.

City Leaders Declare Political 'Cease-Fire'

Opposing political factions on the Los Alamitos City Council backed away from escalating allegations of wrongdoing in a stab at a "cease-fire" Tuesday.

Members of the Los Alamitos City Council declared a “cease-fire” against one another Tuesday night after lobbing allegations of ethical and procedural lapses across the dais.

In a meeting that continued past midnight, the Council debated whether members violated the Brown Act, a California law that forces city leaders to conduct city business in public meetings to protect the community from backroom deals but also allows them to have confidential discussions on legal matters during closed session meetings.

On Tuesday, long battling factions on the council accused one another of committing Brown Act violations and of overlooking some violations for political advantage while pursuing others for political retribution. In the end, the council moved to back off dueling Brown Act violation charges in a bid for political civility.

“Nobody is right in this. We are all wrong,” said Mayor Troy Edgar. “I think what we need to do is declare a cease-fire.”

Mayor Pro Tem Marilynn Poe agreed.

“I am tired of all of this. I don’t look forward to coming to the meetings because it’s just ‘Who’s going to come at me again?’ And it’s not fun,” she said. “I think that this is all foolish, and I think we have totally lost sight, and it all started with the trash contract.”

Last year, residents and supporters of City Council voting minority Warren Kusumoto and Gerri Graham-Mejia sued the city alleging the council violated it’s own code by not awarding the $24.5 million trash contract to the lowest responsible bidder. The suit further accused Edgar, Poe and Councilman Kenneth Stephens of corruption. A judge ruled that the contract was invalid but threw out the allegations of corruption. Both issues are currently under appeal.

In December, Kusumoto recused himself from closed session City Council meetings about the city’s decision to appeal the ruling. He wrote a public letter, noting that the council majority consistently overruled his viewpoint. The council majority followed up in January by voting to have Kusumoto prosecuted by the district attorney and attorney general for violating the Brown Act in allegedly leaking closed session discussions.

At every Council meeting since then, residents and Council members have accused each other of additional Brown Act violations, including one charge that the mayor disclosed confidential information in the course of accusing Kusumoto of a Brown Act violation.

On Tuesday, Kusumoto and Graham-Mejia accused the Council majority of using a double standard in prosecuting Brown Act violations. They further accused City Attorney Sandra Levin of summarily dismissing their concerns about Brown Act violations simply because they are in t he council voting minority.

Levin was quick to admit her frustration with the back and forth allegations. “I absolutely hate being in the middle of all these things,” she said.

Instead of voting on the latest Brown Act violations Tuesday, the council opted to reconsider their decision to refer Kusumoto for prosecution at an upcoming council meeting.

Graham-Mejia said she appreciated Edgar’s attempt at a cease-fire.

“We have all been abused,” she said. “I just wish we hadn’t had to have Warren publicly humiliated…”

Kusumoto expressed mixed feelings about the entire process. Noting the “zeal” with which the council members voted last month to prosecute him for a Brown Act violation, he called it disingenuous that the council majority would be quick to back off the cause after some of them were accused of also violating the Brown Act.

“I am ready to turn myself in,” he said. .”I am going to be found innocent of all these allegations…”

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK IN THE COMMENTS

Do you think the council did the right thing in declaring a cease-fire and moving to drop Brown Act violation investigations? Do you think city leaders are playing politics with the open-government law?

met00 February 22, 2012 at 07:57 PM
A Brown Act violation is a Brown Act violation. It doesn't depend on severity (ie: leaking confidential information from a closed session is no more severe than refusing to allow the public to comment on items on the agenda). As Mr. Edgar famously stated, "It's a binary decision." Within the city in the past everyone mostly choose to not make an issue out of these violations (as Mejia pointed out when the majority went on the warpath over Warren). But by raising the bar the majority established a new standard that they couldn't afford to live under. One person indicated that the only reason for this new attitude of kumbya is that when held to the same standards they attempted to impose, the majority gets it far worse than they gave it (they are losing the battle big time). While it is quite clear that the majority seems to have picked the wrong fight, and they now want out, it is not clear that this in any way will change the current majority from their path of ghetto-izing the minority in the future. They do have the appearance of remorse, but not for what they did as much as for what they appear to have gotten themselves into in response. Warren does have a point. Unless the Council issues a formal proclamation clearing Warren of any wrongdoing, the only way he can clear his good name is to see this through and have the DA and the courts vindicate him.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »