Ignoring the facts, regardless

Mayor caused this mess

A blogger is accusing Mayor Righeimer of “. . . ignoring council rules which has mired us in a seemingly endless law suit.” Is that valid criticism or blathering by a mumpsimus (1. someone who obstinately clings to an error, bad habit or prejudice . . . a bigoted person)?

Actually, . . .

He’s referring to an attempt to close a $1.4million gap between City income and expenditures in March, 2011. The City Council wanted to study the City workforce, which was its biggest single expense. It was required by law to notify every employee who could be affected that their job was being studied.

The notice was specified in process, in detail, and in wording by MOUs – Memorandums of Understanding -- with the employee unions (which prefer the term associations). The MOUs forbade a general notice to employees, which would have applied; instead, personal notices had to be distributed.

Finding out what we're buying

The City sent out the required notices, and, as expected, faced legal challenge and legal harassment from the associations. 

Note that the Mayor, at the March 1, 2011 Council meeting, “. . . clarified that the six-month noticing was not a layoff notice . . .” and advised that was designed to allow a financial services analysis to be completed.

That is, the City followed the contract-mandated procedure to study how employees are used and how they could be better utilized in the future. It was free to consider outsourcing jobs done less expensively by vendors. No job loss was identified -- by the City.

Not a lot of savings here

After study, the City determined that most of the positions considered weren't economically feasible to outsource at that time. The City withdrew the notices.

The associations have refused to withdraw their suits, though, and continue to delay, obscure and obfuscate as legal harassment of the City: “you’re gonna’ pay lots of money for crossing us.” The unions are using employee money to fund their legal maneuvers and the City uses tax money; City employees contribute to both.

The suit about how well Costa Mesa followed the mandated procedure is moot -- the notices are not even in effect anymore. However, forcing an opponent to continue spending money is often an effective legal tactic, so the association suit nonsense continues.

Union tactic, not an evil Mayor

Is it wrong? Nope, it's just a battle tactic, like castling in chess, or faking a pass in football.

But is it evidence that the City Council and especially the Mayor (who wasn't Mayor when the decision was made!), is wasting City funds on a lawsuit “. . . filed by the employees because they had no recourse . . .?” That’s clearly ridiculous.

 

We’d have to call this mumpsimus (2) – a notion adhered to although shown to be unreasonable.

Note: if you review the minutes of the March 1 and 15 Council meetings notice that a few familiar names were offering their opinions before the meeting and after each agenda item -- then, too. (March 1) (March 15)

Utilitarianism

Philosophical decision framework

Let’s consider one foundation for ethical decisions: “the greatest good for the greatest number.” This is called Utilitarianism. It’s seen in extreme form in fascist and totalitarian governments. In these systems the state defines what the greater good is.

The Utilitarian approach can work well as a base for some personal decisions. For example, a Costa Mesa citizen can choose to redeem her recyclables. Or, she can carry her groceries in a reusable bag. She knows she’s doing something “for the good of all.”

Mandated doesn't work as well

The problems with Utilitarianism arise when it is used by agencies trying to wield power. Who should decide what is best for all?

We've all experienced “disinterest in service” from DMV personnel.  And some of us have tolerated the disdain of a few (always smiling) petty tyrants who are considering our request for their assistance at City Hall.  Our interests don’t happen to coincide with what they decide is best for the greater good. DMV and City staffs define “the best for the most” by virtue of their office.

Don't need no stinking office

Self-appointed experts don’t need the office; they just appoint themselves our caretakers. They already “know” what is best for us.

CM4OE* representatives are certain that we shouldn't face the dilemma of voting for or against a charter, so they delay, obstruct, and obscure (DOO) to block choices about a good charter.

Some of their minions are certain that we should overplant Fairview Park with “natural” bushes and grasses, so they repeat their demands over and over “for our own good.” Groups insist that we use no plastic bags “for our own good.” The “lay experts on everything” assure us that we need more -- or less -- housing density.

Don't tell the residents that. . .

