(Nov. 22, 2007) -- I once had a client in the restaurant business that relayed to me an incident one of his managers and a staff member had with a customer. It seems the manager and staff member in their response to a customer’s complaint had permanently alienated the customer. In counseling the manager and staff member my client firmly reminded them that they had forgotten who serves whom.

Sadly, after viewing the Nov. 20 actions and comments of the Mayor and Council it seems they too have forgotten who serves whom.

The Council voted to approve the Mayor's proposal to eliminate the right of the public to pull items from the consent calendar and limited the amount of time the public could speak on consent issues to a cumulative three minutes.

The Mayor and Council members justified the change by indicating nothing would change as the public would continue to be able to speak on the issues, “just as before”. They indicated the change in procedures would make the council more efficient, improve participation, better serve the public and shorten Council meetings. It was characterized as a simple procedural change with no negative consequences.

Now let’s be realistic, the length of Council meetings has very little to do with the public's participation and comment on consent calendar items. Long Council meetings are caused by long public hearings, and contentious regular agenda items. Contentious public hearings and regular agenda items often result in long winded and sometimes unfocused comments from both the unrestricted council and the time constrained public speaker.

So, it seems appropriate for me to ask in review, was this change made to benefit the Mayor, the Council or the public at large? Who directly benefits and is better served by the change in procedure; the Council or the public? Did the change make it easier for the public to review Council actions or did it add “speed bumps” that impede the ability of the public to oversee the actions of its elected representatives?

It seems obvious, and contrary to the Mayor and Council’s feeble attempt to justify the procedure change, that the change singularly benefits the Mayor and Council at the expense of the public. Under the old rules all one had to do is show up and ask the Clerk to remove an item. Now anyone that finds fault in an item or wants further clarification must find a Council member willing to remove the item from the calendar.

As Council members are not readily available for most of the public I assume the requester would first or finally be able to speak with a receptionist or staff member and issue their request. It is solely at the discretion of the Council member to grant or deny the request. This is not removing barriers it is adding hurdles.

The new procedures make it more difficult, not easier, for a member of the public to get a consent calendar item pulled and will restrict the amount of time the public has to speak. The change clearly does not make participation easier, will not materially shorten council meetings and it does not improve representative democracy. And it does not improve the image of the Mayor or the Council.

During the meeting the Council and city clerk represented the consent calendar contains routine items, alcohol beverage license transfers and other routine actions of little or no fiscal consequence. Well, let’s take a look at what was on the 20 item consent calendar. Eight of the items with a fiscal impact of over $1.7 million were approved without comment or review. The city voted to purchase 6 police motorcycles, lease 5,000 square feet of space for the Police Complaint Commission, amend three janitorial contracts, buy three tractors, lease property for a community garden, hire three grant writers, and contract to improve the Belmont Plaza Pool all without comment, review or discussion of benefits, options or alternatives. It may be that each and every item listed is absolutely justified and should be approved but as it was on the consent calendar how would the public know that to be so?

One would think that in this time of budgetary strife the city would desire to build public trust by openly discussing and evaluating, in open session, purchases, leases, acquisitions and contracts with such a large fiscal impact.

So why did the Mayor desire to make this change? Was it an honest and well intentioned, if not misguided, attempt to streamline the council meetings or was it, as some have suggested, an attempt to gain more control of the agenda and council? I lean towards giving the Mayor the benefit of doubt but I have yet to hear a cogent argument that supports the proposal and the Council's actions. Adding impediments to participation does not encourage participation or build trust in government. The Mayor and the Council need to review who serves whom.

Mr. Jensen, a businessman and lifelong LB resident, was a member of LB's Redevelopment Agency Board where he frequently pressed management for answers and objected when he and the Board weren't given satisfying answers. Earlier this year, after someone claimed he'd spoken publicly about a closed session item -- an allegation subsequently determined to be without merit -- Mr. Jensen resigned in disgust from the Board.