ReportWire

Tag: City Council

  • Polarizing L.A. police official keeps post by default after City Council fails to vote

    [ad_1]

    A polarizing figure on the Los Angeles Police Commission will retain his seat despite having never received an approval vote from the City Council.

    Erroll Southers, who previously served as president of the civilian panel that watches over the LAPD, has taken criticism for what critics say is his unwillingness to provide oversight of police Chief Jim McDonnell, while also facing renewed scrutiny in recent months for his past counterterrorism studies in Israel.

    For the record:

    9:33 a.m. Oct. 1, 2025An earlier version of this story reported that Erroll Southers’ nomination was not on the City Council’s agenda last week. Southers was on the agenda but the council continued the matter and took no vote.

    New members of any city commission must typically be approved by a City Council vote within 45 days of their nomination. Mayor Karen Bass put forward Southers in mid-August, but his first scheduled vote was delayed because he was traveling, and the council continued the matter without explanation at a meeting Friday in Van Nuys.
    Now that his 45-day window has elapsed, multiple officials told The Times that city rules allow Southers to continue in the position by default for a full five-year term because he was already serving on an interim basis.

    Around City Hall, news of the council’s inaction set off speculation about whether it was the result of a scheduling mix-up — or because Southers’ backers didn’t believe he could get enough votes.

    Failing to vote on a member of one of city’s most important and high-profile commissions is almost unheard of, said Zev Yaroslavsky, a former councilman and L.A. County supervisor now at UCLA.

    “They have responsibility to confirm or not confirm,” he said of the council. “I never understood why you would campaign for office, as hard as you campaign to get there, and not vote on something that’s as important to the public.”

    Appointed by the mayor, police commissioners act much like a corporate board of directors, setting the LAPD policies, approving its budget and providing oversight, including reviews of officer shootings and other serious uses of force.

    Southers, 68, has been a member of the panel since 2023, when Bass picked him to serve out the term of a departing commissioner.

    A former FBI agent and Santa Monica cop turned top security official at USC, Southers helped lead the nationwide search for the next LAPD chief. The position eventually went to McDonnell — who like Southers served as director of the school’s Safe Communities Institute.

    His backers say that Southers has been committed to his role, participating in numerous listening sessions with Angelenos to learn what qualities they wanted in a police chief. He has also become a regular presence at LAPD recruitment events and graduations.

    Zach Seidl, a mayoral spokesperson, praised Southers for his stewardship of the commission, saying the career lawman “brings deep knowledge of the police department’s operations, a commitment to the continued development of policies that further transparency and accountability, and trusted relationships with community members and law enforcement.”

    Teresa Sánchez-Gordon, a retired L.A. County judge, replaced Southers as commission president last month, after he served more than a year in the role.

    But more than any other commissioner, Southers has accumulated a loud chorus of detractors who oppose keeping him in the key oversight role.

    Although it has long been part of his resume, Southers’ work in the mid-2000s in Israel has especially become a lighting rod due to the ongoing crisis in Gaza.

    Last month, a United Nations commission accused Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas militant attacks that left 1,200 dead and 251 others kidnapped on Oct. 7, 2023.

    Israel’s military campaign has so far killed more than 66,000 people, the vast majority of them civilians, according to Gaza health officials and international aid groups.

    Although Southers has said little publicly about the conflict, he has previously described traveling to Israel and studying with the Israel Defense Forces to learn about anti-terrorism strategies for his academic work.

    His opponents have argued his writings suggest that authorities should use an individual’s public support for controversial causes as a potential warning sign of extremism. Such arguments, they say, can be used to justify the criminalization of minority groups or silence dissent.

    Southers weathered calls for his resignation from the commission last year after he was among the USC officials responsible for clearing encampments occupied by pro-Palestinian protesters on the school’s campus.

    Others have focused on his oversight of McDonnell. Far too often, critics say, he has let the chief off the hook after recent controversies. Most recently Southers and his fellow commissioners have faced calls to put more checks on aggressive behavior by LAPD officers toward journalists and nonviolent protesters.

    Shootings by police have also been a point of contention with Southers. LAPD officers opened fire 31 times in the first nine months of this year, already surpassing the total number of shootings in 2024.

    The commission ordered the department to present a report on the shootings, but that was not nearly enough to satisfy Greg “Baba” Akili, a longtime civil rights advocate with Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles who has frequently spoken out against Southers’ nomination.

    As commission president, he said, Southers seemed more willing to shut down public speakers at the board’s meetings than to question the department’s narrative of recent events.

    “It’s like having a member of the police force on the commission,” Akili said of Southers. “We don’t want to see just Black faces in high places: We want people who actually … uplift the public.”

    [ad_2]

    Libor Jany

    Source link

  • Sacramento city leaders announce Maraskeshia Smith as next city manager

    [ad_1]

    Sacramento city leaders announce Maraskeshia Smith as next city manager

    So good morning and thank you all for being here today. So standing before you today, I am filled with deep gratitude and humility as I accept the honor of serving as the next city manager for the city of Sacramento. This moment marks not only *** milestone in my professional career, but *** commitment in city leadership built on countless hours of engagement, collaboration, placemaking, and innovation. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to Mayor McCarthy, Council member Jennings, chair of the personnel Committee, and every member of this esteemed council. Your selection for me in this role reflects tremendous trust, and I am truly moved by your confidence in my ability to serve this community. Please know that your faith in me is not taken lightly. I pledge to honor it with integrity, transparency, and unwavering dedication. I also want to extend my appreciation to interim city manager Lanny Milstein. Laney, your leadership during this transitional period has been exemplary. You answered the call to serve with grace, fortitude, and purpose, guiding the organization through change and uncertainty. Your steady hand and commitment preserve the city’s focus and unity. And you laid the foundation for *** smooth transition and I just wanna say thank you. Most importantly, I want to recognize the phenomenal employees of the city. You are the heartbeat of the city of Sacramento. Every day through your hard work, creativity and passion, you make it possible to deliver exceptional services to our residents, whether it’s repairing roads, supporting families, ensuring public safety, or nurturing our parks and green spaces. Your efforts are the foundation on which the city is built, and I look forward to working alongside you. To our residents, business owners, and volunteers, your commitment to Sacramento is the driving force behind the city. You inspire us to seek better solutions, more inclusive policies, and *** stronger sense of community. I am deeply committed to improving the lives of our residents and the prosperity of the entire community. Your voice matters. Your engagement is essential to the success of our city. To our community members and regional partners, I offer my full commitment to collaboration. Challenges such as homelessness, housing, economic development, and transportation do not exist in isolation. They demand that we come together, pooling our resources, strengths, knowledge to amplify *** greater impact. I promised to break down silos, build bridges between departments across neighborhoods and with neighboring jurisdictions. Only through true partnership can we unlock the full potential of the Sacramento region. Up on my official start date, the city manager’s office in close coordination with this governing body, we will begin scheduling *** series of listening sessions. These gatherings will be designed for you, our residents, business owners, and community members so I can listen and learn and connect with you directly. I wanna hear your priorities, your concerns, and your aspirations for Sacramento. City employees, you will receive that same invitation. I want to understand your remarkable work and how you’re laying the foundation to drive innovation, solve complex problems, and deliver essential services. Please know that your insights are invaluable. So in closing, I just wanna be clear, this is not just *** job for me. This is *** calling. I step into this role with humility, honor, and *** deep sense of responsibility. I am ready to serve this community, steward its resources and help guide its future. This is *** moment of opportunity, *** chance for us to all come together, dream boldly and continue to build *** city that reflects the best of who we are. Thank you, counsel.

    Sacramento city leaders announce Maraskeshia Smith as next city manager

    Updated: 9:44 AM PDT Sep 30, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    Maraskeshia Smith will become Sacramento’s new city manager after a months-long nationwide search. She will become the first Black woman to serve in the role. Mayor Kevin McCarty and city council members announced Smith’s appointment at a news conference Tuesday at the SAFE Credit Union and Convention Center, saying she’ll begin her job on Jan. 5. Smith most recently served as the city manager of Santa Rosa, and also has experience working as Deputy Director and Director of Public Works in Cincinnati, Assistant City Administrator in Oakland, and Deputy City Manager in Stockton.”This is not just a job for me,” Smith said. “This is a calling.”City officials launched a search for a new city manager position after deciding not to extend Howard Chan’s contract. However, he took on a role as assistant city manager a day before his contract was set to expire.In January, the city council appointed Leyne Milstein as interim city manager as it continued its search for a permanent position. Milstein will now return as assistant city manager. While Sacramento has a mayor as an elected official, the city manager oversees more of the daily operations and is appointed by the city council. When Chan was city manager, he had a take-home salary of $400,000, one of the highest salaries for the role in the state of California. However, the State Controller’s Office in 2023 reported he earned nearly $600,000 with a vacation payout.Under the role he assumed as assistant city manager, Chan’s salary is nearly $341,000 a year, the highest posted salary for that position.Milstein’s salary as interim was $352,000. The city states that nearly 100 people applied for city manager, and the final interviews were held earlier in September. McCarty and Councilmembers Karina Talamantes and Rick Jennings described Smith as the top candidate among those who were interviewed. Prior to the news conference, the city council will held a closed-door session where the new city manager was officially “considered,” according to a news release from the city. Officials also planned to hold a “priority and goal setting workshop” following the end of the news conference.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Maraskeshia Smith will become Sacramento’s new city manager after a months-long nationwide search. She will become the first Black woman to serve in the role.

    Mayor Kevin McCarty and city council members announced Smith’s appointment at a news conference Tuesday at the SAFE Credit Union and Convention Center, saying she’ll begin her job on Jan. 5.

    This content is imported from YouTube.
    You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

    Smith most recently served as the city manager of Santa Rosa, and also has experience working as Deputy Director and Director of Public Works in Cincinnati, Assistant City Administrator in Oakland, and Deputy City Manager in Stockton.

    “This is not just a job for me,” Smith said. “This is a calling.”

    City officials launched a search for a new city manager position after deciding not to extend Howard Chan’s contract. However, he took on a role as assistant city manager a day before his contract was set to expire.

    In January, the city council appointed Leyne Milstein as interim city manager as it continued its search for a permanent position. Milstein will now return as assistant city manager.

    While Sacramento has a mayor as an elected official, the city manager oversees more of the daily operations and is appointed by the city council. When Chan was city manager, he had a take-home salary of $400,000, one of the highest salaries for the role in the state of California. However, the State Controller’s Office in 2023 reported he earned nearly $600,000 with a vacation payout.

    Under the role he assumed as assistant city manager, Chan’s salary is nearly $341,000 a year, the highest posted salary for that position.

    Milstein’s salary as interim was $352,000.

    The city states that nearly 100 people applied for city manager, and the final interviews were held earlier in September.

    McCarty and Councilmembers Karina Talamantes and Rick Jennings described Smith as the top candidate among those who were interviewed.

    Prior to the news conference, the city council will held a closed-door session where the new city manager was officially “considered,” according to a news release from the city. Officials also planned to hold a “priority and goal setting workshop” following the end of the news conference.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Community Voices: Murder in America and the Need to Disagree Better

    [ad_1]

    By Hon. Scott Benson, Detroit City Councilmember

    If the last couple of weeks has taught us anything it’s that we need to learn to disagree better. 

    In the aftermath of the high-profile murder of a notorious MAGA media figure, and with the President of the United States (POTUS) heightening tensions by trying to blame the killing on the “radical left,” Utah Governor Spencer Cox showed bravery and leadership by standing up and saying no to hate. While POTUS’ inflammatory rhetoric is not going to unite a country that is on the edge, Governor Cox is one of the few high-profile Republicans who is actively trying to dial the temperature down.  

    Cox was urging people not to play the blame game, and that the shooter was the only person responsible for this heinous crime. In other words, he was doing what a decent and good leader does at a time like this; dialing the temperature down, while POTUS is doing the exact opposite.  

    Cox was chair of the National Governors Association when he launched an initiative called Disagree Better. Now an independent nonprofit, Disagree Better uses campaigns, partnerships, and real conversations to show what respectful disagreement looks like in action. It offers tools and resources to build meaningful, constructive dialogue. It also has a toolkit so parents can teach their children these important skills. As the organization’s motto says – democracy is disagreement.  And as I like to say, successful democracy is disagreement without violence.  

    Disagree Better urges people to be curious, not caustic. It teaches people to respect the opinion of others, rather than shout them down. Disagreement is not an act of war, but a way to learn. It isn’t necessarily about being nicer to each other, but it is about finding a way to use disagreement to move toward compromise and solutions to the problems we face as a country.  See President Obama and former House Speaker John Boehner. 

    Today, too much of the discourse around politics is toxic. We talk over and yell at each other. We want to “win” every political argument, no matter the cost.  And social media is not helping, as we are forced to sort through disinformation and distortions in search of the truth. Polarization has become a political strategy, deepening with each day that passes while we have political leaders who paint each other as mortal enemies. 

    This past week I heard a lot of pundits and elected officials saying, “this is not what our country is about,” but that showed a great lack of historical understanding and perspective. The Black community is all too familiar with political violence, domestic terrorism and murder. Historically, our community has experienced a disproportionate amount of all three. Political violence and domestic terrorism have been used to deny us our rights, our dreams, and our economic security. From overt acts of terror, like lynchings, to assassinations like those of Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers, the Black community has been the target of deliberate politically motivated violence and murder for generations.  

    What concerns me is that POTUS and his Cabinet members are pushing us further away from the American ideal and now punishing Americans for expressing their views about this murder.  The American ideal encompasses the rights that we as Americans should enjoy and are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence as – “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The rights that we have fought wars over, and that our government SHOULD protect. The right to free speech, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly. The right to question our government. The right to hold a viewpoint different from your neighbor. The right to disagree.  

    The notorious media figure’s views were often provocative, laced with rhetoric that was racist, xenophobic, and misogynistic. His often crude and demeaning insults targeted the most vulnerable among us – immigrants, LGBTQ people, and other marginalized communities. He was not the model for learning to disagree better, but he was utilizing his American right to freedom of speech, and no one should be murdered for exercising their American rights. See Maceo Snipes, 1946. 

    To paraphrase FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, “A single disturbed individual’s inexcusable act of political violence should not justify broader censorship, POTUS’s administration is increasingly using government power to suppress lawful expression.  Giving up the right to speak freely means accepting that those in power, not the people, will define the boundaries of debate in a free society.” 

    Until we learn to disagree better in this country and return to listening to each other, asking questions about how one has arrived at their views, and using disagreement to find solutions, we are only going to remain deeply divided. A majority of the public is clear that they are over the bickering. This is going to take difficult conversations, and we cannot be afraid to have them.   We all need to take the words of Governor Cox to heart and “learn to disagree better.” 

    About Post Author

    [ad_2]

    Jeremy Allen, Executive Editor

    Source link

  • Community Voices: Murder in America and the Need to Disagree Better

    [ad_1]

    By Hon. Scott Benson, Detroit City Councilmember

    If the last couple of weeks has taught us anything it’s that we need to learn to disagree better. 

    In the aftermath of the high-profile murder of a notorious MAGA media figure, and with the President of the United States (POTUS) heightening tensions by trying to blame the killing on the “radical left,” Utah Governor Spencer Cox showed bravery and leadership by standing up and saying no to hate. While POTUS’ inflammatory rhetoric is not going to unite a country that is on the edge, Governor Cox is one of the few high-profile Republicans who is actively trying to dial the temperature down.  

    Cox was urging people not to play the blame game, and that the shooter was the only person responsible for this heinous crime. In other words, he was doing what a decent and good leader does at a time like this; dialing the temperature down, while POTUS is doing the exact opposite.  

    Cox was chair of the National Governors Association when he launched an initiative called Disagree Better. Now an independent nonprofit, Disagree Better uses campaigns, partnerships, and real conversations to show what respectful disagreement looks like in action. It offers tools and resources to build meaningful, constructive dialogue. It also has a toolkit so parents can teach their children these important skills. As the organization’s motto says – democracy is disagreement.  And as I like to say, successful democracy is disagreement without violence.  

    Disagree Better urges people to be curious, not caustic. It teaches people to respect the opinion of others, rather than shout them down. Disagreement is not an act of war, but a way to learn. It isn’t necessarily about being nicer to each other, but it is about finding a way to use disagreement to move toward compromise and solutions to the problems we face as a country.  See President Obama and former House Speaker John Boehner. 

    Today, too much of the discourse around politics is toxic. We talk over and yell at each other. We want to “win” every political argument, no matter the cost.  And social media is not helping, as we are forced to sort through disinformation and distortions in search of the truth. Polarization has become a political strategy, deepening with each day that passes while we have political leaders who paint each other as mortal enemies. 

    This past week I heard a lot of pundits and elected officials saying, “this is not what our country is about,” but that showed a great lack of historical understanding and perspective. The Black community is all too familiar with political violence, domestic terrorism and murder. Historically, our community has experienced a disproportionate amount of all three. Political violence and domestic terrorism have been used to deny us our rights, our dreams, and our economic security. From overt acts of terror, like lynchings, to assassinations like those of Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers, the Black community has been the target of deliberate politically motivated violence and murder for generations.  

    What concerns me is that POTUS and his Cabinet members are pushing us further away from the American ideal and now punishing Americans for expressing their views about this murder.  The American ideal encompasses the rights that we as Americans should enjoy and are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence as – “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The rights that we have fought wars over, and that our government SHOULD protect. The right to free speech, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly. The right to question our government. The right to hold a viewpoint different from your neighbor. The right to disagree.  

    The notorious media figure’s views were often provocative, laced with rhetoric that was racist, xenophobic, and misogynistic. His often crude and demeaning insults targeted the most vulnerable among us – immigrants, LGBTQ people, and other marginalized communities. He was not the model for learning to disagree better, but he was utilizing his American right to freedom of speech, and no one should be murdered for exercising their American rights. See Maceo Snipes, 1946. 

    To paraphrase FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, “A single disturbed individual’s inexcusable act of political violence should not justify broader censorship, POTUS’s administration is increasingly using government power to suppress lawful expression.  Giving up the right to speak freely means accepting that those in power, not the people, will define the boundaries of debate in a free society.” 

    Until we learn to disagree better in this country and return to listening to each other, asking questions about how one has arrived at their views, and using disagreement to find solutions, we are only going to remain deeply divided. A majority of the public is clear that they are over the bickering. This is going to take difficult conversations, and we cannot be afraid to have them.   We all need to take the words of Governor Cox to heart and “learn to disagree better.” 

    About Post Author

    [ad_2]

    Jeremy Allen, Executive Editor

    Source link

  • Portland City Council OKs Temporary Code Suspensions To Speed Up Permitting Process – KXL

    [ad_1]


    PORTLAND, Ore. – The Portland City Council on Wednesday unanimously approved a set of temporary code suspensions aimed at streamlining the city’s permitting process for development projects that add to or alter existing buildings.

    The changes, set to take effect Oct. 24, will remain in place through Jan. 1, 2029. They do not apply to new construction.

    City officials say the move will help reduce permitting delays, support small businesses, and boost housing and economic development.

    The four suspended requirements are:

    • Street tree planting (Title 11): Temporarily waives street tree planting requirements for additions and alterations valued over $25,000 — except where sidewalk improvements are already required.

    • Frontage improvements (Title 17): Suspends sidewalk and curb ramp upgrades for most alterations to existing buildings, unless those changes increase daily trips to the site. Schools and hospitals are excluded.

    • Seismic evaluation (Title 24): Pauses the requirement for seismic reports on pre-1974 buildings undergoing alterations worth more than $362,000.

    • Zoning code upgrades (Title 33): Extends an existing pause on requirements like bike parking and landscaping upgrades to all projects — not just housing — through 2029.

    The suspensions will apply to building permits currently in review or inspection that have not yet received final inspection. Applicants may need to revise existing applications to take advantage of the new rules.

    The suspensions are the first in a series of proposals from the Code Alignment Project, which launched in 2024 to eliminate bureaucratic overlap and improve permitting services. City staff are expected to propose additional reforms in the coming months.

    More about:


    [ad_2]

    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • City Council aims to destroy food delivery in order to save it

    [ad_1]

    New York City’s elected activists can’t stop micro-managing app-based food delivery.

    It’s an obsession driven by economic ignorance that harms the low-wage, unskilled workers the left claims to care about so deeply.

    In 2023, the City Council imposed new minimum-wage regulations on apps such as Uber Eats or Doordash, which employ bicycle deliverymen to pick up food from restaurants to deliver to customers: It hiked wages to above $20 an hour, forcing the apps to do strict recordkeeping to track time on-call and time making deliveries.

    The Department of Consumer and Worker Protection correctly predicted that wages — and prices — would rise, yielding fewer deliveries as some customers decided that paying an extra 10 bucks to get sandwiches delivered wasn’t worth it.

    And, in fact, the “reform” drove thousands of delivery workers out of the industry, while those who remain are working much harder.

    And now the City Council thinks it can stop that job-killing effect . . . by giving app deliverymen job protections that most American workers can only dream of.

    New York, like almost every other state, follows the doctrine of “at-will employment,” meaning that (with limited exceptions) you can be fired for any reason, or no reason, at any time.

    But progressives’ new bill would prevent the apps from “deactivating” delivery workers without “just cause.”

    Being extremely slow in completing deliveries, for instance, wouldn’t be sufficient reason for termination.

    Plus, the company would have to give workers 15 days’ notice and written explanations of which rules it believes they violated. And in the event of “bona-fide” economic distress, it would have to give 120 days’ notice.

    More, the apps couldn’t deactivate any delivery worker unless they could prove he knowingly violated the rules.

    Prove to who? The law prescribes an arbitration system that could occupy a team of labor lawyers for years, and requires back pay, lawyers’ fees and thousands of dollars in penalties and fines if the worker’s termination is found to be “without cause.”

    Food delivery is casual labor, done mostly by undocumented people with few options or skills beyond knowing how to ride a bike.

    Nobody wants these folks to be exploited, but it’s beyond nuts for the City Council to devote so much of its attention to imposing some supposed “perfect justice” on a minor service that’s worked well enough for decades with basically no oversight at all.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cleveland City Council Staffer Accused of Improperly Accessing Public Records Prompts Outside Investigation – Cleveland Scene

    [ad_1]

    It’s a widely held belief across Cleveland’s Law Department that there are no secrets at City Hall. And this week, City Hall was still abiding by that premise.

    Steven Rys, a policy analyst for City Council and assistant to Council President Blaine Griffin, has been covertly downloading thousands of classified files from the city’s public records database for years, city officials claimed on Tuesday, during a press conference in City Hall’s Red Room.

    Those files totaled 2,252 unredacted public records since 2021, they said, ranging from police reports with exposed victim information to personnel files with social security numbers. Rys, they claimed, did not have proper clearance to do so.

    In back-to-back press conferences on Tuesday, through ad hominem attacks and talks of charges in federal court, the Rys affair has led to a rift splitting a concerned Bibb administration and a City Council adamant to ensure the public that Rys has done nothing wrong.

    And instead, as Griffin asserted in a letter on Tuesday morning, outing Rys was nothing but a chess piece to rattle Council two months before one of the most change-worthy general elections in years.

    “I believe this accusation has very little to do with Steve,” Griffin wrote in a letter released Tuesday morning. “It’s an attempt to embarrass and undermine our ability to do our job by going after one of our employees.”

    “They should be ashamed of themselves,” he added.

    Backed by a panel of attorneys from the city’s Law Department, city spokesperson Tyler Sinclair insisted that Rys’ behavior—downloading on average 500 unredacted records per year—warranted a looksee from a third-party counsel. It’s unclear, he told press, where Rys stored or sent those files, or what his motivation for accessing them were.

    City spokesperson Tyler Sinclair argued that an outside investigation into Steven Rys’ actions was completely warranted. Credit: Mark Oprea

    Or, as a member of the administration put it, a possible criminal investigation. (One suggested a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.) All public records, whether they’re crime reports or medical files, are only released after sensitive info is blacked out—what, they said, Rys should not have been privy to.

    “Just because you’re a bank teller,” they said, “doesn’t mean you have access to the safe.”

    Though the city had been aware a City Council staffer was accessing such files since last May, more restrictions on GovQA, the digital system used to navigate records, were put in place earlier this year, Sinclair said.

    Rys, along with an unnamed number of Council employees, have been temporarily barred from GovQA while the outside counsel, also unnamed, carries out its probe: What was Rys’ motivation? Did those records leave City Hall?

    “Our hope is that he wouldn’t have distributed that widely because that would expose the city to significant legal vulnerability and financial risk,” Sinclair told press. If so, “it would put the city in a bad spot from a legal, HR and economic development posture.”

    Griffin, who threw together what seemed like a retaliatory press conference right after Sinclair’s, defended Rys, who’s worked at City Hall since 2013, as if Rys was a member of his own family.

    All 17 members of Council thought the same, Griffin iterated: Rys was just doing his job; there was no clear policy on city books that said he couldn’t access records—timely information needed for important legislation, after all—as he did; there was no need to fire him, as Griffin was apparently ordered to do. (Hence Tuesday’s press conference.)

    Any attacks from Bibb’s “message boy,” as Griffin painted Sinclair, were just that: attacks.

    “There is no evidence whatsoever that any of these files were leaked, or used for anything other than his work,” Griffin said from the podium in Council Chamber.

    “It’s unfair,” he said. “And it’s a desperate attempt to distract from the administration’s own failure to properly manage its public records database.”

    As of today, Rys is still an employee at City Hall. The outside investigation is pending.

    Subscribe to Cleveland Scene newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Mark Oprea

    Source link

  • Cupertino to ban RV parking on city streets

    [ad_1]

    Cupertino has become the latest Bay Area city to ban RVs and oversized vehicles from parking overnight on city streets — a new ordinance that many believe will help alleviate nuisance areas while others have expressed concern about those displaced.

    Despite arguments by some councilmembers that the city had not conducted enough outreach to alert those who will be displaced by the new restrictions, many thought the ban was long overdue.

    “We’re having a challenge which every city is having,” said Councilmember Ray Wang in an interview, asserting that Cupertino has seen an influx in RVs as nearby cities have enacted restrictions on parking for RVs and oversized vehicles. “If you’re the last city with (a ban), you’re the one left holding the bag.”

    Currently, the city has a 72-hour limit for vehicles parking on public streets, though vehicles were only required to move six inches to avoid a violation, said Cupertino Mayor Liang Chao in an email. “This is a loophole in the current law that we must fix.”

    Even though municipal law already restricts sleeping in vehicles, according to Cupertino Interim City Attorney Floy Andrews, some RV residents had parked on streets permanently, clustering in two locations in the city, triggering residents to voice concerns about safety and congestion.

    “The issue with the current ordinance is that it allows the vehicles to park substantially and indefinitely day and night,” said Andrews at a September 3 meeting. “This creates a nuisance. It impacts residents and businesses. It fails to prevent … individuals from living in vehicles.”