Our “caretakers” try to keep different opinions and different options from being heard. They want to prevent us from supporting the “wrong” viewpoint.

If we let our government work, well-informed citizens will present their views, staff will do its studies, and our elected representatives will allocate resources. Then all will be served. That’s how representative government works when the power to govern is exerted by elected officials; they look after the interests of all of the citizens or they look for  new jobs. It is representative Utilitarianism in action.

Can destroy the City 

But Utilitarianism underlies a society’s failure if self-appointed “arbiters of what is good for all” can insure that their views are the only views considered. They block, redirect and overwhelm discussion – as prescribed by the Allinsky system. (Alinsky Rules) Their hubris limits our choices; their repetitive noise and rudeness drown out opposition.

What’s good for Costa Mesans should be defined by Costa Mesans directly -- through the ballot -- or through our elected representatives. We shouldn't be “guided” by the agendas of the complainers.  

Might not care about you 

Watch out for those who would “protect” you from charters and changes “for your own good.” They may not be as benevolent as they’d like you to believe. 

*CMOE is a term coined to refer to those who appear to be "Costa Mesans for Opposing Everything." (CM4OE) This is NOT a 501c organization -- send no donations!

We can't buy crime protection

We have to care enough to engage

We still hear demands from well-meaning people to “hire more police to drive the crime down.” We've mentioned that what is proven to work in diminishing crime comes under the “Broken Window Theory.” 

Crime reduction requires that the community cares. Notice that the term is “cares,” not whines and complains. Knee jerk demands for solutions that don’t work are not “caring.”

Instead of 130 officers

If we could increase our police force to 22,000 sworn officers we’d have a police-to-population ratio of 1:5, like the state prisons. If we could afford only 7,850 officers we’d have a ratio of 1:14 similar to the average for county jails throughout the country. Or if we were so parsimonious that we only hired 3,235 officers we’d have a ratio of 1 officer to 34 residents, like Orange County’s jail.

Even 1:5 isn't crime free

Reports from California state prisons show that a ratio of one-to-five doesn’t stop rape, murder, extortion, or terrorism. A department spokesman, Jeffrey Callison, said in an interview that there is no evidence that a larger staff could have prevented the recent violence. “I don’t think it’s possible to connect the two,” he said. Callison said the recent violence is not a trend, it’s just a flare-up.

So, violence and rioting are expected as “flare-ups” when the ratio of law enforcement to population is one to five. Note, though, that these populations can’t leave because they don’t like the neighbors or abhor the neighborhood. There is zero community pride and caring, in fact the opposite is in effect. Crime -- and attempted crime -- is rampant.

And, at OC Jail there is no shortage of larceny and violent crime. They have a much higher officer-to-resident radio than Costa Mesa, but, again, the residents don't want decreased crime or increased beautification.

Knee jerks solutions -- aren't

There are no easy solutions to crime; we can’t buy crime protection. The City has to care, and that caring is reflected when citizens participate in making Costa Mesa safer.If someone is prowling the cars in a church parking lot and a citizen calls, the police investigate, and crime decreases. If we hire another cop we get a slightly-improved chance of catching the car prowler.

Residents participate and the City gets safer

Our Neighborhood Watch groups learn how to call, and when. Neighbors watch out for each other. The graffiti is covered promptly. Property owners are encouraged -- and now forced by wallet-assault -- to clean and maintain their property.

Our Police Department is doing effective, proactive police work. It is operating efficiently. It is using advanced technology. And, more and more officers have been moved to the street. (Their administrative and technical assignments were transferred to non-sworn employees.)

Just the facts

We can look at selected numbers and scream “the sky is falling.” Or we can embrace reality and feel pride in Costa Mesa’s Police Department, civilian staff, and City Council (the City’s “Board of Directors”).

 

As Sergeant Joe Friday said so often on a TV show, “Just the facts, ma’am.”

