Anaheim Insider here.
Some of the biggest news from last night’s Anaheim City Council meeting came at the very end, during councilmember communications. I watched the video as Councilman Jordan Brandman wrapped up his comments this way (start at the 5:16:23 mark on the council video)
In closing, I have a matter for council consideration. Our city council policy relating to the manner in which members of the council may place matters on the city council meeting agenda, the regular meeting agendas, was last amended and re-stated on April 17, 2012. At that time, resolution number 2012-031 was approved and adopted by the city council establishing Council Policy 1.6.
Then he dropped this bomb:
I request consideration of Council Policy 1.6, Section 1, to be amended and revised, to read as follows: “Any member of the city council may, during the city council communications portion of a city council meeting, request that an item be placed on a future city council agenda. So long as there is assent or concurrence by at least one additional member of the council, the item will be agendized.” End of section. This provision assures the principle of equal governance, and afford all members of the legislative body equal authority as it pertains to the agenda setting process…
Brandman then requested this matter be agendized for a special city council meeting within the next five business days, and both Kris Murray and Lucille Kring gave the necessary assent.
As it stands, any Anaheim councilmember can place an item an a future agenda regardless of what his or her colleagues think. Brandman’s amendment would require them to have the OK of at least one colleague.
This isn’t an unusual policy among California cities, I am told. It is Anaheim’s current policy that is unusual. It shouldn’t prove an obstacle to any of the current councilmembers, with the exception of Mayor Tom Tait. It’s my experience and that of other Anaheim politicos that Tait uses this power far more often than any previous mayor or any of his current or past council colleagues. Last night’s rehashing of the September 3 council meeting on the Angels negotiation MOU is an example of Tait using that power.
If it this amended policy is adopted, it’s fairly certain there won’t be repeats of that experience.