[ad_1]
Elected officials in Cypress and Stanton made it easier for publicly policy discussions to happen by somewhat streamlining agenda-setting requirements.
It comes amid concerns the previous requirements were too restrictive and potentially silenced majority city council members.
The agenda-setting overhauls also come after the Anaheim City Council effectively silenced minority members in 2019 when the Angel Stadium negotiations were kicking off, shutting down debates about the stadium.
It wasn’t until an FBI corruption probe surfaced in 2022 that Anaheim City Council members nixed the requirement of having two council colleagues sign off on an agenda proposal. That same year, the stadium sale collapsed.
[Read: Unsilencing the Minority: Anaheim Residents Might be Able to Push for More Policy Discussions]
At the Cypress City Council’s Jan. 27 meeting, elected officials voted to remove a policy that required two council members sign off on an agenda proposal. Now, it only requires one council member’s approval.
Proposed by Mayor David Burke earlier this month, It passed 4-1, with Councilmember Bonnie Peat the dissenting vote.
Under the new policy, council members may place an item on the agenda by submitting a detailed proposal with a requested date and securing the support of one other council member.
Previously,council members needed backing from up to two colleagues, depending on whether the item would be up for discussion or action.
The overhaul addresses longstanding concerns over who controls the agenda, which has historically pitted council members against one another.
Burke and former Councilwoman Frances Marquez, opposed the previous policy and a past attempt to limit how many agenda items council members could introduce per year, citing transparency concerns.
“I was the only member in the minority and had no ability to place items on the agenda to help residents,” Marquez said in an email, reflecting on her time on the council.
Although she said council members should be able to unilaterally add items, she is “pleased with the passage of Mayor Burke’s proposal.”
At the meeting, Peat argued to keep the existing policy, voicing concerns about reducing the city manager’s role, stating limiting staff involvement could deprive both council members and the public from thoroughly preparing for an agendized item, leading to premature deliberations.
“I depend on our city manager,” Peat said, “he’s definitely more qualified than I am with regards to city business and what we’re negotiating.”
While ultimately supporting the change in policy, Councilmember Scott Minikus, also expressed some reservations with it, claiming there’s room to abuse it.
Supporters of the new policy, including Burke, claim it would empower elected officials to advocate for their constituents without additional bureaucratic barriers.
“It feels pretty awful to get elected to office by people of Cypress, that people come to you with their concerns and try to address them and you can’t even get it on the agenda at a city council meeting,” Burke said, reflecting on how he struggled to get items on the agenda his first two years on council.
Stanton Overhauls Agenda-Setting Rules
On Jan. 28, Stanton Mayor David Shawver also proposed amending the city’s policy as an effort to streamline the agenda-setting process, seeking to eliminate the requirement for a vote to add actionable items to the agenda.
Mayor Shawver said his goal is to prioritize the voices of each council member and the districts they represent.
“I think it’s important that each and every one of you have the ability to put something on the agenda without having a solid vote on it,” Shawver said at the meeting.
The current policy requires two steps.
Council members are required to complete a form and verbally request to add an item to the agenda during a city council meeting. The city clerk then adds these items to the agenda for discussion at the next meeting.
However, council members cannot take action on discussion items.
Council members currently need a majority vote to direct staff to conduct research and prepare a staff report. If the item receives a majority vote, it will be added to the agenda for the next meeting for public hearing, where action can be taken on the item
Councilman John Warren said he felt the city’s policy was already lax and did not need to be changed.
“I think we have a rather lenient policy as is,” said Warren. “I’m trying to figure out what is the problem we’re attempting to solve here.”
Mayor Shawver argued that this policy change would not only improve efficiency but also transparency.
“If a majority said we don’t want that on the agenda, it would eliminate putting it on the agenda and public input,” said Shawver in a phone interview.
He added that the policy change would protect the public’s right to be a part of the conversation.
“Otherwise, whoever was trying to get an item on the agenda would have to go out, reach out to the people in the community, get them to come down and ask to have it put on the agenda,” Shawver said.
Councilman Donald Torres said the voting process ensures items added to the agenda are also a priority for at least one other council member.
“My worry is that someone would infinitely agendize one item, and it infinitely gets shut down,” said Torres.
Stanton city staff was requested to prepare a report on how North OC cities add agenda items and present it at a future city council meeting.
Related
[ad_2]
Source link