    After months of deliberation, the City Council settled on prohibiting oversized vehicles – such as RVs and campers – from parking on public streets citywide from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Cupertino households are allowed 20 free permits annually, which would be obtained online and allow permit holders to park a vehicle on city streets for 72 hours.

    Additionally, the policy would ban “vanlording” — renting out vehicles like RVs and vans for human habitation.

    With the move, Cupertino joins several other cities throughout the Bay Area with RV parking restrictions. Late last year, Fremont passed an RV parking ban that required vehicles to move 1000 ft every 72 hours. In San Jose, the city is creating dozens of tow-away zones throughout the year focusing on areas with high complaints. Mountain View passed parking restrictions for oversized vehicles, but after a lawsuit settlement in 2022, had to designate over three miles of streets where oversize vehicle parking was allowed.

    The new Cupertino ordinance bans all overnight parking for oversized vehicles without a permit, and does not designate any areas in the city that are exempt from the ban. While the city has a safe parking program for cars, there is not a similar program for RVs and oversized vehicles.

    Although some residents and councilmembers who spoke at the council meetings said that RV restrictions in other cities had pushed people into Cupertino, others expressed concern that some of those living in RVs might be people working and attending schools in Cupertino. Chao noted that given the high cost of housing in Cupertino, some who work in the city might choose to live in RVs.

    Councilmember J. R. Fruen acknowledged while some living in RVs might not be in dire need, many are likely members of the Cupertino community “down on their luck,” and might be families whose children attend school in the city.

    “It’s very clear that we haven’t done the outreach on this situation to ensure we’re not constructing a Cupertino of cruelty and to ensure … that the streets will be cleaner and safer for all concerned,” said Fruen in an interview. “I think the public has the right to its right-of-way, but we also have to ensure that the people that are most vulnerable there aren’t swept away.”

    At an earlier City Council hearing on the issue, Fruen asked that along with the ban, the city create a plan of outreach to those living in the RVs to connect people there with services.

    The ban passed unanimously Tuesday and will go into effect in a month. City staff expect the policy to cost $51,000 in the first year due to expenses associated with the online permitting system and new street signs communicating the ban — a process that may take months to roll out.

    After a year, the City Council will return to the ordinance to assess its impact. “Any policy is an evolving process,” said Chao in an email. “The council has adopted a version that we think make most sense at this time and we will review its effectiveness and its impact after one year.”

    [ad_2]

    Luis Melecio-Zambrano

    Source link

  • City Council defends business curfew set to expand beyond Kensington

    [ad_1]

    City council members introduced 24 resolutions and 20 bills at Thursday’s meeting — the first since the summer recess — but much of the focus centered around the business curfew that council approved in June. 

    The curfew, which takes effect in mid-November, will require corner stores and takeout businesses in the Seventh and Eighth Districts to close between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. It also affects a portion of the First District. Those districts include Germantown, Fairhill and Kensington, among other neighborhoods. 


    MORE: Improved MLK Drive Bridge to reopen this month after more than two years of repair work


    The curfew omits restaurants and with liquor licenses and is designed to target illegal activity. Proposed by Councilmember Quetcy Lozada (D-7), it expands a curfew put in place in Kensington in 2024. 

    Council President Kenyatta Johnson clarified that the expanded curfew will take effect in 60 days after some people questioned whether it was starting Thursday. The curfew will expire at the end of 2026, and the law also raises the fines for violators from $500 to $1,000. 

    But some small business and food truck owners say that they’ll lose out on overnight sales

    Jose Ruiz, a North Philadelphia resident who owns a food truck, was among those who spoke out against the curfew on Thursday. 

    “Food trucks are part of our nightlife, they are a part of that aspect of life in our city,” Ruiz said. “Above all, we are a source of income for working families. … This (ordinance) endangers our ability to earn a living. We harm no one. We are not a problem. We are part of a solution serving a community that needs us.”

    A group of 10 organizations, including the Germantown United CDC, the Frankford Kensington Development Council and the Institute for Justice — a Virginia-based public interest law firm — signed a letter Monday calling on council to recall the law. 

    Jennifer McDonald, director of the Institute of Justice, spoke at the meeting Thursday on behalf of small business owners, including a pharmacist who said the curfew would prevent him from providing medicine for area hospices overnight. However, several council members chided her, noting the law firm is not based in Philadelphia. 

    Councilmember Cindy Bass (D-8), whose district is affected by the law, said the Institute of Justice does not understand the harmful impact of overnight businesses. 

    “It’s just unbelievable that you have the audacity to tell neighbors that they have to put up with something that you’re not putting up with,” Bass said. “You don’t have to deal with it, but to tell people that they should have to deal with these conditions.”

    Lozada said the curfew is not intended to harm small businesses, and claimed that the opposition to it prevents the neighborhoods from developing. 

    “For the love of God, when is my community going to catch a break?” Lozada said. “We have got to do these drastic pieces of legislation in order to bring structure and order and discipline back into my community, in order for us to be able to start again and welcome businesses.” 

    Councilmember Katherine Gilmore Richardson also introduced two additional bills aimed at “nuisance businesses” that contribute to litter, drug use or other neighborhood issues. The first prevents businesses from changing their names or ownership to avoid legal persecution and the second provides clarity on violations that prompt notices to stop work or cease operations. 

    [ad_2]

    Michaela Althouse

    Source link

  • Kalispell City Council scrapped the residence requirement for incoming city manager

    [ad_1]

    Sep. 10—Kalispell City Council will no longer require city managers to live within city limits.

    The decision to do away with the residency requirement came as Council searches for a successor for Doug Russell, who left the city manager position in late August. GMP Consultants was hired last month to spearhead the four- to six-month recruitment process and Development Services Director Jarod Nygren has taken over as interim city manager in the meantime.

    Councilors on Monday night weighed the importance of expertise over experiencing and managing the city as a resident. The body ultimately landed on letting potential applicants know that city residency is preferred but unrequired.

    In 2006, the city enacted an ordinance requiring all city employees to live in Flathead County with a hiring preference given to applicants living in the city. But the ordinance was scrapped in 2022.

    There is still a residency requirement in the City Manager’s code that will have to be updated, City Attorney Johnna Preble told Council.

    Mayor Mark Johnson supported striking the code, saying that the requirement may drive away talented applicants.

    He brought up the possibility of being a qualified applicant in the pool, “but he has three horses, two cows, whatever. Where’s the horse property in Kalispell?”

    “What I am more concerned about is the individual and getting the right team member in place versus that they hit all the boxes,” Johnson said.

    Councilors Sandy Carlson, Sam Nunnally, Kari Gabriel and Chad Graham sided with the mayor’s reasoning.

    Gabriel added that it didn’t make sense to require some city employees to live in the city while others didn’t have to.

    Before agreeing to make residency preferred, Councilor Ryan Hunter said that living within the city would lead to better decision-making and introduced the idea of a 12- to 18-month grace period for the incoming city manager to find housing, owing to high housing costs.

    Daoud remained in the minority wanting to keep the residency requirement.

    “This is the one position in the city that I am not willing to let live outside the city because the management that he does is directly affecting the citizens and should affect him or her as well,” Daoud said.

    Councilors were in agreement over the incoming city manager’s salary proposed by the Human Resources department.

    The starting salary range was proposed between $195,000 to $207,000, according to a memo from Director of Human Services Denise Michel. The range came from a review of wages in six comparable cities in the state.

    Russell’s pay in Kalispell for fiscal year 2025 was $204,490 plus health insurance and retirement.

    COUNCIL IS moving forward with transferring ownership of the Central School building to the Northwest Montana History Museum.

    The municipality has leased the 130-year-old historic building at 124 Second Ave. E. to the nonprofit since 1997, but the question of ownership has made it difficult to raise money from private donors and apply to funding programs, according to museum leadership.

    Aside from an initial city investment, the museum has been responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the space, including an $81,000 roof replacement in 2010 and a $61,000 heating and cooling upgrade over the summer, according to the museum.

    The permit parking lot on the north side of the property would remain under city ownership, according to Nygren. The city is also looking to keep the green space open to the public.

    Hunter and Daoud were in favor of adding a restriction keeping the museum from altering its historic architecture.

    COUNCIL ALSO agreed to hiring a third party to deal with ambulance billing for the Kalispell Fire Department as call volumes increase.

    The task is performed by one full-time employee, and the city has seen a 10% to 15% increase in calls every year, “so we’re pretty susceptible to something happening,” Nygren said.

    Kalispell is the only class one city — a city with more than 10,000 people — that still manages billing in-house, according to a memo from Fire Chief Jay Hagen.

    “What we’re looking at doing is just trying to maximize our ambulance transporter response revenue,” Nygren said. “Currently we get about 40% of the billing. This would likely increase us to over 50%.”

    Ambulance billing represented about $1.3 million in revenue, according to the fiscal 2025 budget.

