|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Editor’s note: Paragraphs at the end in italics were added after original publication.
The Pleasanton City Council May 23 workshop on “Norms and Code of Conduct” could have been a positive turn for the council that has been referred to as a “circus” by some people outside of the community.
Unfortunately, this workshop was not about the rude and sometimes hostile treatment of one councilmember, Vice Mayor Jack Balch. It wasn’t about discussing and establishing guidelines to force everyone to act like adults. This meeting was about how to muzzle Balch.
Balch is usually the dissenting “one” in the many, many 4-1 council votes. He doesn’t agree with the council majority of Mayor Karla Brown and Councilmembers Valerie Arkin, Jeff Nibert and Julie Testa on many decisions they are making.
Not only does Balch make his opinions known on the dais (when he’s allowed), he has the audacity to explain his reasons off the dais by posting his thoughts on social media, where he can’t be shut down.
Once we found out about the special meeting (the agenda was not emailed as others are) and tracked down the staff report (which was with archived packets), we hoped the issue of the embarrassing treatment of Balch by Brown and Testa would be stopped.
Instead, it was about why Balch should stop posting on social media, especially when he doesn’t agree with the majority.
Balch was called “disrespectful” by Arkin because of a Facebook post about the budget. He explained that he did not agree with how the budget was balanced with vacant positions, which is a departure from previous budgets. He also questioned spending over $10 million on discretionary amenities when the city needs to invest in a solution for clean water.
Arkin also said Balch reposting Pleasanton Weekly publisher Gina Channell Wilcox’s May 12 column, “Will Pleasanton council be fiscally responsible and prioritize reliable water supply?”, was disrespectful and contained “misinformation,” which is one of Arkin’s favorite buzzwords to go to, even when everything is factually accurate.
Balch must have seen this meeting for what it was, though, because he started questioning vague words like “respect” and “positive”.
“How are we going to judge ‘be positive’?” Balch asked. “How is that measured?”
He was told by Testa to not “overthink” it.
But if reposting a column is disrespectful, is disagreeing with the majority negative?
Brown pointed out the town of Danville’s code, which is one of the documents included in the staff report as an example, states that once a vote is taken, councilmembers shouldn’t “discredit the decision or criticize (their) colleagues for having made it.”
“Facebook posts that are disparaging to others are public documents and it doesn’t look (professional) if we’re slamming each other,” Brown said. “We should look unified.”
“I believe our community is better because there is full and frank debate,” Balch countered. He later added, “I’ve seen better things produced from this city when the dissenting opinion is folded into the outcome.”
Balch does not “slam” others, or even criticize individuals. He does take issue with the decisions and methodically explains why. This is his right and responsibility.
If he’s not allowed to disagree with the majority after a vote, Balch might never be able to make his opinions known.
We have seen time and again how issues are rushed to a vote — possibly to stifle discussion of opposing opinions or maybe to just hurry things along because the majority already decided what the vote would be. Sometimes it feels almost scripted. Sometimes it feels like they put plants in the audience to speak (or to send emails) to make it appear they have a lot of support for their vote.
That’s the way it felt when Brown, Arkin and Testa voted in a district election map that was clearly not the fairest for the community. It did not distribute population or use major thoroughfares as well as other maps, and it split a neighborhood in two. But it benefited an incumbent councilmember that made up the majority.
Another vote that felt scripted is when the majority unexpectedly tabled the Lions Wayside and Delucchi Parks Master Plan that was desired by thousands and decades in the making.
Another questionable incident occurred after the staff report on the city budget during the May 16 meeting. Balch said he had a few questions for staff, and Brown responded by asking if he had talked with staff prior to the meeting — which, of course, he had, but that wasn’t the point.
Councilmembers sometimes ask questions during meetings not for their own benefit but so the audience has the information and to spur discussion. By her response, Brown gave the impression she wasn’t interested in informing the audience or having a conversation about a precariously balanced budget, a worrisome issue with supplying clean water to residents during the summer months and more than $10 million earmarked for an unnecessary skate park and renovation of a historic property.
These attempts to shut down Balch are recognized by more than just our staff. During public comment May 23, community members (who were unaware of the meeting until they read our preview story) referenced this, as well as the “abhorrent” behavior and “argumentative” nature of the council majority.
“Mayor Brown, you have absolutely shut down other members. Just shut them down, and that’s not OK,” Vicki LaBarge said. “Councilmember Testa, you held up your hand to another member to shut them down. That is wrong. That is just wrong.”
Linda Kelly also called out the majority members on their treatment of Balch, saying council meetings are “painful” to watch.
“Anyone with even a casual acquaintance with council proceedings understands the current administration has a four-to-one majority. As such, one expects most of the votes to go the way they do,” Kelly said. “What one does not expect is the snarky remarks, eye rolling, attempts to shut the minority member down, ridicule and demean him and make him look bad at every turn.”
These behaviors do not lead to the achievement of one of the suggested goals, “To inspire public confidence in our city government.”
Transparency inspires confidence. Encouraging debate and dissent inspires confidence. Being open to alternatives and compromise inspires confidence.
