Mr. Marchutt:

It has in the past been custom to summarize discussion in any posted meeting, attributing remarks and questions to participants “as given,” then summarizing vote tallies by issue, with any justifications offered. This is perhaps the chief duty of the City Clerk (formerly “Secretary,” a subtle change).

There is also to be either a full transcription or tape of conversations in Executive Sessions, which is held in a normally inaccessible archive, except by Council or Court Request–to preserve a level of confidentiality for things such as Appointed Personnel Evaluations and pay scales, negotiations with parties or pending Court actions.

These are to be certifiable for use in Court proceedings or related purposes, by order or subpoena. The Clerk is the custodian of all such archives and other records such as campaign accounts, contributions, expenditures and balances, all of which can be had through any citizen’s Freedom of Public Information Request. If there is a will, the process of disclosure can be made maddeningly slow and cumbersome, in some cases even expensive.

Because of their confidentiality, Executive Sessions have been used to camouflage items governing bodies just don’t want discussed “in front of God and everybody.” The least excuse is confidentiality for some party on request, however thin the need. The greatest abuse, in our time, is using the “one-size-fits-all” designation of “National Security,” which classifies the proceedings and any handy side discussion not “in the direct interest.”

In the case of how any Member votes on one or more iterations of an issue, the ground may be tricky as well. An experienced Member with a bit of the demagogue in him may choose to 1)propose an agenda item or speak on an issue with the deliberate aim of making others show their cards and, finally, vote against it himself, for the sake of being able to cite a sterling record.

In the case of a person more politician than public ser- vant, it is not wholly uncommon for a Member to “abstain”
on an issue merely as a CYA move so as to lie in the middle and claim either “pro” or “con” sentiments, or both, as fits the purpose. Abstention, however, by the rule of parliamentary order, is treated as a formal vote which mus accompany a valid reason for casting aside the duty to vote on every issue.

Ignorance of the issue is a handy, if slightly degrading way to justify, but often one gets away with much less, and can feel fairly surely the breach won’t be called to light. A sounder approach is to document a conflict of personal and magisterial interest: “I work for or with the entity being discussed, and might profit directly or indirectly from my own vote, or that perception may be there.” “I have access to inside information which is not being made public, and this may affect my strict impartiality.” I gather that SM has drifted into a rather less formal mode, so abstentions can be common and not particularly enforced.

The best guise of all for the wily politico is to pre- determine that he/she really has sentiment, perhaps with the less popular or more popular approach to an issue, and to disguise that fact by observing which way the vote is likely, then voting opposite his/her true leaning. The record will then show that Member “X” was with OR against the Majority against this terrible decision, not the actual person who pushed it or benefited by it. This is most often how political favors, frauds, bribes, paybacks and unsuspecting-voter support figure in the mix. Just say one thing and do another–little sleight of hand. One must be there and watch the vote to catch this trick, and be on the other side of the vote to raise the issue aloud.

I likes me a legislator who votes and states in clear, plain English how the vote is justified, FOR THE RECORD, which belongs to the people.

The discussion is timely, since a seminar in voter fraud and betrayal plays out more vigorously in WDC every day.
Very few of our leaders, it seems, have clean hands in the matter. It’s called “the old Capitol Two-Step.”

www . cityoflakewood.us/departments/city-council/voting-record.html

I’d just like to see a running list, from which I could navigate to agendas, minutes and videos, for more information.

The present reimbursement system already delineates the terms of reimbursement allowable for personal expenses incurred pursuant to public duties, as opposed to “expenditures for personal benefit or private business.” All expenses, including those from campaign funds, are required to be documented regularly with receipts (wherever available) and explained for the public benefit and to assure legality.

A major issue is whether the community wishes to begin “professionalizing” local officials, an idea which certainly has proved bittersweet where it is done in relatively small communities, not to mention at the metro, state and national levels. ‘Nuf sed on THAT boil on the nose of integrity.

Plainly, however, serving as an elected official in a moderate-size town just ain’t a full time job, especially in a Manager/Council format, where the Mayor has only a few stated duties and no status or responsibility much greater than the other six. The City Manager is to “administrate,” and to carry out the policies set out by Council–they do the thinking, the Staff does the work.

Maybe its there already and I just don’t see it.

“The amendment of Section 3.04 of the City Charter to provide that city council compensation shall be set in a public forum by ordinance of the city council.”

No additional clarification of the proposed amendment, just that sentence. If a voter did not dig deeper, they might think this simply represented an improvement to an existing process, that perhaps council compensation was currently being set in a private forum, maybe not even coming up for public vote or awareness.

The language to Proposition 5 should have clarified the “from” and “to” elements, it should have made clear that a vote “Yes” means the voter is asking for a position currently unpaid to now become a paid position, and for the people who could be receiving the new compensation to be the same people who decide how much it should be.

As noted, voters defeated a similar proposition in 2006, but that is because it was clear what they were saying “Yes” or “No” to, since the language of the amendment included specific numbers for compensation, $100 per meeting not to exceed $300 a month.

And, given the economy is very different now in 2009 versus 2006, economic times are much more challenging for many of the citizens of San Marcos, it is my opinion that now is not the time for City Council to start paying themselves. Proposition 5 as approved in the November 4, 2008 election does not require the City Council to start paying themselves any compensation. They can choose to pay zero dollars compensation at present.

Having said all of that, I do respect, acknowledge, and appreciate the significant amount of time our elected leaders invest in their attempts to help and positively contribute to the future of our fine community!