LBReport.com

News

Council Votes 6-1 (Supernaw Dissenting, Uranga Absent, Mungo Vanished On Vote But Reapparing Minutes Later) To Oppose Newsom Recall



If LBREPORT.com didn't tell you,
who would?
No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report.

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.
(Aug. 18, 2021, 10:10 a.m.) -- As seen LIVE, the City Council voted 6-1 (Supernaw dissenting, Mungo and Uranga not present. with Mungo materializing a few minutes later) to request the City Attorney to draft a resolution in opposition to the recall of Governor Newsom. The Council item was agendized by Vice Mayor Rex Richardson, joined by Councilmembers Cindy Allen, Mary Zendejas and Suely Saro.

Lead agendizer Richardson spoke in support, joined by co-agendizer Allen. In dissent, Councilman Daryl Supernaw said he'd taken an oath of office three times as a Councilmember to uphold the constitution of the state of CA, noted the recall process is specified in the CA constitution and said "I believe that supporting this resolution would be a clear violation of my oath of office. Therefore I'll be voting in opposition."

City Attorney Charles Parkin (who took the same oath as Supernaw) said nothing on the issue raised by Supernaw or the Richardson-Allen-Zendejas-Saro agendizing memo's assertion that "Although cities cannot take positions in candidate elections, the recall is a ballot measure, not a candidate election [and] It is within the Cityís legal rights to take a position on a ballot measure that will impact our residents."

No persons or groups offered any public comment, pro or con. The LB Area Republcans' president, Ben Goldberg, is no longer a LB resident (having moved to OC) and is former LB City Hall appointee to LB's Parks/Recreation Commission. Mr. Goldberg is an outspoken supporter of recall election candidate Larry Elder whose campaign will fail if the recall election fails as urged by the Council item...but Mr. Goldberg didn't speak on the Council item, nor did any members of his group. [Mr. Goldberg has an unbroken record of not once spanning multiple years publicly testifying in opposition to any Council item favored by the then-incumbent Mayors, Councilmembers or city staff (including tax and fee increases, budgeted spending, land use policies and other policy items.]

Councilman Stacy Mungo (the Council's only declared Republican) was absent from the start of the Council meeting and entered the Council Chamber after the Council vote on the anti-recall item. She is first visible on City video two items after the anti-recall item.

LB's Municipal Code section 2.03.050 specifies that "Except when a conflict of interest exists and abstention is required by State law, every member of the Council who is present when a roll is called shall vote for or against the question, unless excused by a majority of the members present, prior to the calling of the roll on such question." It's a matter of speculation why Councilwoman Mungo wasn't present when the roll was called but her absence allowed her to avoid a recorded vote..

The agendized action was "Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft a resolution in opposition to the Recall Election of the Governor of California." The agendizing memo doesn't mention Newsom's name. It recites recent Democrat partisan talking points, including criticism of CA's recall process itself.

[Scroll down for further.]










...Since 1911, when California began approving recalls, 179 recall attempts have been made against state officeholders, and every governor since 1960 has faced as least one. Recall elections have become highly politicized, used as a tool to undermine the will of the people and remove someone from office who was fairly elected by a majority of voters, rather than as a tool to remove someone who is unfit for office.

The recall ballot will have two questions:

1. Should the elected official be removed from office?
2. If the official is removed, who should take their place?

If more than 50% of voters answer "yes" to the first question on the recall ballot, the candidate who wins the most votes in the second question will become governor. This means if a majority of California voters want to recall the governor, he will be removed from office and replaced with someone who will likely receive less than 50% of the vote.

This process undermines our democracy and perpetuates a dangerous precedent of electing a governor with a potentially very small percentage of the vote.

The next regularly scheduled gubernatorial election in California will take place on June 7 (primary) and November 8 (general) in 2022. The fiscally responsible and democratically appropriate course of action would have been for the governorís opponents to wait for the 2022 election cycle to vote for an alternative candidate...

Similar resolutions are under consideration in many other cities across Los Angeles County, including in the cities of West Hollywood and Culver City.

Although cities cannot take positions in candidate elections, the recall is a ballot measure, not a candidate election. It is within the Cityís legal rights to take a position on a ballot measure that will impact our residents.

Sponsor

A Council resolution would put the City of Long Beach on record -- and potentially enable the use of City taxpayer resources -- to oppose the Newsom recall. An agendizing memo Fiscal Impact statement says "No Financial Management review was able to be conducted due to the urgency and time sensitivity of this item." [The Newsom recall has been pending for months.]

If a Council majority approves the Aug. 17 item, the issue will presumably return to the Council for a second vote on the resolution text as drafted by the LB City Attorney's office (not yet public.) (The agendizers simply attached a copy of a City of West Hollywood anti-recall resolution.)

The Long Beach City Council is nominally non-partisan but (since Beverly O'Neill's political embrace of Bill Clinton) has become highly politicized. Seven of LB's nine Councilmembers are Dems (and elected with Dem-allied campaign contributions) and Mayor Robert Garcia actively campaigned for Hillary Clinton, then Kamala Harris and eventually Joe Biden with post-election lockstep support for actions by Biden...and Newsom.

Sponsor


Sponsor

Sponsor


Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.


blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:


Follow LBReport.com with:

Twitter

Facebook

RSS

Return To Front Page

Contact us: mail@LBReport.com



Adoptable pet of the week:




Copyright © 2021 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here