City Managers View Point - Not a Legal Opinion - What Laws Are You Referring To?

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Interim City Manager Adam Politzer,

Thank you for taking the time to address this important matter in your busy schedule. Your dedication and commitment to resolving this issue are truly appreciated.

I want to warmly welcome you as a valuable addition to our team at City Hall. Your experience is highly valued, and I am confident that your presence will have a positive impact. I particularly resonated with your statement during the recent city council meeting, where you emphasized the importance of city managers remaining in the background.

In my view, the previous two city managers lacked the necessary management skills, which unfortunately reflected poorly on the staff and city. However, I am genuinely excited to have you on board, as I believe your years of knowledge and expertise will greatly assist us in overcoming the challenges we currently face.

Regarding your email response, I want to let you know that I respect your view. However, I must reiterate that according to the Brown Act, the League of California Cities/Your Role as a Local Elected Official - reopening public comment is not solely within the Mayor's discretion, and is not as straightforward as you mention in your email. It requires a collective decision and cannot be done unilaterally. Any Council Member may move to suspend the rules if necessary to accomplish a matter that would otherwise violate the rules. The motion requires a second, and a majority vote is required for passage. No such motion was made or a vote taken.

My primary concern lies in the recurrence of this issue, as it resurfaced during our most recent city council gathering. Reopening public comment improperly raises significant concerns regarding fairness and equal access, as it may mislead certain residents, both in person and online, into thinking they have already been allowed to voice their opinions, with some of them leaving the meeting after they speak. Arbitrarily reopening public comment at a later time could benefit one side and undermine public trust and accountability.

It's a little challenging to summarize, but during the Clayton City Council meeting on April 16, 2024, Mayor Diaz and the council did not seek guidance or input from the city attorney. Surprisingly, she willingly interrupted the discussion when public comment had been closed by the Mayor.

In my view, the City Attorney acts as a parliamentary advisor for the City, providing advice and clarifying situations based on Roberts Rules of Order, and California Open Meeting Laws. While the Mayor has the final say on parliamentary procedure, the Council can question and challenge those decisions.

Many cities establish rules of procedure to ensure the effective and fair conduct of City Council meetings, which helps promote public confidence. If our city does not have such documented procedures, I would strongly recommend creating them.

For reference, I would like to know what law(s) you are referring to that gives the Mayor discretionary authority to reopen public comment - as it would be helpful to know this in the future.

I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this whenever you have a moment.

Best regards,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate