One of Vice Mayor Gary Silbiger’s favorite critical targets for the last six years set off a firestorm at last night’s City Council meeting.
It seems that while rummaging around in the records attic at City Hall the other day, city staffers made what several Council members regarded as a stunning discovery:
On an evening largely devoted to esoteric bookkeeping matters, staffers reported two methods have been available for agendizing a topic contrary to conventional wisdom that there was only one.
City Hall research revealed that in 1992, six or seven Council editions ago, members decided that when an individual member wanted to agendize a particular item, he had two choices:
• He could file a written request with the city’s chief executive (known in those days as the Chief Administrative Officer).
• Or, more simply and directly, he could seek support from two other members on the dais.
As far as the present City Council knew, the only choice was the latter option, three votes to agendize.
The Reaction
Unsurprisingly, when a City Hall staffer read aloud the staff’s findings last night, it was closely followed by a clap of thunder — from both the dais and from the audience.
Vice Mayor Silbiger, who was vexed and frustrated, has regularly griped that requiring three votes places an unfair burden on the petitioner.
Meanwhile, in the sparse audience, activist Tom Camarella, a close friend of Mr. Silbiger, gazed in the direction of City Manager Jerry Fulwood and rather forcefully demanded an immediate accounting:
Whose fault is this that the wider policy has reposed out of view all these years? Mr. Camarella asked.
He bit off his words as if he were chomping on a two-by-four.
“Please, someone tell me what department is responsible for researching this issue,” he practically begged. “You can’t just say (requiring three votes) is the way we’ve always done it. That doesn’t work, folks.
How Can This Happen?
How can a policy be in place for nearly two decades, critics wondered, while nobody in Council Chambers had any idea — until this meeting — that a single Council member could agendize an item without any help?
From the audience, Karlo Silbiger and Rich Waters said that it was important for minority viewpoints to be heard, and that a Council member should need to attract only one other vote to get an item on the agenda.
Loudly and irritatedly, Vice Mayor Silbiger has groused for more than six years about how difficult it is for him to get a topic agendized when a simple pathway always was available.
Mr. Camarella and some Council members wondered how the single-member policy could be in effect and still remain a secret.
Previous Council members have been aware of the two-pronged policy, but none of the five members of the current Council knew about it.
Finally, it was the City Manager’s turn to speak.
Throughout Mr. Fulwood’s almost six-year tenure in the chief executive’s chair, the requirement for a petitioner to attract two additional votes has been broadly regarded as virtually immutable law.
A Different Fulwood
His reputation for unshakeable coolness under fire took a hit last night, the second time in recent months his stoic facade has wrinkled.
He appeared to be extremely angry, although Fulwood anger is more muted than most peoples’. His voice quavered and cracked.
Almost simultaneously, he assumed an aggressive stance and a defensive position.
Mr. Fulwood’s response seemed to say that the lost or misplaced policy was something that just randomly happened. This is not a unique occurrence in an environment where there are hundreds if not thousands of regulations and amended rules, overseen by a modest-sized, often exhausted staff.
First, Mr. Fulwood defended his people.
“The comments I am hearing do not value staff,” he said. “This is not the first time we have brought (previously unknown policies) to the attention of the City Council.
“We don’t hide anything. We are transparent. We bring information forward.”
Mr. Fulwood said that tracking down and producing vast amounts of information is “challenging” for his pocket-sized staff. He repeated the term “challenging” several times to emphasize his point that staff is close to being overworked.
What Mr. Fulwood surely wanted to say, but did not, was the following:
Whether city policy calls for one, two or three votes for a member to get an item agendized, in fact the arcane debate is really only a serious matter for one member, Mr. Silbiger.
The subject is a yawn, effectively, for Mayor Scott Malsin, and members Andy Weissman and Mehaul O’Leary. It is slightly more vital than that to member Chris Armenta.
Hardly ever does a Councilman seek to agendize a matter. When there is a request, the petitioner’s wish usually is granted — if his name is not Silbiger.
After 70 minutes of wrangling, Mr. Weissman suggested that members affirm the two-pronged discovery as Council policy with the proviso that a newly formed subcommittee evaluate the subject further.
Earlier in the meeting, Mr. Armenta and Mr. Weissman had been appointed to a new subcommittee that is charged with studying the present format of the Council agenda.
COUNCIL NOTES —In recent years, Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday has pushed the regular Monday Council meeting off until Tuesday. Not this year. In honor of Inauguration Day next Tuesday, over the objection of Mr. Silbiger, there will be no City Council meeting…
Karlo Silbiger said that when the Culver City Democratic Club meets at 7 on Wednesday evening at the Vets Auditorium, the Democratic contenders for the Community College Board will make presentations…
