Support Open Government Now!
Pacifica prides itself on being an informed and engaged community. However, the entire limited debate over the question of police out-sourcing to the Sheriff has been anything but informed. Almost every key fact has been withheld from the public. How can the public have an honest debate without themselves knowing the facts? No one outside of the 5 people on city council know what is going on. Regardless of one's position on police out-sourcing, no facts on the city website means the public is in the dark.
That lack of public knowledge has to stop. During my 14 years on the Pacifica School Board I have always been willing to have public hearings to get public input. Reaching out to the public during these meetings is also an opportunity to inform the public on the facts. Making reports and documents available ahead of time clearly is required to have an informed debate at the meeting! If I am honored by a vote this November to elect me to city council, a revision of open government rules will be my first agenda item.
I strongly urge that City Council at its next meeting, Monday August 27, vote to place all documents regarding this issue on the city website. Post the Sheriff bid, SSF's bid, the City's consultant analysis and all other communications back and forth among all parties.
Even the City's press release announcing the abandonment of the Sheriff contract is not on the City's website. In 2012, you would think all vital City communications and documents would be on the web!
Posting all documents may not change anyone's mind. But sunshine on government business and transparency is a foundation of American government. It's about time it's also a foundation of Pacifica government.
Mike O'Neill, candidate for City Council
My experience is that when there is a vacuum such as not having any information miscommunication, distortions, and urban legends start that may or may not be true. The facts are the facts whatever they are.
This is pure speculation, which feeds the myth that public information should be "kept private." A report on potential cost savings of outsourcing the police department, (or not) paid with taxpayer funds, should be public information the moment the councilmembers receive it. The July 11 closed-session meeting was posted "conference with labor negotiator..." and Ms. Ritzma was the only party listed in that meeting as a negotiator. It isn't permissable under the Brown Act that a full-blown public policy discussion take place, it flies in the face of the law. A consultant wouldn't be allowed, nor would a report generated by and for a public policy issue be allowed. If you wish to have others do your thinking, you should choose more wisely.
See batman, maybe you can learn something if you listen instead of making personal attacks to cover your ignorance on a subject. BTW, I've been a Democrat for over 35 years. So much for your clairvoyant abilities buddy.
Individuals have used these circumstances to sue cities for these types of minor technical breaches, which can result in financial rewards at the cost of the taxpayers because it's cheaper to settle. I question the motives of these "litigious vultures". Nihart and Stone are creating a tempest over nothing that could trip up the City costing us taxpayers THOUSANDS, if they do we will put the blame on them.
.
So can you tell us Mike, besides open government what you would specifically do to save this City from possible bankruptcy? Would you raise taxes or fees? Push for more cuts is services? Make negotiating more wage and benefit reductions a priority? Streamline planning and approval to encourage more development?
If the data has been released to the public, yes, you are correct, the council can evaluate anything they like and instruct the negotiator accordingly in closed session as to the city's bargaining position to bring to the table with the unions. But that's not what happened here. The council, through a slimy strategy dreamed up by the city attorney, thought they could conceal a consultant's work AND information from the county and South San Francisco as to cost savings (or not) regarding the potential outsourcing of the police department. The July 11 closed session was posted "...conference with labor negotiator." and the consultant and his report were not posted as being present or being a subject of discussion. That's not allowed under the Brown Act. Two strikes - illegal posting and improper content during the meeting. The third strike - and we will have to wait to see - was the issueing of a sudden "press release" that said: "Oh well, never mind! No outsourcing." without any public process having ever taken place! That release, which Patch reports the city manager won't take ownership of, was right after another closed session on Monday Aug. 13 at the council meeting. Who exactly is running this city?
"The City" is not an entity we can hold responsible.
I would like an answer to my questions. You don't seem to know much about closed-session parameters, as witnessed by your statement: "The report was done by an outside consultant and may contain private personnel information." The city council only has power over two positions - city manager and city attorney. If they had a closed session posted "performance review," yeah, that might contain personal details as regards performance of those two parties. But to say that other personnel's "personal details' could appear in closed session, well, that's just wrong, bro. So do tell us how the city can be ruled by unsigned decrees with no authors willing to take responsibility?
NOW sneaky Pete Dejarnett is claiming he wanted this to go public all along and the Mary Ann and Len were in the wrong by going behind his back. Oh this is getting good.