    Reporter Jack Underhill can be reached at 758-4407 and junderhill@dailyinterlake.com.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Special election for vacant Providence City Council seat is Dec. 2

    [ad_1]

    The façade of Providence City Hall is seen from Kennedy Plaza on Sept. 9, 2025. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current)

    A special election to fill the Providence City Council’s vacant Ward 2 seat — which represents the Blackstone, College Hill, and Wayland neighborhoods — is set for Tuesday, Dec. 2. A primary date is scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 4. 

    The contest already has three contenders. The latest hopeful is Democratic pollster Matt McDermott, who announced his intent to enter the race Wednesday morning.

    McDermott has served as national co-chair of the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund Campaign Board and worked with candidates like U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride, a Delaware Democrat who was elected in 2024 to become the first openly transgender person in Congress. 

    David Caldwell Jr., president of the Audubon Society of RI, and Jeff Levy of the law firm Levy & Blackman LLP previously announced their candidacy. Both candidates are Democrats.

    City charter rules triggered a special election for Ward 2 to fill the seat left by Helen Anthony, who resigned Sept. 1. Anthony’s resignation was OK’d by the Providence City Council at its Sept. 4 meeting, the first after the Council broke for its summer recess. 

    Candidates must declare their intent to run by filing forms with the city’s Board of Canvassers between Sept. 25 and 4 p.m. on Sept. 26. Nomination papers go out on Oct. 2, and need to be returned by Oct. 7 with at least 50 signatures from eligible voters in Ward 2.

    McDermott, who lives with his husband, a grade school teacher, in Wayland Square, calls for expanding affordable housing and returning schools to local control, after being under state control since 2019.

    “Providence stands at a pivotal moment — a time when bold action can shape our future,” McDermott said in a Wednesday statement. “We need leaders who defend our values, build real collaboration, and deliver transparent, community-led governance.”

    Caldwell’s website indicates that he shares the goals of returning schools to local control and creating more affordable housing. The Marine Corps veteran also wants to prioritize meeting Rhode Island’s Act on Climate goals and protecting the environment — a commitment he traces back to his deployment during the Iraq invasion.

    “My most vivid memory during that deployment was standing on the Kuwaiti border as Saddam Hussein set the Rumaila oil fields ablaze, turning day into near-darkness,” Caldwell wrote. “Missiles occasionally flew overhead, intercepted by our Patriot batteries. In that moment, wearing a chemical weapons suit on the other side of the world, I made a promise: my children would never have to fight oil wars abroad.”

    Caldwell moved with his wife from California to Rhode Island in 2008, then to the East Side in 2017 so his daughters could attend the Lincoln School, an all-girls college preparatory school. 

    Levy’s website promises that he will “fight to protect our city from Trump.” Levy wrote that he wants to keep the capital city “welcoming, safe, and affordable,” and cited his pro bono work against election theft and volunteer work with the American Civil Liberties Union as proof he’ll bring “relentless advocacy” to City Hall.

    “That means putting in the hard work to find fair and equitable solutions to the budget, schools, and housing — and being ready to fight back against the looming MAGA assault on our city,” Levy wrote. “I am ready to do both.”

    Levy has lived with his family in Providence for 27 years and has coached the Fox Point East Side Little League.

    Anthony announced her resignation Aug. 1, citing her continued recovery from severe injuries she sustained in a 2023 accident in a California state park while on vacation. Anthony was in a crosswalk when she was hit by an 82-year-old motorist who mistakenly hit the gas on the large ATV she was driving. She had served on the council since 2019.

    Anthony chaired the council’s Finance Committee, which is directly responsible for forging the capital city’s budget each year in concert with the mayor’s office. The committee on Tuesday night elected Councilor Jo-Ann Ryan, who represents Ward 5 and first took office in 2014, as the its chair. Ryan previously chaired the committee from 2019 to 2023.

    “City Council has no greater responsibility than to be effective stewards of taxpayer dollars,” Ryan said in a statement Tuesday. “I intend to lead this committee with transparency and diligence as we work together to build a city that serves the best interests of all of its residents.”

    During her first stint as chair, Ryan oversaw city budgets which were shaped by the allocation of more than $100 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding.

    SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • LA Council Bans “Disaster Tourism” in Pacific Palisades

    [ad_1]

    Amid reports of “Disaster Tours” taking place in Pacific Palisades, the Los Angeles City Council decided to bar the operations of tour buses in the affected areas.

    Charred ruins of homes and palm trees line the Pacific Coast Highway after the Palisades Fire
    Credit: Courtesy of Ada Guerin

    The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday unanimously approved a resolution barring the operation of “disaster tours” or any bus tours from operating in the 16-mile area of the Pacific Palisades that were affected by wildfires in January. 

    The resolution states that the restrictions are necessary to successfully rebuild and preserve public safety. “In an area within a declared emergency when construction activities to repair roadways, stabilize hillside slopes, repair utilities, reconstruct homes, and rebuild business,” all of which often occur on narrow winding roads.

    After the vote this week, the Department of Transportation is set to install signage in the area about tour bus restrictions in the affected areas. 

    Tour bus restricted areas outlined
    Credit: Courtesy of the Department of Transportation

    If a tour bus driver drives through the restricted areas outlined, their employer could be criminally charged. The driver would not be held responsible, but the employer or “operator of the tour bus company” would be, as stated by the Department of Transportation. 

    The resolution was first introduced back in July by councilmember Traci Park, whose district includes the Pacific Palisades. 

    Over the summer, her office had received reports about commercial tours operating in the Pacific Palisades area since the neighborhood opened to the public. “These are people who are looking to profit off of destruction and other people’s losses,” said council member Park. 

    The Palisades fire was a series of highly destructive wildfires that displaced tens of thousands of residents and left many without their homes. The fire destroyed close to 7,000 structures and killed 12 people.

    [ad_2]

    Tara Nguyen

    Source link

  • Appeals court revives lawsuit against Ojai council member

    [ad_1]

    A lawsuit accusing an Ojai City Council member of violating California’s open meeting law by disclosing confidential information from closed council sessions can proceed under an Aug. 19 appeals court decision.

    Leslie Rule could still appeal the lower court’s dismissal of the case to the Supreme Court of California, but that court accepts only a small fraction of the cases it’s asked to hear. Rule did not respond to interview requests, and her attorney declined to comment.

    A document she filed Aug. 5 with the city, asking it to pay for her legal representation, indicates that she does plan to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

    Leslie Rule

    The dispute started shortly after Rule was elected to the council in 2022. At that time, the Ojai City Council had recently approved an apartment project known as Ojai Bungalows, with 67 units spread across four different properties in the city. A citizen group called Simply Ojai sued the city to stop the development, and Ojai residents also began gathering signatures for a referendum to overturn the city’s approval.

    The City Council held a series of closed sessions in late 2022 and early 2023 related to the Simply Ojai lawsuit, the Ojai Bungalows project and the potential referendum. The Brown Act, which sets rules for open meetings for city councils and other local government agencies in California, allows legislative bodies to meet in private in certain circumstances, and discussing pending or likely lawsuits is one of them.

    Rule did not think the council was complying with the Brown Act, and she felt that behind closed doors, some council members appeared to be siding with Simply Ojai. During some of her first meetings on the council, she spoke from the dais and distributed written material to the audience that gave details of the council’s private discussions.

    This was a Brown Act violation on Rule’s part, according to an investigation by the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office. The DA’s office concluded that the City Council also violated the Brown Act, as Rule had alleged, because some of its closed sessions covered topics that were not properly disclosed on the council’s published agendas. The Brown Act requires local government agencies to inform the public of the topics of closed sessions and the outcome of most votes taken in closed sessions.

    After the DA’s office released its report, the City Council voted 4-1 to acknowledge its violations and follow the Brown Act in the future. Rule voted against that motion, but the DA’s office said she pledged separately to follow the law, and it considered the matter resolved.

    Appeals ruling sends case back to trial court

    In April 2023, a group of seven people, led by Ojai resident David Byrne, sued Rule under the Brown Act. Their lawsuit also named Jon Drucker, Rule’s attorney, as a defendant, because he also spoke in City Council meetings about closed-session discussions and handed out the written descriptions of those sessions.

    In court filings, Rule and Drucker denied that they violated the Brown Act. They also asked to have the case thrown out under California’s anti-SLAPP law.

    SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” Anti-SLAPP laws like California’s provide an avenue to have a lawsuit quickly dismissed if it seeks to punish someone for exercising their free speech rights on a matter of public concern.

    In October 2023, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Ben Coats ruled in favor of Rule and Drucker’s anti-SLAPP motion and dismissed the lawsuit against them. Byrne and the other plaintiffs appealed, and last month the state appeals court overturned the Superior Court ruling.

    In her ruling, which was joined by two other appeals court justices and officially published by the court on Aug. 19, Associate Justice Tari Cody wrote that the trial court did not properly analyze whether the anti-SLAPP law should apply.

    The appeals court did not rule on the underlying question of whether Rule violated the Brown Act. The case will now go back to Ventura County Superior Court, unless the California Supreme Court intervenes.

    There is a “public interest exemption” in California’s anti-SLAPP law, which states that the law does not apply to lawsuits that deal with matters in the public interest and don’t seek any special remedy for the plaintiffs themselves. The appeals court ruled that Byrne’s lawsuit should fall under that exemption.