Summarily dismissing concerns of colleagues, staff and the public does not inspire confidence. Calling reasonable, logical explanations of an opposing opinion “disrespectful” and “disparaging” does not inspire confidence.
Seeming to have the discussion scripted and the outcome of a vote decided well before the meeting does not inspire confidence. We aren’t the only ones who notice that, either.
“The appearance too often is that decisions have been made prior to entering the chamber and no amount of reasonable discussion will sway that decision,” Kelly said. “The result is not always a positive outcome based on what is best for the city, and that should be your guiding light.”
Testa brought up that many municipalities have codes of conduct and that these guidelines should have been in place in Pleasanton “years if not decades ago.”
We agree, but would like to see more concrete terms than “show respect” and “be positive”, which are very subjective and can be interpreted in different ways by different people in different situations.
We also agree with Kelly that decisions should be based on what is best for the city and a majority of its residents.
Perhaps the council should consider including some points from other municipalities’ documents, such as: “Encourage dissent”; “Attempt to build consensus”; “Make no promises to the public on behalf of the legislative body”; “Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, members will work for the common good”; and the value of “fiscal responsibility.”
Last week, the Pleasanton Police Officers Association (PPOA) declared an impasse in labor negotiations, citing staffing shortages because of uncompetitive compensation packages compared to surrounding communities. The city’s budget is balanced using funds from vacant positions such as these.
Resident surveys done every few years consistently show that public safety is very important to Plesantonians, and they have been satisfied with the services.
But that was before what PPOA President Brian Jewell called the “deterioration” of the department because of the “city’s unwillingness to competitively compensate its police officers.”
We feel the projects such as the skate park and interior repairs to the Century House should be paused until the city and PPOA have come to an agreement, a solid plan has been approved for the Pleasanton water wells and treatment for PFAS and there is clarity on how the economy will affect the city’s revenue streams.
In addition, it’s important to take steps to present a financial status as positive as possible to secure the most favorable terms on financing for work that will need to be done to achieve a sufficient supply of clean water, which will not be inexpensive.
The council needs to be prudent, unlike in June 2022 when Brown said taking $2 million from the “rainy day fund” to pay for the renovation of Century Home was no problem at all because she was “confident this economy is going to be pretty good for Pleasanton.”
A year later, if the city fills all its vacant positions, there will be a deficit of around $2 million — ironically the amount put toward that project.
The budget goes back to the council next Tuesday (June 6) for approval.
The meeting agenda, published today (June 1), has the two-year budget on the consent agenda.
The consent agenda contains many routine, non-controversial items such as approval of the minutes from the previous meeting, committee appointments and reports that are informational only and do not require discussion. All items are passed in a single motion.
We urge the council to remove this item from the consent calendar. It deserves discussion and debate, especially in light of the recent developments with PPOA.
We encourage readers to remind the council majority about the importance of sufficient clean water and police officers, as well as fiscal responsibility, working for the common good and stewardship. Email citycouncil@cityofpleasantonca.gov.
Bravo! Say it louder for the people in the back!
There are many of us that do not use social media.
Would have liked to see Jack Balch posts.
Same goes for the PPOA, they post on social media, I do not see those posts also.
It is a mistaken believe that everyone uses social media.
Organizations believe they are reaching out, when they are not.
I was at the code of conduct meeting and all I can say is how disrespectful Vice Mayor Balch was treated. His concerns were completed disregarded, being told to not overthink things – really? Those were Council Member Testa’s words. The meeting was recorded by Gina, with permission from the Mayor. There are
NO inaccuracies in this editorial. Even at this code of conduct meeting Council Member Arkin made a snarky remark to Vice Mayor Balch then tried to pass it off as a joke, it wasn’t funny, it was just mean and rude. 3 Members of our council need to go back to school to learn respect, courtesy and how to treat others (interestingly Council Member Niebert even said these are things learned in Kindergarten).
There’s something called the First Amendment in this country — the Mayor, Council majority, and City Manager/City Attorney would benefit from reacquainting themselves with it. Good governance requires minority rights, and the ability to express when one disagrees with a policy — even if a majority supports and votes for it. I’ve also emailed and been in contact with the City Clerk with regards to the lack of communication to the public about this Council meeting, and with the fact that it was not streamed, recorded, or posted on the City website. It’s hard not to see how this is a blatant violation of the Brown Act. The excuse given to me was that this was a “Special Meeting” and a “workshop,” but if you look at the Council’s YouTube page and their website, you will find several recordings of such meetings over the past few years. Minority rights, First Amendment rights, and the right of the public to engage and observe the work being done by its elected representatives — i.e. good governance — were all undermined by last week’s “Council meeting.”
It is not uncommon for special meetings not to be recorded by TV30, Community television. If the city has a contract with them, as does Zone 7 Water Agency, special meetings are not required to be, so often are not. That may not be as transparent as many of us would like, but it is a fact of how things work.
Agree that special meetings aren’t always televised. However, this city council meeting was not emailed out to the list of people signed up to get meeting agendas. The Weekly notice that came out was the only alert to the meeting. No staff report was included with the posted agenda online. No staff report was available at the meeting for the public in attendance. These are serious concerns for transparency.