Charter: Corruption unlikely, production necessary

Impossible to be like Bell

Bell officials assumed jobs that raised their pay to outrageous levels and stole $6.7 million from the city. The mayor defended himself as an ignorant and uneducated man (he didn't finish grade school, much less high school or college) who didn't know his thievery was illegal. (Bell Mayor)

The election that gave him so much power was mostly absentee votes; many voters arrived at the polls to find absentee ballots in their names had already been cast. And, he paid a street gang to promote support for him as mayor.

He’s been sentenced to prison for some of his crimes. Other Bell City Council members performed and fared about the same.

Different cities

Bell has a low-income ($37K), largely (93%) Hispanic populace that keeps a low profile.  Citizens don't get involved in government; English isn't normally used in the home for 90% of the population. Their education includes 42% high school graduates and 5% with bachelor’s degrees or higher.

Costa Mesa’s most-criticized Council members, the Mayor and Pro tem, bring far different resumes to their positions. And, the citizens of Costa Mesa present a very different picture from Bell’s.

In Costa Mesa

Mayor Righeimer’s college education and success as a business and Real Estate executive are in stark contrast to Bell’s mayor’s background and education. Pro-tem Mensinger’s college and business success are very different from that of Bell’s mayor or Pro tem, as well. His executive assignments prior to becoming a principle in a real estate advisory firm have been lauded. (Correcting lies in print)

In Costa Mesa English isn't the primary language in the home for 38%, 86% are high school graduates and 34% hold bachelor’s degrees or higher.

So, our Council members have far different backgrounds from Bell’s council members, and the demographics of the two cities are very different. In addition, the citizens of Costa Mesa have a large faction of interested folks, with some persistently-critical clusters that observe everything that the Council does with a critical, even jaundiced, eye.*

Candidate charter wasn't risky

The charter that was beaten by the influx of three quarters of a million dollars from unions didn't have Bell-like provisions that would have allowed chicanery, anyway. Becoming another Bell was never, and still isn't, a realistic risk.

So what’s holding up a clear, effective charter for the voters to consider? It’s not the uninformed CM4OE, complaining before committee meetings. They’re easy to discount as uninformed and irrelevant. Instead, the holdup is the committee’s inertia.

 

The committee is making lists. It’s time to produce charter pieces to debate and refine.

*As a Newport Beach Councilman said, “I can guarantee that in the next breath I will get a message that makes me wince; an insult from someone with less than the facts, shouting vitriol in a reactionary and vulgar tone. So be it.”

Think directly about the charter

Two ways to evaluate decisions

We use two processes to form opinions and make decisions: “below conscious” thinking and direct thinking. (Thinking Fast and Slow) They are each best for different types of decisions.

Our brains are very effective at acquiring information about our immediate environment – often called situational awareness – and processing it subconsciously. We “sense” or “feel” that a decision to change lanes to avoid a collision is the best choice and apply it instantly, saving our life. The “feelings” method of forming an opinion works great in this situation. 

Fast answers but may be distorted

If we use below consciousness thinking proximity may color our opinions. For example, if something bad happened when a friend took a medicine, we (emotionally) overrate its dangers. Decisions about medical care are better made with deliberate, direct thinking.

Another example, used by Alex Lickerman  M.D. in a July 18 post, is seeing the story about an airplane crash and “sensing” the risk of riding in the plane we’re boarding as much higher than it really is.

Our emotions, coming from subconscious processing, aren't too useful for evaluating the safety of a cardiac catheterization procedure or a plane ride. They aren't helpful for choosing a city, a house, or even an insurance policy. Those decisions call for deliberate, or direct thinking.

Their situation isn't what we're facing

Similarly, we can think about Newport Beach growing its infrastructure while remaining solvent as they operate under their charter. Or we can remember the hysterical warning by organized labor – “Bell had a Charter and its City Council was corrupt.” Such thinking may make us feel enthusiastic or fearful.  Neither situation is relevant to Costa Mesa, though. Our charter requires direct, logical thinking -- about Costa Mesa's needs.

Make it good, make it bad . . .

