Silliness In Newport Beach
Posted by: Jubal | 07/25/2008 1:07 PM
Here's an interesting story from yesterday's Daily Pilot.
An agenda item at this past Tuesday's Newport Beach Council meeting dealt with Chapter 1.30.030 of the municipal code:
According to the DP, Newport Beach City Clerk LaVonne Harkless "said enforcement of the code is just about impossible -- not to mention the law may be a violation of the constitution."
How refreshing.
But here's the best part of the article:
The closer:
An agenda item at this past Tuesday's Newport Beach Council meeting dealt with Chapter 1.30.030 of the municipal code:
Any person distributing two hundred (200), or more, substantially similar campaign documents within fourteen (14) days of any general or special municipal election shall, within two hours after distribution of the first document, file ten copies of the campaign document with the City Clerk accompanied by a notice of mailing or other evidence confirming the date and time of the first distribution. The provisions of this section shall apply to each initial distribution of more than two hundred substantially similar campaign documents but shall not apply to any distribution of campaign documents after copies have been filed with the City Clerk.The purpose is to forewarn the targets of a late "hit piece" and give them the opportunity to respond.
According to the DP, Newport Beach City Clerk LaVonne Harkless "said enforcement of the code is just about impossible -- not to mention the law may be a violation of the constitution."
How refreshing.
"City Atty. Robin Clauson advised the council to repeal the law, which had been in effect since 1990, because it may be a violation of the First Amendment -- so the council repealed it."Even more refreshing. Shirley Grindle and Mario Mainero, take note.
"But former Councilman Dick Nichols argued that City Council members might be doing this to give themselves the opportunity to use "hit pieces" against their opponents."No, we wouldn't want the allow the rough-and-tumble of campaigns proceed unhindered, annd allow smarter campaigns to get the better of less nimble ones.
But here's the best part of the article:
"To avoid being accused of doing so, Steve Rosansky -- who is up for reelection -- abstained from the vote so no one could use it against him. Right after that, Councilman Keith Curry -- also up for reelection -- followed suit and abstained."How's that for a couple of profiles in courage? That's a terrific precedent to set: I will henceforth abstain from voting on any item that may be used against me in a campaign. Kind of undercuts the rational for being on the Council, doesn't it?
The closer:
"Mayor Ed Selich -- also running to keep his seat this year -- then countered by saying, "I am also up for reelection this year, but I am going to vote anyway." And he did."I'm not a Selig fan, but he must be given his due here for doing what council members are elected to do: governing and voting their minds even when if others try to misrepresent their actions.
CATEGORY:
2008 Elections, Politics Behind the Orange Curtain
Jubal/Matt,
Agree with you that councilmembers should vote on items, especially the tough ones. Too many electeds talk tough to get elected then turn tails when the job gets tough and one has to put themselves and there viewpoints out there for all to see and evaluate.
That's the job!
I'll add that the CM did nobody a favor by bringing this up during an election period. This kind of issue should not be dealt with while up against hard dates of an election. The 1st amendment issue is dealt with in some communities by making these practices policy statements only. Ordinance only makes City open to a legal challenge.