Staring down multiple heartfelt accusations that they had blown off a solemn pledge to the public, four of the five members of the City Council stoutly stood their marked-out ground at last evening’s meeting.
For the second evening in a row, Meghan Sahli-Wells – the City Council’s lone ardent gun control advocate – tried and failed to even remotely interest her colleagues in plumbing the depths of much more snug gun legislation.
With the three of the most popular populist causes of the day – including fracking and a smoke-free home environment – heavily overshadowing the supposed main event, election of new leaders, Council backing of out-of-town gun control proposals was the tallest loser before a standing room only crowd in Council Chambers.
Margo Bennett and Carlene Brown, two of Culver City’s most vociferous believers in severely tightening gun laws, tried their oratorical best to convince outgoing Mayor Andy Weissman, incoming Mayor Jeff Cooper, Jim Clarke and Mehaul O’Leary that they were breaking faith with the community by ignoring a late-winter vow to thoroughly air on the dais proposed gun law changes.
When Mr. Weissman countered that the Council indeed had stayed true, Ms. Brown – whose mic eventually was cut off when she far exceeded her three-minute time limit – argued that the only discussed portion was the Mayors Against Illegal Guns letter to the White House that Mr. Weissman previously had signed. Ms. Brown said she expected aggressive exchanges by the Council on the other parts, and that was where the unusual sallying was left, motionless.
Words That Did Not Impress
Ms. Bennett also unsuccessfully exceeded her time limit, dramatically revisiting the names and ages of every person in the country she said had been killed over the weekend in acts of gun violence.
Somewhat mysteriously denied an open-faced, wide-ranging discussion on four sections of gun legislation at the previous meeting, as had been anticipated, Ms. Sahli-Wells came away stunned, she later said, from that meeting.
She questioned at the time whether her colleagues had been prepared for a probing exchange. They had not, she concluded.
Framing her response sensitively last evening with numerous like-minded persons in the audience closely monitoring each breath, Ms. Sahli-Wells selected a diplomatic pathway.
She chose a more general comment rather than aiming blame.
“It is true that I was very disappointed (by the outcome) at the last meeting,” she said, “because we were not able to vote on three of the four (gun control) items on the agenda.
“I would be happy to re-agendize since we had agreed to discuss four parts.”
“Is that a motion?” asked Mayor Weissman.
“Yes.”
“Is there a second?”
Stony silence.
And that was the cemetery where the disputed subject was laid to rest – wordlessly, interestingly enough, emphatically without rancor.
Almost instantly, the Council’s joie de vivre was restored as the buzz of other business was debated.
None of the four Council members not named Sahli-Wells chose to explain why he held his fire on the stormy legislation.