The City’s charter will be as good or bad as the Charter Committee chooses. If it follows its charge from the City Council, it will be the best charter thirteen Costa Mesa citizens can write. If the committee expends its time thwarting rational debate, it will be a debacle.

Dishonest and sneaky -- them and us

Bell had dishonest and sneaky Council members and an uninvolved population. Does that make it likely that involved Costa Mesans, under our transparency laws, will allow Council members to give our money to their friends? If CM4OE sends us a postcard showing some Mafioso-looking actors sitting around a table holding unlighted cigars, will that make the folks we elected to Council dishonest and sneaky?  Of course not.

But sneaky and dishonest CM4OE can prevent the Citizens from having a good charter to choose or reject. They just have to encourage “feeling” instead of thinking – exactly the wrong way to use our brains in this decision.

Sneaky and dishonorable should not trump the rights of Costa Mesa citizens to the best charter the committee can write. Regardless of how many feelings and concerns the committee identifies, discusses and processes, they’re charged to write the best charter they can. 

But start making it real

They need to start doing that.

Charter committee to do something soon

Same-old, same-old plus Delphi

Re: last night’s Charter Committee meeting. (Pilot article)

The visitors were the same folks we see at most government meetings. They seem to be a group, with rotating lectern assignments – to complain or protest. Those not assigned to speak, write and compare notes. TV coverage at Council meetings encourages more of them to speak, but it’s unclear if that’s the plan or just spontaneous responses to the cameras. Unsurprisingly, they spoke against writing a charter.

A union representative read a speech advocating “must use prevailing wage” in the charter. He cited unspecified studies that showed better quality of work with lower overall costs for some type(s) of union work compared to work by “imported” laborers and craftsmen.

Prevailing wage

This argument would suggest that business owners, contractors, laborers and craftsmen exhibit higher levels of skill, integrity, and pride in their work if they belong to a union. Under most prevailing wage rules, though, a contractor hiring non-union craftsmen would have to pay union wages and benefits and contributions to the union. This would presumably raise the skill, pride and integrity of the non-union workers.

The “prevailing wage” runs up the bill 20-40% to cover higher wages and benefits, generous pensions, union-workforce training programs, and union organizational expenses. It’s using tax money to finance a union business. Compare paying prevailing wage to paying a hospital marketing fee and an “association” fee, as well as your doctor’s fee, for your office visit.

Consensus building

Then a debate – no, sorry, this group doesn't debate. It achieves consensus. Oops, does this sound like the education “debates” that have helped guide California from near the top to near the bottom in public education? Or like some past U.S. administrations that sought consensus and developed manipulation to a fine art? (Delphi technique)

Manipulation by consensus building is codified in the Delphi technique, which is sometimes credited for the ongoing conversion of the United States from a Republic to a Participatory Democracy. It guides groups to an executive-defined conclusion.  Some educators believe it is the technique being used to drive education by bureaucratic rather than educational interests.

Is the group being “led” by a Delphi team, and more importantly, are they aware?

One meeting isn't enough to see if the technique is being used, but some processes last night suggest it is. As far as the members go, most seem benignly unaware. However, a few seem to deliberately use techniques designed for dealing with and overcoming the technique.

So, time will tell if the technique is used to force the committee toward a preconceived result, and if enough members will resolutely resist the manipulation – if it’s there.

Analysis paralysis

Another and perhaps more acute problem was clear. The committee is making lots of lists (they have cutesy names like “parking lots”). Its members defer to each other. Members ask “soft” questions. Members voice positive thoughts.

So far, that’s all they’re doing.

Blog Comments

Whether you agree or are outraged:

Please note that all comments to this blog will be answered. If you want your comments published, say so. If you want your remarks to remain anonymous to readers, just say so.

However, if you haven't enough courage of your convictions to identify yourself to me when you are communicating through the blog, your remarks will be ignored and deleted.

Intelligent argument is preferred, especially if you disagree with the point of the post. The key used to decide what is published is, "will it add something to the post?" So, thanks for "I agree" and "good post;" they are appreciated but they don't usually appear as comments.