Following up on my previous comment re: the Brown Act: The minimum requirement for a special meeting includes providing at least 24 hour notice to “to each local newspaper of general circulation” — which Gina indicates may not have been the case here.
Curiously though, the City of Pleasanton itself indicates something else in the very packet it provided for the meeting on 05/23. In the document of the City’s own rules and procedures there is a distinction made between “Special meetings” and “Workshop meetings.” This is important for two reasons:
1) Because City staff has been using the two terms as if their synonymous. The City Clerk wrote to me in an email response to a public records request for a link to the recording of the meeting on 05/23 that: “There are no responsive records to this request. Workshops are not typically broadcast/recorded.” However by their own rules and operating procedures — the two terms, “special meetings” and “workshop meetings” are not interchangeable.
2) Because under “Workshop meetings” it is clearly stated that those types of meetings are different from “Special” meetings and considered “meetings for the purposes of the Brown Act.” That second point indicates that if it was a “workshop meeting” (per the City Clerk), rather than a “special meeting,” then the same rules and procedures with regards to notice, recording, and dissemination for public access that apply to REGULAR Council Meetings should have been applied to this meeting — which they were not. These types of terms and rules are important, and cannot, LEGALLY, be thrown around willy-nilly.
All of this just underscores the fact that there is clearly a need for a revisit of rules, policies, and codes of conduct by the Council and City staff — but the meeting held on 05/23 wasn’t the revisit they needed.
(See page 50 in this document for the distinctions made re: “Special” and “Workshop” meetings: http://weblink.cityofpleasantonca.gov/weblink/0/doc/305811/Page1.aspx)
Excellent editorial. Thank you to the Weekly for making those of us who don’t closely follow the city council aware of their efforts to shut down dissent and our rights to free speech. Shame on them. I applaud Balch for not rubber-stamping everything. Peaceful dissent and civil debate are good for democracy.
As someone who has served two terms on the City Council (2004-2012) and six years on the Planning Commission (1998-2004), I know something about this subject. While I have not watched a City Council meeting for some time (I can’t stomach it) I can’t judge whether Balch has been shut down or insulted as indicated in this column. But as someone who spent my eight years on the Council in the minority, the thought of a “code of conduct” aimed at limiting my dissent to the majority on important issues – before or after a vote – is an undemocratic act. It is an action by an authoritarian government. Dissent should be encouraged in a respectful way. I was never limited in my comments by any Mayor or Councilmember even though my views were sometimes completely opposite from theirs. The job of a mayor or city council member is to represent the public even if it means having differing viewpoints. Their job is not to “look unified” as Mayor Brown states.
In the years since I left the Council, my opposition to Costco, the massive cricket field proposed for Muirwood Park, and the disregard the Council majority has for the Muirwood neighborhood with their planning of up to 2000 units of high-density units at Stoneridge Mall, has resulted in my public criticism of the Council members. They have responded to this criticism by “canceling” me as a “political being” and totally ignoring any concerns I have raised to them. This is a tough pill to swallow after almost 30 years of public activism and almost 20 as a Councilmember, Commissioner, and committee member. So if Balch has been abused by his fellow Council-people, I feel his pain. It seems consistent with my experience.
to be continued due to lack of allowable characters
continued
Now I know the people who wrote this column and the posters so far have an axe to grind with the current Council. The Weekly is widely known as a pro-Chamber of Commerce tool, one of the posters ran against Nibert at the last election and lost, and another has had a feud for many years over land-use issues in her neighborhood. I’m glad we no longer have a Chamber-controlled Council like we have had since Tom Pico left, but the dream of many Pleasantonians for a slow-growth, democratic majority – in the mold of a Ben Tarver – has not been fulfilled by this bunch. Not even close.
“Using good manners, not bad language
Being considerate: honoring the feelings of others
Dealing peacefully with anger, insults, and disagreements”
These are the definitions of “Respect” in our City/School District Community of Character Declaration. The other five behavior characteristics are: Responsibility, Compassion, Self-Discipline, Honesty, and Integrity.
These words are on school display boards and on our City website. You’ve probably seen them.
I hope that Pleasanton Civics teachers do not require that their students watch or attend City Council meetings. The Community of Character characteristics that we say we support are not always displayed by the council majority. It’s embarrassing.
I get the frustration of having to work with people I don’t usually agree with or don’t even like. What I learned, sitting on another board, is that I needed to respect the position they were elected to (if not the person) and work with them for the good of the community. I came to learn from and sometimes agree with and compromise with others when I could recognize objectively what they brought to the table.
It’s possible and it’s critical if Pleasanton is to be a Community of Character.
Edit to previous post:
The Community of Character characteristics that we say we support are not always displayed by the “city council, especially the council majority”. It’s embarrassing.
I never thought I would utter these words, but bravo to you, Matt Sullivan, I agree with your viewpoints here. Additionally, I believe we see a new Mayoral candidate in the making with Jack Balch.
No one should be surprised at the devolution of the Council as it was prophesized by Fialho’s departure; people just needed to pay attention.