    David Loy, the legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, said the point of the anti-SLAPP law is to make sure that lawsuits targeting protected speech don’t have “a chilling effect on speech in matters of public interest.”

    The First Amendment Coalition is a nonprofit that advocates for press freedom and open government and has brought a number of Brown Act lawsuits against government agencies.

    Loy said the Ojai case wasn’t covered by the anti-SLAPP law because “this is not about one person trying to make money off another person, trying to win a judgment that says, ‘You owe me $100,000.’ The plaintiffs are not trying to profit from this.”

    City has refused to cover Rule’s legal fees

    “My clients are not asking for any monetary damages, just for the court to tell her she’s wrong and prohibit her from doing it again,” said Sabrina Venskus, an attorney for Byrne and the other people who filed the lawsuit.

    Venskus said she disagrees with the district attorney’s conclusion that the Ojai City Council violated the Brown Act by discussing topics in private that weren’t property covered in its public agendas. Even if that was a violation, Venskus said Rule isn’t allowed to respond by disclosing confidential information. Instead, Venskus said, the proper remedy is to take the matter to the district attorney or file a lawsuit against the city.

    “There are provisions in the Brown Act to address the issue if she thinks something must be disclosed, and she did not go through those procedures,” Venskus said. “She was advised very clearly by the city attorney that this is how you go about dealing with the issue that you have, but it’s not to take it into your own hands.”

    If Rule loses in Superior Court, she may have to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees. The original court ruling called for Byrne and his fellow plaintiffs to pay Rule’s legal feels, which were about $79,000. Since that decision was overturned, they will no longer have to pay.

    Rule has repeatedly asked the city to cover her legal costs, and the city has repeatedly refused. The most recent request Rule filed was Aug. 5. It asked the city to “authorize and fund” her legal costs, including for a petition to the California Supreme Court to review her case.

    In a claim filed by Rule with the city on June 20, she said her legal fees had totaled $352,000. That claim accuses the city of retaliating against her by not funding her legal defense, and by excluding her from closed sessions and filing a brief in support of the lawsuit against her.

    Ojai Bungalows now in development

    The legal dispute over what Rule said about the closed City Council sessions has outlived the dispute over the Ojai Bungalows apartments. Work is now underway at the properties, where the developer, The Becker Group, plans to build a total of 63 new units and preserve 25 existing units on one property.

    The voter referendum that could have overturned the city’s 2022 approval of Ojai Bungalows never made it to the ballot. In August 2023, the developer, Jeff Becker of Ventura, withdrew his application, and the City Council voted to take the referendum off the March 2024 ballot.

    Becker then submitted a new development plan for the four properties, and in December 2023 the City Council approved a settlement with the developer to allow the project to move forward. A new state law that took effect in 2024 would have allowed Becker to build without City Council approval and without preserving any of the existing units, and to include fewer affordable units than were in the final development agreement, according to an explainer on the agreement posted to the city’s website.

    Tony Biasotti is an investigative and watchdog reporter for the Ventura County Star. Reach him at tbiasotti@vcstar.com. This story was made possible by a grant from the Ventura County Community Foundation’s Fund to Support Local Journalism.

    This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Appeals court revives lawsuit against Ojai council member

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Five City Council takeaways: Funding for Aquatic Center approved, city auction, pro tem

    [ad_1]

    City Council convened for its last scheduled meeting in August on Monday.

    Here are five takeaways from the meeting:

    1. Council appoints president pro tem, prepares for new appointee

    After the resignation of Mike Neff resigned on Aug. 19, City Council is left with eight members until the Republican Party appoints a person to replace Neff.

    With Neff’s resignation, council was tasked with voting in a new president pro tempore. Should there be an absense or vacancy in the council president seat, the president pro tempore would fill that seat.

    Council voted in Shawn Barr, Ward 1, with a vote of 6-2. Aaron Rollins, at large, and Jason Schaber, Ward 3, both voted for Rollins to take the seat.

    In addition to replacing president pro tempore, council voted to appoint Neff’s replacement to his committee assignments.

    Shawn Barr, Ward 1, was voted by City Council to replace Mike Neff as president pro tempore after Neff resigned earlier this month.

    2. City transfers property to Tri-Rivers Career Center

    City Council voted to transfer a property at 469 Park Blvd. from the Marion Land Bank Program to Tri-Rivers Career Center.

    Tri-Rivers plans to build a single-family home on the property using studnets from its various construction programs.

    3. Lincoln Park Aquatic Center gets new pump and equipment

    City Council approved more than $20,000 in additional appropriations for the Lincoln Park Aquatic Center. The funds will go toward parts to repair a pump at the pool, new point-of-sale computer systems, additional supplies and expenses.

    Officials expect the pump repair to take place in the off season to prepare the pool for next year.

    City Council met to discuss funding allocations to Lincoln Park Aquatic Center and the Strongest Town Celebration, vote to appoint president pro tempore and more on Aug. 25.

    City Council met to discuss funding allocations to Lincoln Park Aquatic Center and the Strongest Town Celebration, vote to appoint president pro tempore and more on Aug. 25.

    4. Strongest Town Celebration sees more than $10,000 in donations

    Businesses and individuals around Marion have been donating funds and supplies to the Strongest Town Celebration held Aug. 23. City Council approved appropriating more than $11,000 in donations towards the expenses of the party.

    Donations came from James and Barbara Greetham, Marion Technical College, Poet, Fahey Bank, Wilson Bohannon Locks, Park National Bank, Pillar Credit Union, Nick and Lois Fisher, Richard and Traci Olt, Chris Massey, Wyandot Snacks, Marion City Schools, United Way of North Central Ohio, Jester Studios, Hessler’s Screen Printing, Mike’s Deli, Cross Function CrossFit, Rialto Manufacturing, Lowe’s, Jama Property Management, Walmart, Carroll’s Jewelers, First Consolidated Fire District, Holmes Rental & Sales Inc., Laipply’s Printing & Marketing Solutions, Gordon Food Service, Max Aiir, B&B Mechanical, Peacock Water and Joe Bayliff’s Route 30 Harley Davidson.

    5. City to hold auction of city vehicles

    A city auction will take place at 10 a.m. Sept. 27 at Marion Municipal Airport, 1530 Pole Lane Road.

    Every few years the city auctions vehicles that are no longer in use or are no longer valuable. The auction will include cars, trucks, buses and specialized vehicles.

    The next City Council meeting is at 6:30 p.m. Sept. 8 at Marion City Hall, 233 W. Center St. City Council meetings are livestreamed on the city’s Facebook page.

    This article originally appeared on Marion Star: City Council votes on president pro tem, approves funding, auction

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Florida GOP Chairman joins Jacksonville City Council members backing property tax cut

    [ad_1]

    A majority of Jacksonville City Council has lined up in support of trimming the city’s property tax rate for the first time since 2022 in a shift that’s gained attention from state leaders and the head of the Republican Party of Florida.

    State GOP Chairman Evan Power joined City Council President Kevin Carrico and other council members Aug. 25 on the steps of City Hall where local Republicans held posters that said “Protect Jax. Cut taxes. Cut waste.”

    “We need to continue to push and say, ‘Enough is enough,’” Carrico said. “We want the relief. We want to give the money back to the citizens.”

    Jacksonville is among the cities that Gov. Ron DeSantis and state Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia have criticized for their spending levels that have risen in tandem with recent growth in the property tax base.

    Ingoglia previously praised the City Council’s Finance Committee for supporting a millage cut for property taxes. Power struck a similar note.

    “Property tax is the No. 1 issue facing Floridians, and if Jacksonville can make the tough decisions, so can every other city government across the state,” he said.

    Mayor Deegan: tax rate cut is ‘simply a political move’

    Hours after Carrico’s event, Mayor Donna Deegan told reporters her budget is about solving problems that residents care about while council members pressing for the millage cut are bowing to political pressure from state officials.

    “This is, frankly, simply a political move,” Deegan said.

    The Finance Committee’s proposed millage rate for property taxes is about 1% lower than the current rate. The owner of a $200,000 home with a $50,000 homestead exemption would pay about $19 less in city taxes than if the city keeps using the same rate.

    Florida Republican Party Chairman Evan Power speaks on the steps of Jacksonville City Hall on Aug. 25, 2025 about cutting the property tax rate in Jacksonville. He joined City Council members who support the cut and local Republicans holding signs in favor of the reduction for the 2025-26 budget.

    Deegan said that equates to about $1 a day in savings for the average homeowner. She said roughly half the city’s residents are renters who wouldn’t get anything from the millage rate reduction. On the spending side, she said the Finance Committee removed millions of dollars her budget put forward for affordable housing, reducing homelessness and healthcare programs..

    She said Jacksonville has had a history of making progress on building a high quality of life for residents and then letting those gains slip away.

    “We make some momentum and some progress and then it gets pulled back because there’s always a group of people that once that progress starts, they want to pull us back,” she said. “And that’s what’s happening now.”

    Council could take early vote on tax rate at Sept. 9 meeting

    The full City Council will vote Sept. 23 on the final version of the budget in what could be a vote-a-rama on individual spending items.

