LBReport.com

News

Long Beach Council Resolution Opposing Newsom Recall Election Returns For Enacting Vote Aug. 24. Will Any Public Speakers Speak Pro Or Con? Will Repub Mungo Avoid Recorded Vote Again?


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. 20, 2021, 8:20 p.m.) -- The text of a Long Beach City Council resolution opposing the recall election of Governor Gavin Newsom, will come to the Council for a final enacting vote on Aug. 24.

On Aug. 17, the Council voted 6-1 (Supernaw dissenting, Mungo and Uranga not present. with Mungo materializing a few minutes after the vote) to request the City Attorney to draft a resolution opposing the recall election of CA's Governor...whose name (Gavin Newsom) the originating Council agendizers didn't mention and the drafted resolution also doesn't mention.

The originating Aug 17 Council item was brought by Vice Mayor Rex Richardson, joined by Councilmembers Cindy Allen, Mary Zendejas and Suely Saro.

In the sole dissenting Aug. 17 vote, 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."

The Richardson-Allen-Zendejas-Saro agendizing memo's asserted that "Although cities cannot take positions in candidate elections, the recall is a ballot measure, not a candidate election [and] It is within the City’s legal rights to take a position on a ballot measure that will impact our residents." City Attorney Charles Parkin hasn't explicitly commented on that issue but by drafting the resolution he has given tacit approval to that reasoning. [The City Attorney wouldn't likely draft a resolution for City Council adoption that he views invalid on its face.]

On August 17, no persons or groups offered any public comment, pro or con, on the anti-recall resolution. The recall election was triggered by its proponents collecting roughly two million CA voter signatures.

Councilman Stacy Mungo (the Council's sole 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 on August 17.

A Council resolution puts the City of Long Beach on record -- and potentially enables the use of City taxpayer resources -- to oppose the Newsom recall. The Aug. 17 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 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.

[Scroll down for further.]






The City Attorney drafted resolution coming to the Council on Aug. 24, visible in full here, is transcribed below for readers' convenience.

...
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LONG BEACH IN OPPOSITION TO THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 RECALL ELECTION OF THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA

WHEREAS, on September 14, 2021, the California Gubernatorial Recall Election will take place to determine whether the Governor of California will be recalled from office and, if so, who his replacement will be; and

WHEREAS, on July 1, 2021, the State Department of Finance estimated that the recall election will cost California and county election officials approximately $276 million, including $243.6 million by counties and $32.4 million by the Secretary of State to administer the recall, which is significantly higher than previous recall elections due to every voter in the State receiving a vote-by-mail ballot in addition to having the option to vote in-person; and

WHEREAS, California has faced unprecedented challenges and continues to grapple with the economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic with a future that remains uncertain and everchanging; and

WHEREAS, during the COVID-19 pandemic, California adopted the biggest economic recovery package in the State’s history and has focused on providing expanding services and government support programs for those most in need; and

WHEREAS, while California continues to face the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic crisis, it is fiscally imprudent for the State and counties to be forced to expend hundreds of millions of dollars on a recall election, rather than expending their collective resources on other pressing issues, including but not limited to the State’s COVID-19 economic recovery and issues surrounding homelessness, wildfires, and/or infrastructure, all of which have a direct impact on residents and visitors of the City of Long Beach; and

WHEREAS, since 1911, when the recall became part of California’s political system by providing a mechanism for the public to attempt to remove elected public officials from office before the end of their term, 179 recall attempts have been made against state officeholders and every governor since 1960 has faced at least one such attempt; and

WHEREAS, the fiscally responsible course of action would be for the Governor’s opponents to wait for the 2022 election cycle for voters to select an alternative candidate; and

WHEREAS, accordingly, and in support of the general public welfare, the City Council of the City of Long Beach wishes to support governmental fiscal responsibility by opposing the use of public funding for the recall election during a global pandemic and economic hardship;

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Long Beach resolves as follows:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Long Beach hereby opposes the September 14, 2021 recall election of the Governor of California.

Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution.

Sponsor

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