The Dec. 6 Council agenda listed an item agendized by Councilmembers Uranga, Price and Supernaw that sought Council approval to schedule a Dec. 13 study session on the issue. (To date, the full Council hasn't held any study session on the issue.) The agenda item left unstated when further Council action on the customs facility might occur, but in presenting the item, lead agendizer Councilman Roberto Uranga stated that he didn't want decisions to advance the process to come on the same day as the study session.

In implicit contrast, co-agendizer Councilwoman Price said she supports a study session and said it should come before Council voted action...but didn't say when she thought further Council voted actions should occur. Councilwoman Stacy Mungo also indicated that she didn't read Councilman Uranga's request for a Dec. 13 study session as preventing Council voted actions on Dec. 13 on the customs facility. .

Advertisement

Advertisement Computer Repair Long Beach For FREE Computer Tip, click here.

Councilman Supernaw made a substitute motion to move Council actions into early 2017 (consistent with his repeatedly stated position, begun months ago, that doesn't want Council actions on the issue during the holiday period.)

Then Councilwoman Mungo, seconded by Price, proposed a substitute-substitute motion. It schedules a study session for Dec. 13 but authrorizes immediately -- as of Dec. 6 -- city staff to take a number of steps (including discussing/negotiating with JetBlue and airport interests the size, funding and the like for the customs facility.) Mungo portrayed these actions as gathering information but city staff indicated (in its Dec. 13 agenda item proposing many of actions) that they are in fact prerequisites to a Council approval of a customs facility. The Mungo-Price motion sets Jan. 24, 2017 as the date for city staff to bring the results of its actions to the Council for a decisional vote.

The Council action effectively advances the timeline, because a staff-agendized Dec. 13 action item sought Council approval for various actions that the Council majority authorized on December 6. City staff's Dec. 13 agendized item didn't propose any date for a final Council decisional vote; in contrast, the Mungo-Price substitute-substitute sets one.

Councilmembers Austin and Uranga repeatedly objected to the Mungo substitute-substitute motion, saying it effectively takes actions and decides matters before studying them, in Councilman Austin's words, it "puts the cart before the horse." Several times, Austin asked Mungo to drop her insistence on including Council voted actions in the Dec. 6 Mungo-Price motion; Mungo declined; Price said nothing in response.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Council voted action (6-3, Austin, Uranga and Supernaw dissenting) effectively makes unnecessary the staff-agendized Dec. 13 Council action item in which city staff sought a separate Council vote to authorize staff to work with JetBlue and airport interests on items prerequisite to approving a customs facility; Council voted approval for this came with Council majority approval of the Mungo-Price substitute-substitute motion on Dec. 6.

Mayor Robert Garcia said nothing pro or con or otherwise substantive on the matter during Council discussion or after the Council vote.

Neither Mayor Garcia nor Assistant City Attorney Mike Mais raised any concerns about the fact that the Dec. 6 agenda only listed the item seeking a Dec. 13 study session and didn't list actions that the Council majority voted to approve.

By midafternoon Dec. 7, retired Councilwoman Rae Gabelich (who attended and spoke at the Dec. 6 meeting) had issued a release indicating that she has filed a complaint letter with the L.A. County District Attorney's office alleging that Council majority approval of the Mungo-Price motion violated the Brown Act for failing to agendize the actions approved. (CA's Brown (open meetings) Act basically requires all CA government bodies to provide the public with an agenda 72 hours prior to the meeting listing the body's scheduled actions.)

In her release, retired Councilwoman Gabelich (a co-founder of neighborhood-supportive LBHUSH2 and an opponent of the customs facility/int'l operations) described her complaint letter as objecting to the Mungo/Price substitute-substitute motion on grounds it took actions that weren't agendized on Dec. 6 Council agenda that were agendized for action at the Dec. 13 agenda. Ms. Gabelcih said in the release: "Council members Uranga, Austin and Supernaw tried to do the right thing but Council members Mungo and Price stood in their way," adding she regrets "that Mungo and Price continue to take unhelpful actions on this issue."

Advertisement

Advertisement

During Ms. Gabelich's Council Chamber testimony, Councilwoman Mungo wasn't listening in her Council seat; she was instead speaking to someone in the audience. Ms. Gabelich noted this during her podium testimony and other public speakers said that they observed some Councilmembers [unnamed] talking, typing, talking on the phone or otherwise not paying attention while the public spoke. Ms. Gabelich's release commented that "[m]embers of the public who attended the Council meeting commented at the podium on the disrespect they saw some Council members display toward the public." Those disrespectful actions reflect on all Council members, who should call such behavior out of order, and Mayor Garcia who ought to maintain order, not maintain disrespect."

A few hours after the Council meeting, Councilwoman Mungo sent a mass emailing she titled:

Less than two hours after the Council meeting concluded, Councilwoman Mungo transmitted a mass emailing (which she echoed on some NextDoor channels on Dec. 7), stating in pertinent part:

[Dec. 6/7 Mungo text] Dear Neighbor,

Thank you for your continued engagement around important Long Beach Airport (LGB) proposals. I appreciate how many of you have reached out and provided your opinions to date, and I think we can agree we would all benefit from more time and information before we can have a true picture to evaluate.

Tonight, the City Council supported my motion for staff to gather ALL information and prepare it for a date certain, January 24th, pushing this past the holiday season and giving residents 45-days' notice. I feel this is crucial in having an informed dialogue and provides us with plenty of time to discuss what is best for our neighborhoods.

...As more information becomes available I will share it with you so we can have complete transparency and an informed dialogue before the important meeting scheduled for 5:00 p.m., January 24th at City Hall. Please save the date.

Advertisement

In a briefly stated opinion on the Dec. 6 Council proceedings, LBREPORT.com commented: "Mungo didn't postpone things (as she claims in a 5th dist. mass emailing); she advanced them. Staff is now authorized to do immediately what staff sought Council permission to do in a Dec. 13 Council item...that Uranga and Austin wanted postponed to January. Having a study session after you've authorized going forward in pursuit of the item but just short of a final vote is, in our opinion, like agreeing to get married but pretending you're not engaged because you haven't decided on what band to hire and what cake to order."

Developing.