    But on the question of the millage rate for property taxes, Carrico said he will ask council to vote Sept. 9 to establish the lower tax rate. Once a lower rate is approved by council, it cannot be raised at the Sept. 23 meeting.

    Finance Committee members Raul Arias, Nick Howland, Ron Salem, Rory Diamond, Joe Carlucci and Will Lahnen voted Aug. 7 for a rate cut during their budget hearings, as did Carrico when he joined the committee to cast a vote on it. The lower rate trims about $13 million from the revenue Deegan used to help balance her $2 billion budget.

    Three other council members — Terrance Freeman, Mike Gay and Chris Miller — stood with Carrico at the event on the City Hall steps. That would add up to 10 votes for the property tax cut, which is a majority of the 19-member City Council.

    So far, all the council members who have signaled support are Republicans. But Carrico said it’s a bipartisan issue based on calls from property-owners getting notices in the mail of what their tax bills could be later this year.

    “This isn’t a Republican issue,” he said. “This isn’t a Democrat issue. This is an issue for the people.”

    Arias, who is chairman of the Finance Committee, said the tax rate cut is modest but it “represents something bigger” than the numerical amount.

    “It represents our commitment to review the millage regularly and ensure that government doesn’t grow more than it needs,” he said.

    Deegan’s proposed budget for 2025-26 would keep the city’s property tax rate at about $11.32 per $1,000 of taxable property value. The Finance Committee voted Aug. 7 to lower that rate to about $11.19 per $1,000 of taxable property value.

    Jacksonville City Council President Kevin Carrico speaks during an event on Aug. 25, 2025 about lowering the city's property tax rate.

    Jacksonville City Council President Kevin Carrico speaks during an event on Aug. 25, 2025 about lowering the city’s property tax rate.

    The state Save Our Homes amendment caps the growth in assessed value on homestead properties to 3% or the inflation rate, whichever is less. This year, the Save Our Homes cap is 2.9%.

    Because of the increase in assessed value, most homeowners will still see a bigger tax bill from the city even with a 1% cut in the property tax rate. But the increase won’t be as much as it would be if the millage rate stays the same.

    Carrico said any money that stays in the hands of taxpayers counts as relief.

    “The budget’s not over yet, but I think it’s a good start and I think in future years we’ll continue to look at more wasteful spending and more future cuts if we can make them,” Carrico said.

    As City Council heads to its budget votes in September, Deegan plans to have six town hall meetings across the city from Sept. 2 to Sept. 18 to rally support for her budget.

    She noted the Finance Committee partially restored funding it cut from her proposed budget for Meals on Wheels, the JaxCareConnect network of community health clinics and  Healthlink Jax telehealth program after hearing from the public.

    Budget add-ons: City Council committee backs budget restrictions on abortion, DEI and illegal immigration

    Millage cuts: Jacksonville might cut property tax rate. School district, Beaches and Baldwin aren’t.

    The Finance Committee moved closer to Deegan’s budget on JaxCareConnect and Healthlink Jax after City Council member Michael Boylan convened a meeting that drew dozens of people in support of those programs.

    Boylan said programs that give alternatives to emergency room visits takes a page from council’s own Critical Quality of Life Issues study in 2023 that examined access to health care, affordable housing and homelessness.

    He said shifting people away from emergency rooms for non-emergency care ultimately makes the health care system less costly for everyone.

    “It’s more head than heart in many respects,” Boylan said. “It’s common sense. The small investment we make as a city, it benefits our taxpayers as well as saves lives.”

    This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: Jacksonville City Council on way to cutting property tax rate

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republican legislators propose bill to prevent local ‘rights of nature’ ordinances

    [ad_1]

    The Fox River empties into Lake Michigan in Green Bay, where city officials have proposed a resolution acknowledging that local bodies of water have a right to be protected. (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)

    Two Republican legislators have proposed legislation that would prevent local governments from enacting “rights of nature” ordinances — laws that grant natural entities legal rights — claiming that such ordinances are “incompatible with America’s founding principles.” 

    The proposal from Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) and Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) was released after the Green Bay City Council voted unanimously last month to direct the city’s sustainability council to begin drafting a “rights of nature” resolution. 

    The concept of granting natural entities legal rights is relatively new in American government, but countries around the world have enshrined legal rights for nature into their constitutions. In Wisconsin, the Menominee and Ho-Chunk Nations have written rights of nature provisions into their tribal constitutions. Two years ago, the Milwaukee County Board enacted its own rights of nature resolution that promises to protect the health of the Menominee, Milwaukee and Fox rivers and Lake Michigan. 

    The Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights has been working for years to track and support the passage of rights of nature laws around the world. The organization’s executive director Mari Margill says these laws are meant to help protect the environment.

    “As environmental crises deepen, supporters of the bill are trying to make it harder to protect the environment,” Margill says of the Goeben and Nass proposal. 

    While the Republican legislation, if it manages to pass the Legislature, is unlikely to be signed into law by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, critics say the proposal is an example of kneejerk Republican opposition to pro-environment ideas and another instance of Republicans from northeast Wisconsin attempting to meddle in Green Bay city politics

    A co-sponsorship memo supporting the legislation states that these types of ordinances threaten the integrity of the legal system and property rights. 

    “Allowing and promoting this ideology represents a dangerous shift in legal precedent,” the memo states. “It would allow nonhuman entities to sue in court, threatening property rights, stalling development, and burdening the judicial system.” 

    Goeben did not respond to a request for comment. 

    Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee), who helped write Milwaukee County’s resolution as a member of the county board in 2023, tells the Wisconsin Examiner the idea of granting bodies of water legal rights isn’t so different from corporations having legal “personhood.” In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in its Citizens United decision that corporations have the right to free speech. 

    “It is wholly disingenuous to say only real tangible people have rights and then fight explicitly for those rights for corporations,” Clancy says. “It’s frankly frustrating to see Republicans take these really popular measures, these are broadly popular things, and rather than engaging with us in dialog, just trying to block these things through process. It’s a disingenuous way to go about it. Let’s talk about the things that necessitate these pieces of legislation.” 

    He adds that legislators have the power to do more than just write legislation. Goeben’s district is in the Green Bay suburbs but doesn’t include any of the city, but, Clancy argues that she could go to city council meetings and speak with people about these ideas instead of trying to blanket ban them without any dialog. 

    “It would be a much more earnest process to show up in Green Bay and go to those meetings and voice your concerns there,” he says.” We have bully pulpits, I show up at the city council, county board, school board meetings, both in my capacity as a legislator and as a parent and community member. Make your case there rather than trying to ban it.” 

    A number of Green Bay area officials expressed frustration at Republicans again involving themselves in Green Bay city politics. Earlier this year, Green Bay-area Republicans Rep. David Steffen (R-Howard) and Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) proposed a bill that would limit the types of flags allowed to be flown at government buildings. Many Green Bay residents saw the bill as an effort to weigh in on a local debate over the flying of LGBTQ Pride flags. 

    “Given the challenges our communities are facing, from our housing crisis to fully funding our public schools, I am always surprised by elected officials who don’t represent this city wasting time on policies that don’t solve real problems or fund actual solutions,” Rep. Amaad Rivera-Wagner (D-Green Bay) says.

    Joey Prestley, the Green Bay city council member who has led the local rights of nature effort, says the resolution — which hasn’t been drafted yet — is meant to serve as a non-binding advisory statement that city government will consider the environmental effects of its decisions throughout the development process. 

    “Historically, the human actors have been the ones who have had the rights and the natural features have not been able to have people speaking for them,” he says. 

    Prestley says the idea for the resolution started after a group of residents objected late in the process to a new housing development. The development would be near the Niagara escarpment, a geological feature residents want to protect, but didn’t hit the thresholds that would instigate involvement from the federal Environmental Protection Agency or state Department of Natural Resources. 

    “My hope with a resolution would be maybe we consider these — all environmental features — but especially these ones that are important to our region, earlier in the process, and more thoroughly in the process, so we don’t have people coming up in the 11th Hour and saying, ‘wait a second, you can’t build this housing development,’” Prestley says. 

    He adds that if that consideration and discussion of the environmental effects came earlier, it could have been a more constructive discussion rather than turning into a heated local debate that had the potential to kill a housing project in a city that, like much of Wisconsin, is in dire need of more housing. The Green Bay city council approved the 160-unit project in April 

    “If it had been earlier in our process, it could have been more collaborative, and it could have been neighbors and environmental advocates working together with the developer and the city to make sure it’s a plan that benefits everybody, everybody who engages with the environment, everybody who relies on the environment, everybody who appreciates the environment,” he says.

    In proposing a resolution, he adds, the objective is  “not trying to compel anyone, but really trying to adapt as a philosophy for the city that we want to consider nature as the original inhabitants of the land did before we were here.”

    Prestley says it’s easy to spin the rights of nature discussion as “the work of a crazy person” who wants “to get trees to sue the city,” but actually he says he’s trying to make sure the city considers the potentially damaging environmental effects of its actions after decades of managing the harmful contamination of the Fox River. 

