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


Anonymous sk said...

Harlan has two acceptable ideas regarding appointments. Any reasonable council member should agree with either idea.

2/04/2013 11:13:00 AM  
Blogger just wondering... said...

Unbelievable. Another screw up. Does Tom Duarte do anything right? Why are we paying him? Can't we have a real attorney now? This guy is the source of more bad information than anyone I've ever heard. Please.

2/04/2013 03:44:00 PM  
Anonymous The Mesa Jokes on Council said...

A good portion of this Council wouldn't know the definition of the word "reasonable". If It's a good idea to most, it goes against the grain of this Council.

2/04/2013 03:49:00 PM  
Anonymous goboyz said...

yet they were elected. maybe"mesa jokes.." is NOT the final authority and judge.

2/04/2013 07:34:00 PM  
Anonymous give peace a chance said...

Mesa, Jokes: you are obviously referring to the women on council I would ask that you stop the war on women that leece has identified (when she was not made Mayor and Amy was disappointed). it must stop now.

2/04/2013 08:39:00 PM  
Anonymous The Mesa Jokes on Council said...

give a piece a change-- I was referring to the male dominated portion of the Council not knowing about being reasonable, thanks though for trying to stir it up between the boys and girls.

2/05/2013 08:53:00 AM  
Anonymous give peace a chance said...

So Mesa Jokes was trying to stir it up against the boys. very good. as long as we stop the war on women. sorry i misread you, the women seem to be the unreasonable ones but this cannot, should not, be mentioned. criticizing the boys is not a war on them but any criticizing the women definitely is war on them. just use logic. ribbet

2/05/2013 11:11:00 AM  
Anonymous sk said...

It is unacceptable for the council to appoint people based on friendship. A government agency isn't allowed to hire their friends on as staff, there is a process that must be followed. Why should council appointments be any different? Appointments should be unbiased and based on experience of the person in relation to the commission being appointed to.

2/05/2013 02:29:00 PM  
Anonymous ourlean said...

hey sk= watch what san district does then check back in with a comment.

2/05/2013 08:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Sam Grady said...

Sk, you have it wrong. In Costa Mesa, hiring friends is what they do. How do you think Lobdell, Joyce and Knapp got hired? It wasn't because of their qualifications. Francis was hired as a political favor. Of course the council is going to appoint their friends. It is payback for them.

2/05/2013 08:39:00 PM  
Anonymous sk said...

Sam I don't know the details regarding the hiring process the city used for those positions mentioned but the recruitment process for government is supposed to be conducted such that the recruitment process allows everyone a fair chance at the position. The council should require management to follow these procedures.

2/06/2013 07:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Giving Jobs Away said...

I wonder if the city council and city manager would entertain the idea of letting the police and fire chief hire who they wanted, even though the person wasn't really qualified for the job. If it seems to works at city hall it should work out in the streets.

2/06/2013 08:39:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home