The author of something to the effect of, "Your just in Riggys' back pocketbook and you guys should be real guilty when you back up to the troff and get paid off by those developers," didn't identify him or herself, for example. The viewpoint would have been worth discussing.

As an aside, I'll edit your remarks for grammar before publishing if you ask.

Thanks for your interest and comments; lively debate is fun.

Dennis

Young athletes learn -- and set examples for all of us

Footballers on the firing line

They exhibited mature, respectful, and supportive behavior while they felt excited and even when they didn't like the ideas being presented? Wouldn't it be nice to say that about a City Council meeting?

But this was a group of Estancia football players, their coaches, and some family and friends who provided rides. The group visited Artemis Defense Institute in Lake Forest to train on the simulators used by military and law enforcement groups. The training is available to civilians at this particular facility.

Not being drafted for SWAT

They weren't training to be adjuncts to the Costa Mesa Police Swat Team, although about a third indicated that they were interested in a law enforcement career, and over half indicated they were considering military service after finishing school.

They learned about firearms safety and developed marksmanship skill, but that wasn't the main point, either. The primary reason for the training was fun. And they had lots.

Self knowledge too

Another reason for training at the facility was to practice facing stress. The young men faced simulations of crisis situations to which they had to respond.

We have four basic responses to a crisis; fight, flee, posture (or bluff), and freeze. The training at Artemis helped them avoid the last response; they learned to remain aware of the situation and respond. Each trainee got a full evaluation and was helped to explore their perceptions under the stress and better ways to deal with the crisis – for each scenario.

Leaders set the example

Adults who transported the students observed or participated as they wished. One noteworthy observation: a parent whose son wasn't present today had transported students anyway. She said, “I won’t allow a gun in my house,” early in the training, yet she had transported students and was supporting the training. She modeled leadership principles of loyalty and keeping her commitments.

Two coaches faced an unfamiliar scenario while wearing a “shocker” that stings a trainee to simulate being injured; that is, being shot, when he fails to notice a sudden attack. They got shocked, to the delight of the students, one of whom commented, “Well, we’re probably going to run ten stair laps for this but it’s worth it” as he hooted at his coach’s “80,000 volt dance.”

Two senior coaches wore the shockers as they faced a more intricate scenario; they were playing the role of responding officers in a school shooting. The pre-event briefing by the Coach was instructive; “I’ll take right, you take left and shut up.” They exhibited sufficient teamwork and situational awareness to avoid shocks; no threat was missed in the stress of the situation. That was better than many police officers according to Artemis' Chief Instructor for the day.

Lessons Learned

The young men learned a little about firearms safety and marksmanship. They learned more about themselves and their feelings and reactions in highly stressful situations. And they were exposed to excellent adult leadership by the coaches, parents, friends and staff at Artemis.

That is, they got a lot more than a couple of pieces of pizza from their field trip to Artemis Defense Institute Monday.

It would be great if we could get CM4OE to sign up for football practice!

Brats and more brats

Murderous Brats

Zimmerman was acquitted, and a Black Panthers group “declared war” on whites. 

The Twitter account, managed by the group’s national chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, urged followers to “take to the streets [and] stay there. . . Were (sic) at war,” Shabbazz Tweeted. “Its (sic) silly and immoral to call for peace when war has been declared.”

Whatever YOU want trumps the law? That’s hubris, and unjustified hubris at that. Your individual desires aren't preeminent in the United States.

More self-absorbed arrogance

How about “. . . officials at the IRS usurping the rights of the American public . . .? Or the NSA invasion on the privacy of millions of unsuspecting citizens?” Or, the women throwing their feces and tampons at people to protest abortion laws in Texas?

Law applies to all

This country was founded on the principle that the law applies to all. Murdering people because they are different from you is murder. Spying on citizens because you can is spying. Assaulting people with your feces (like monkeys in a zoo) because society won’t fund your abortion is – assault.

