LBReport.com

News

Council Votes 7-1 (Supernaw Dissenting) To Oppose Recall Of Gov. Newsom; Again, Councilwoman Mungo Vanishes Before Vote, Reappears Thereafter



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.
On Aug. 24, 2021, the Long Beach City Council voted 7-1 (Supernaw dissenting, Mungo vanished on vote) to oppose the recall election of Governor Gavin Newsom.

For the second time, Councilwoman Stacy Mungo (the Council's only nominal Republican) vanished on the vote, leaving before the Council vote on the item and reappearing thereafter. She also vanished a week earlier on the initial Council vote on the item, absent before the vote and walking in shortly thereafter.

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.

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 on both August 17 and 24 but her absence means she has no recorded vote record on the Council's anti-recall measure.

Two of Mungo's CD 5 constituents came to the Council to oppose the agendized item. Gary Levy compared the Council action to putting a thumb on the scale, said it "stinks of corruption" and questioned the propriety of having city employees take a position on an election matter by framing it as a ballot measure. Mr. Levy asked City Attorney Parkin to comment on its propriety. Mr. Parkin (whose office drafted the resolution for Council approval) said nothing. Mr. Jared McKnight said the Council resolution's supporters were wrong to frame their voted action as a position on a ballot measure when is actually an election decision for voters.

The Long Beach Area Republican Party was invisible and inaudible at the podium with its president, Ben Goldberg, now an OC resident, failing to appear. (Mr. Goldberg supports Larry Elder in the recall election, but if voters vote "no" on recalling Gov. Newsom (as the Council resolution urges them to do), Mr. Elder and other recall candidates will be out. Mr. Goldberg, a former LB Mayoral appointee to LB's Parks/Recreation Commision, continued his unbroken record spanning over a decade of never having testified at any Long Beach Council meeting on any topic (including City Hall spending, public safety, land use) supported any Mayor or some Council incumbents.

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.

Casting the sole dissenting vote on Aug. 24, Councilman Daryl Supernaw didn't speak. He made his position clear on the initial Aug. 17 vote, saying at that time that 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 August 17 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." (By drafting the resolution for Council approval he has given tacit approval to that reasoning.)

[Scroll down for further.]










The City Attorney drafted resolution approved by 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

Aug. 25: Vote tally corrected to 7-1 (not 6-1), noting Price voted for the anti-recall resolution.

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