Monday, December 7, 2015

Mayor Capoccia and Mayor Pro Tem Goss's Argument In Favor Of Raising Utility Taxes Is ... A Secret?

-
Now perhaps I am wrong, but doesn't the City of Sierra Madre (along with every other city in California) have to provide info on all of the topics to be discussed at a City Council meeting 72 hours before it actually begins?

That has always been my understanding. It is why agenda reports are always made available late on Friday. That gets the information out there in time to meet what is supposed to be a rather serious legal consideration. So let me ask you a question, does the following agenda report meet that qualification? Can you really put out an agenda report that does not contain the information that is the reason it was actually created in the first place? Seems like that might be something of a problem.

This is what we are talking about (link):


All well and good I guess. And the obligation to meet this timely requirement, which again is required by State of California law, is then noted this way:


So where is this attached argument, the one all of the above sets us up for? What rationale is the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem providing for the people who are then going to be asked to vote themselves a tax hike? Apparently it is not quite ready because what we get, and in really big letters no less, is this:


Is that legal? Can the main thrust of an agenda item be provided on the day of the actual City Council meeting in question? Is the above even a legitimate agenda report?

I can't recall having seen anything quite like this before.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

25 comments:

  1. It's not legal for Council to vote on something that hasn't been publicly noticed for 72 hours. Hope Council screws up and then we can get the tax hike proposition thrown off the ballot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It meets legal requirements. It lets the public know it will be discussed.

      Delete
  2. Maybe they couldn't think of a good argument.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tomorrow is the last city council meeting of the year. If this is not a legal notice, and the deadline is December 28, then the city council will need to call a special meeting to approve their arguments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think they've satisfied the law - "the publicly disclosable pages of the application" are out there.

      Delete
    2. Huh? It is like a Christmas package with nothing inside. Where's the argument?

      Delete
    3. There are very specific rules about what has to be public when. The city staff know them like Bible verses. The attachment is not something that has to be in public, or there will be no discussion.

      Delete
    4. Sure. I believe you.

      Delete
  4. They seem to like calling special meetings. They have already had plenty of those this year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A special Christmas tax hike meeting. Sounds festive!

      Delete
    2. Maybe the size of the letters makes it legal.

      Delete
    3. Sounds Grinchy, 6:04.

      Delete
  5. It would be patently illegal for them to proceed. Good catch Tattler. Maybe just let them proceed and then it can be contested as someone already suggested. The UUT should go down in flames if for no other reason than to make a statement that the taxpayers who pay everyone's salary at City Hall and elect representatives who are supposed to look out for our interests have failed miserably and we aren't going to take it any more.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I want the UUT to fail because of CalPERS and it's been a lie since day one and until it was uncovered what had been going on and those that caused the problem are still sticking their noses into city business.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What year is this happening in? Elaine's staff report has the date December 28, 2014! Geesh!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am fed up of the whining about UUT and an useless CC(except the two Ladies!) .Nothing radical gets done.The basic issue is never addressed -just timid milquetoast.
    So let's go for broke .Have whatever UUT tax hike the inept Mayor and his socialist camp followers want.Then we WILL have a resolution much sooner.
    Sometimes it is better to just let them be hoist on their own petard ? Except they will all be out of office by then and probably out of town -just like our Police Officers and City Employees. Get the picture? Those who are calling the shots that will destroy Sierra Madre do not live here or will leave. The schmucks who stay will pay for bankrupt City govt ,lead-polluted water and crumbling infrastructure. Bring it on !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's the fault in your argument 9:14, IMO. Spending a boatload of money never comes back to the Council that did it. The overwhelming debt we have to pay back for the water department bonds was spend in 1998 and 2003. I don't remember the redevelopment bond date (2000?, who knows). Anyhoo, those Council members who burdened us with that debt, handed out Platinum Pensions and big pay raises? Long gone.

      Let's cut the UUT money down now. If the UUT is at 6% or 0%, they won't be able to borrow more bond money. Take the credit card away from the persons with the addiction to spending OUR money.

      Delete
    2. Mommy,mommy! What's a socialist?

      Delete
    3. Go away kid, ya bother me!

      Delete
    4. Exactly.
      The representation system has no effective accountability to the City nor the electorate . There are no consequences for CC members who vote for foolish expenditures. When misdeeds carry no threat of appropriate punishment, it is human nature to abuse the office.

      Delete
    5. I signed Earl's petition today!

      Delete
  9. Good news. I will be signing Earl Richey's 0% UUTpetition later today.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I do believe the entire Sierra Madre city council and city manager are all 'stuck on stupid'. Will someone please inform them all come voting time a new replacement's are coming in.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Do you all think the Sheriffs are going to work for free? Do you think they will not ever raise their rates? I do not support the petition to tie the hands of the council, I think they should do what is best for the city and if it means going to the sheriff's department, then so be it. But some of you are wishful thinking if you think the city can run without a UUT.

    ReplyDelete