The murderous and the rude wouldn't do it if they didn't think it worked. If it works it’s because we, as a society, pander to them. We treat them as a sub class that needs our help and approval.

Childish tantrums 

When a child screams and has a tantrum because parents won't let her eat a quart of ice cream for dinner, appropriate discipline is in order. There’s no need for upheaval, it’s just a child behaving childishly. If you don’t give in to the child it’s not because you hate them, it’s because they're behaving childishly and you're the adult.

The same applies to the tasteless, attention seeking behavior of the females in Texas. Punishing them doesn't mean that the sheriff hates women; it means that they are breaking the law by assaulting others.

To pander to people with such poor manners and acute hubris is silly. To do so because of cowardice is abominable (“Oh, dear, they’ll call me racist – or homophobic -- or chauvinistic.”).

They're criminals -- and brats

It looks like a lot of people need the adult equivalent of a spanking and being sent to their room without dinner. A child testing boundaries is understandable and tolerable; by the time a person reaches the Senate, Presidency, or adulthood such temperamental, self-centered behavior is NOT acceptable.

We believe it’s time for responsible citizens to “suck it up” and take responsibility for changing our society by changing what is acceptable -- for everyone. Pandering to the arrogant but noisy minority is counterproductive. The ill-mannered and evil should not be coddled. They won’t like being held responsible for what they do, but maybe they’ll learn a useful lesson.

Expect childish people to criticize you. It’s good for their health; while they are attacking you they aren't eating chips and watching sitcoms.

Guest Blog: Code Enforcement is flexing its muscle

Code Enforcement coming down hard 

Guest Blog

At the last City Council meeting a commenter noted, “Code Enforcement Is Heavy Handed” and is becoming known as the NHB “Neighborhood Harassment Bureau”. Ms. Genis said she was responsible for coining the NHB term.

After decades of inaction and years of accumulated blight citywide, I'm surprised that the commenter, who is a frequent critic of the blight, wouldn't be elated that Code Enforcement is finally doing something. I wonder if he expects code enforcement to spare the feelings of some while “draining the swamp” for others.

They didn't used to do anything to us

People are so used to being negligent in maintaining their property that the slightest pain causes an outcry.  And outcry they did. Unfortunately, some of the loudest outcry concerned errors; the city staff had failed to remove the names of property owners who had cleared their deficiencies, paid their fines, etc. In other words, Code Enforcement did their job, city staff failed.

In the past, Code Enforcement took the easy route first.  Instead of dealing with the glaring issues, they dealt with the small annoying things that had zero impact on the aesthetics of a property and neighborhood. They took pride in the number of cases they generated and closed.  It all amounted to very little change and an ever-worsening blight. 

Now we have a new direction and priorities.  We have Code Enforcement officers who are highly motivated to get results spearheading the attack on many very difficult problems.

Remember: Comments and guest blogs will be published anonymously if requested, and all comments will be answered; however, all comments must identify the sender in order to be answered or considered for publishing.

Delaying the Charter, North Korea style

Honest delays or chicanery?

Shakespeare titled one play, “Much Ado about Nothing,” and another “Tempest in a Teapot.” He could have been prescient about Costa Mesa’s Charter development. Let’s build a paradigm to illustrate.

Pretend that

An Explorer troop is planning a camping trip. They've been to a lake in the area before, but that campground is getting expensive and setting onerous rules. So, they decide to check a map, pencil in some routes to places they think they’ll want to go, and plan their trip.

One Explorer, though, is adamant: “Why do we need a map if we've been in that area before? Besides, a hiker’s body was just recovered from the desert; he had a map, and look what happened to him. Just name one lake and one peak you think we should visit and can reach in a day’s hike – if you can’t then why are we buying a map? I want a cost effectiveness study of buying a map versus just hiking in a direction that looks right – since we've all been there before.”

