Council Process Almost Short-circuited

By Dave Henderson

Comments to City Council, June 6, 2007:

I am continuing to respond to this Council’s refusal, on February 7, to even consider and discuss, much less vote upon, a resolution about withdrawing US armed forces from Iraq.

On 5 previous occasions, I discussed reasons given on that occasion by councilmembers Cohen, Sebastiani, and Sanders. Tonight, related to Item 6B on the agenda, I want to address the reprehensible ploy engineered by Mayor Cohen, and agreed to by Mr. Sebastiani and Ms Sanders, which overturned the traditional practice for councilmembers placing items on the City Council agenda. I want to urge you to return to that former practice.

By not allowing a councilmember to directly place an item on the agenda for discussion and eventual action, you are, in effect, frustrating the democratic system in Sonoma and literally disenfranchising the voters of this city.

Each member here has been elected by the voters of the city at large, who have expressed faith in his or her position on current issues, and in his or her personal and political judgment. For three of you to decide to reject agendizing an item proposed by another member amounts to denying official voice to that member and, hence, denying a voice to the voters he is representing. If those who elected him are unhappy with the issues he is sponsoring, they will decide that at the next election. That is not for you to decide.

When any three or four members now or in the future, in reaction to issues that are either seen as too liberal, or too conservative, or too outrageous, whether that issue is immigration or the Nativity scene in the Plaza or whatever, when three members can deprive another member of his or her opportunity to present a measure to this Council for consideration, that truly smacks of an anti-democratic cabal determined to keep certain members gagged and under their control. I find that outrageous and I find it hard to believe that three members of this Council, in the City of Sonoma, in 2007, could perpetrate such a blatant injustice on the city.

Finally, I have to wonder at the reason behind such a maneuver.

I realize that at least two members will oppose any so-called national issues. But why would they not simply allow the issue to be presented, and then vote it down?

The only thing I can come up with is that by not admitting the issue to the agenda, in this case the Iraq Resolution, you insulated yourselves from having to stand up and actually cast a Yes or a No vote, and from thus experiencing, either presently or in the future, the consequences of that vote. I’m sorry if that seems harsh, but you have not given us any reason for that maneuver--that I am aware of, at least--, and I can conceive of no other valid reason. If you do have other reasons, then you have done yourselves a disservice by resorting to a measure that creates doubts about your justification.

I urge to you to formally take steps to ensure that such a procedure is never resorted to again on this Council.


Editor’s note: At the end of this meeting the council voted 3-2 to restore the long standing process by which a council member can bring any item to a council agenda thereby opening it up for discussion by the council and the public. Legally this process is required by the Brown Act, which governs publicly elected body’s proceedings. This legally binding process was vehemently opposed by council members Sanders and Sebastiani who labeled it a “tyranny of the minority.”
Their objective was to have a vote regarding an agendized item before any discussion took place by which a majority against the item would effectively kill it then and there. By so doing the public and the other council members would not be able to hear and discuss the item. In any event the law (Brown Act), fairness, respect for the public’s right to comment, and common sense prevailed.