From years of practicing law, Mr. Silbiger says the research into the proper interpretation needs to be exhausting. “You have to consult with other attorneys,” he said. ”You have to look at the history of the law. You have to look at the intentions of the lawmakers in enacting the law. You have to see whether there are any court cases that are the same or similar. A whole series of checks is to be made. It is not the quick way, but it is the effective way.”
A Night of Errors?
The mayor asserted that mistakes linked to the vigorously disputed main seat on the Light Rail Committee were made at the Council meeting of April 24. On the Council’s annual Reorganization Night, when numerous committee appointments are decided, the Light Rail Committee was listed among them, for unknown reasons, even though no mention of a vote was made, unlike the other committee assignments. For Mr. Silbiger, that constituted the item “not being agendized.” He said that “it took me by surprise that there was even the mention of a vote because there was no indication that there was going to be a vote. I thought it was just mentioned as another committee Council members are on, not one that we would select from this time. I always knew that (alternate) Carol Gross and I were appointed to four-year terms. Since we are still on the Council, we have three more years of our term left.”
Who Trumps Whom?
At Monday’s meeting, after having concluded his own research into the state Legislature’s law governing creation of the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority in building light rail, Mr. Silbiger expects to hear Carol Schwab, the City Attorney, say that state law trumps “Culver City procedure.” Culver City, he said, “does not make legal interpretations on its own on state laws. We need to look at what the lawmakers meant when they created the Expo law for everybody. The attorneys I am talking about do analysis on each law in Sacramento. They work for the state Legislature. They are objective and impartial. They said clearly that (selection to the Light Rail Committee) is for a term of four years. These attorneys tell Los Angeles city, Los Angeles County, Santa Monica what the law says. In the material that we had for (the April 24 meeting), it said that we had a four-year term, that we have to appoint for a four-year term, which is what we did (last year).”
For emphasis, Mr. Silbiger repeated his contention that voices from Sacramento are more appropriately qualified to define the meaning of the light rail organizational law. “The interpretation is more than what we read the laws to be,” he said. “The attorneys have a much deeper understanding, based on the intention of the lawmakers and the other factors I have talked about. The law says that each member is appointed for four years. There is no way of changing the law unless the statute is changed. As long as we have the law, we are appointed for four years. Carol Gross will be gone in two years (term-limited), and they will have to replace her. But that is all. I can be replaced in three years, if they wish to. But right now we are on for four years.”