From paradigm to Costa Mesa 

Sounds pretty silly, doesn't it? But if you substitute “charter” for map, and “Bell” for the hiker who died in the desert, the nonsense starts to sound familiar. Add “effectiveness study” for a charter in place of the “cost effectiveness” of a map, and the Costa Mesa (charter-related) foolishness appears in all its glory.

Delay under any other name takes as long

One member of the Charter Committee is still striving for a “needs study,” perhaps to be made by his business. A frequent complainer brought the issue to the last City Council meeting, complete with video clips of an informal remark by the Mayor. Their premise; the Mayor’s casual remark indicated that he wanted them to study whether a Charter is needed before they started to write one.

 

The Committee was formed by a Council Resolution specifying that their job is to write a charter. So, why the foot dragging?

Delay until you have what you want

This delaying tactic sounds like what was used by a couple of (elected) Charter Commissions; they debated and argued until their time ran out, then dissolved. These commissions were dominated by public employee unions (associations). They got what they wanted: no charter.

The tactic was also used by North Korea to negotiate nuclear weapons. They insisted on debating schedules, formats, and even seating; they debated anything to add to the delay. After they built and tested their nukes they thumbed their noses at the naïve west: “we got what we wanted, go home.”

Stupid or dishonest

It seems specious, at best, and maybe even duplicitous. Would an honest Costa Mesan accept responsibility to write a charter if they wanted to prevent writing a charter? 

That certainly raises questions of integrity and honor. One would think that finding work with a different committee would be better than compromising their honor.

Or maybe they adopted the North Koreans’ tactics and ethics: the only thing that matters is getting your way. That’s the philosophy of rogues worldwide. There is no honor among scoundrels.

Costa Mesa "rules of order?"

Rules to encourage decorum

City Council meetings proceed more efficiently if they follow procedural rules. One set of rules is “Robert’s Rules of Order” often referred to as “parliamentary procedure.”

Robert’s Rules specify that some procedural concerns are so critical that they can stop debate to be immediately considered. An example would be “point of order” if the discussion veered off the subject. This demands that the chair direct discussion back to the issue. “Point of order” is used to correct deviation from good procedure.

Made, sustained and ignored

We heard a “Point of Order” from Mr. Monahan, which was sustained – another Council member was digressing from the issue to defend what she perceived to be personal criticism. Once the Mayor sustained the point and reminded her, she went back to explaining why she did what she did – still off the point. And, the Mayor didn’t enforce the rule, he just let her finish.

One subject at a time

Robert’s Rules also specify that comments, once a subject is under discussion, must pertain to that subject until it is acted on. This forces progress, item by item.

Concerns about matters that aren't on the agenda can be brought to the Council’s attention at the beginning of Council meetings. This opens the Council and audience to some useful three-minute appeals – and to some three-minute, most often pointless, harangues. (For example, a complaint about a decision made at a previous Council meeting.) During discussion of agenda items, though, comments are limited to the item at hand.

City Council meetings were characterized by yelling and demands in the past, both from and to the dais. That has abated, but it reappears; later in Tuesday's meeting an escalating argument between the Mayor and a frequent commenter arose about whether she could discuss

whatever she wanted. It took a fair amount of yelling back and forth, but the Mayor eventually applied Roberts’ Rules and the commenter was constrained to the subject.

Why not just make our own 

If yelling and ignoring Roberts’ Rules are how we are going to do business, maybe we need new rules. Remember the Council candidate who asserted last fall that he did and will continue to “shout down” people he thinks are wrong, bad or misguided?* Perhaps Costa Mesa can codify his ideas into a new set of rules; the “Costa Mesa Rules;” “whoever shouts loudest and longest wins.”

 

Until the new rules are adopted it would be nice if the people complaining about their neighbors not following the fireworks rules would also insist that the frequent complainers follow Roberts’ Rules. It’s only fair.

*From a letter in the Daily Pilot: “And I will shout him down wherever he appears in Costa Mesa to spew his divisive rhetoric.” His remarks concerned shouting and singing to drown out a speaker at the public lectern during a Council meeting. (Letter in Pilot)