    “There was not enough people speaking up for the damage that was happening to the river back then, and it created something that affected the whole community,” Prestley says. “People used to swim in the river. Nobody touches the river now. Maybe we should consider the environment. That’s not a radical idea, that is a sensible idea, considering what we’ve done in the past in this community, and thinking about how we want to move forward.” 

    Prestley says the proposed legislation seems “silly” and notes a number of city actions, such as wetland reconstruction, that have benefited the environment. He says that if the Legislature isn’t going to help, it should get out of the way. 

    “I think we’re trying to do good things in Green Bay for the environment,” he says. “And I think the state’s responsibility should be to help with the good things, or to do their own thing.”

    The lawmakers proposing the bill, “they’re not helping us,” Prestley says. “They’re not helping the people, they’re just opposing things, and I don’t know why.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Denver council member furious as husband loses job in city layoffs

    [ad_1]

    FILE – Scott Gilmore, then-deputy executive director for Denver Parks and Recreation, addresses Denver City Council, Aug. 7, 2018. Gilmore was one of the nearly 200 city workers laid off during 2025’s major budget deficit.

    Kevin J. Beaty/Denverite

    Updated 8:39 p.m.

    The husband of a Denver city council member is among the 171 city workers being laid off this week. Scott Gilmore, who is married to Councilmember Stacie Gilmore, had been an executive with the parks department for more than a decade.

    “Thirteen years of service to the City and County of Denver. That means that when he started serving, our youngest daughter was 7 years old,” Councilmember Stacie Gilmore said at Monday’s regular council meeting.

    The council member was visibly emotional, pausing at times to compose herself.

    Scott Gilmore served most of his city career as a deputy executive director, a job that frequently put him front-and-center for media interviews and conversations with neighbors. But he recently became deputy executive director of mountain parks and special projects, a seemingly more specialized job.

    He started working for the city before Stacie Gilmore was first elected in 2015. In her comments, Gilmore seemed to imply that he was fired as retaliation for her battles with Mayor Mike Johnston’s administration.

    “He is a 61-year-old man that only wanted to serve out the last four years of his time until he was 65,” Councilmember Gilmore said. “And because of his sassy loudmouthed wife, he got let go.”

    Scott Gilmore agreed with his wife — he said he felt targeted because he and his wife have been outspoken behind the scenes. 

    “Ever since this administration took over, I’ve had questions about communications, transparency,” he said in an interview. “And this hasn’t been a very transparent process.”

    District 11 City Council member Stacie Gilmore at the legislative body’s weekly meeting. Oct. 16, 2023.
    Kevin J. Beaty/Denverite

    Scott Gilmore alleged a hostile work environment.

    Scott Gilmore originally was appointed to parks leadership by former Mayor Michael Hancock. But in 2021, the Hancock administration converted Gilmore’s job and a colleague’s to career service authority positions, as CBS Colorado reported. 

    The change made it more difficult for the city’s mayor — including its new mayor, Mike Johnston — to dismiss Gilmore. The change included a raise to a salary of $170,000 a year and drew criticism from Councilmember Amanda Sawyer, CBS reported at the time.

    Now, Gilmore said he is only one of seven people who are being laid off from the parks department, including himself.

    “I have had a very influential position and role within the city and department over the past fourteen years. I have directly hired a large majority of the Park Operation staff and the removal of my leadership of this team could have been done to minimize my influence on decision making within the department,” he wrote in an email, adding that the elimination could be “perceived as a retaliatory action of this administration.”

    In the email, he said that he had encountered a hostile work environment since July 2023, which is when Johnston’s administration took power.

    Scott Gilmore said that Stacie Gilmore had criticized the city’s budget decision and its spending on homelessness. The councilwoman also raised concerns about the administration’s plan to study nuclear power at the airport, which was recently delayed as a result.

    Stacie Gilmore ended her remarks on Monday by saying the “dog muzzle” had been removed from her and her husband.

    Mayoral spokesperson Jon Ewing said the city couldn’t comment on individual personnel decisions.

    The city used a formula to determine layoffs, with decisions based on an employee’s years of service, skills, abilities and performance. Agency leaders could adjust those factors’ weights on a department level. But administration officials said last week the system was designed to avoid reverse engineering that could target individuals.

    Scott Gilmore pointed out that his current job was not paid from the general fund. The city is looking for savings in the general fund and targeted most of the layoffs and job closures to related positions. But city officials said last week there were some circumstances where a person could be laid off even if they weren’t paid out of the general fund.

    Councilmember Gilmore represents far northeast Denver and is one of the longest-serving members of council. Scott Gilmore’s brother owns Gilmore Construction, a prominent local company; the connection has occasionally drawn criticism.

    Other council members called for more transparency and denounced parts of the layoff process.

    City Council did not get a say on whether there would be layoffs and how they would be administered, a decision that vexed some council members. 

    “I cannot safely say that these are the steps that needed to be taken, [a] direct to hit to our city workforce,” said at-large Councilmember Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez. “I would’ve loved to partner with the administration and our Department of Finance to find some other creative solutions.”

    City Council member Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez at her desk during the body’s weekly legislative meeting. Jan. 16, 2023.
    Kevin J. Beaty/Denverite

    The criticism lined up with a similar one from Michael Wallin, the president of AFSCME Local Union 158 and an employee of the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, who told Denverite that the city should have explored other options, like early retirement, before resorting to layoffs. 

    Council members also expressed their condolences for the scores of other workers who will be laid off on Monday and Tuesday. The city is trying to close a $250 million budget gap for this year and next year.

    “It’s a loss for our residents. It’s a loss for people I know in my family,” said council president Amanda Sandoval.

    Editor’s note: This article was updated with additional information and comment from Scott Gilmore.

    [ad_2]

    Paolo Zialcita

    Source link

  • Rezoned for redevelopment: Denver City Council approves plan to transform area around Ball Arena

    Rezoned for redevelopment: Denver City Council approves plan to transform area around Ball Arena

    [ad_1]

    DENVER — The Denver City Council on Monday approved a handful of key elements needed for Kroenke Sports and Entertainment (KSE) to advance its redevelopment plans for Ball Arena.

    In total, Denver City Council voted on five different agenda items related to the redevelopment.

    KSE plans to transform roughly 70 acres surrounding Ball Arena into a mixed-use development, complete with apartments, retail and office space. In order to do so, the land first needed to be rezoned.

    Specifically, KSE was seeking an exemption from the view plane in that area, which dictates how high buildings can be. The goal is to protect mountain views.

    In the only vote that was not unanimous, the Denver City Council exempted KSE, allowing them to build higher than the view plane.

    Officials with KSE told Denver7 that without this approval vote on the view plane, they would have withdrawn their plans.

    Kroenke Sports & Entertainment

    The only ‘no’ vote from the council regarding the view planes came from Councilmember Amanda Sawyer, who represents District 5.

    “So the question is, are we setting a precedent here? I understand that this specific view plane is defunct, then we should have repealed the whole thing. But allowing for a precedent where we are piercing a view plane where in fact you do have a right to that view, it’s in our zoning code,” Sawyer said before voting.

    Other councilors considered the increase in affordable housing units that comes with constructing higher buildings. KSE has pledged to allot 18% of its units as affordable housing.

    “The basic idea is the more they can build, the more affordable [housing] that they can build,” said Councilmember Chris Hinds before the public hearings. “If they get the height extension, they can build 6,000 units. Eighteen percent of that is 1,080 units. And so, having 1,080 units is pretty substantial when we’re in an affordable housing crisis.”

    More than two dozen people signed up to express their opinions to council members on Monday evening.

    “The unique beauty of Denver will be compromised forever with the addition of approximately 40 high-rise buildings blocking the view of the mountains,” said Casey Pitinga.

    Other members of the public in support of the plan said it would ease the affordable housing issues in the city while creating a place designed for people, not cars.

    Denver

    Denver City Council to vote Monday on Ball Arena redevelopment plans

    Matt Mahoney, a representative of KSE, spoke with Denver7 about the concerns regarding parking in the area since the redevelopment will essentially transform the large parking lots surrounding Ball Arena into a community. He said there will still be parking available for people who drive to games at Ball Arena. There are also plans for parking garages above ground and underground.

    Most of the parking will be shared, according to Mahoney.

    He said the transformation could increase the number of parking spots in the area since it will utilize more space. However, KSE hopes the trend it has seen — where people choose other methods of transportation to commute to Ball Arena — continues to grow in the next few years.

    Mahoney said they hope to break ground on the project in either 2026 or 2027. He did not provide an exact dollar amount for the project as of Monday evening.

    Coloradans making a difference | Denver7 featured videos


    Denver7 is committed to making a difference in our community by standing up for what’s right, listening, lending a helping hand and following through on promises. See that work in action, in the videos above.

    [ad_2]

    Colette Bordelon

    Source link

  • What you missed at the CD-14 debate between Ysabel Jurado and Kevin De León

    What you missed at the CD-14 debate between Ysabel Jurado and Kevin De León

    [ad_1]

    PUBLISHER’S NOTE:
    Yes on Proposition 3 and Los Angeles Blade will present an urgent Town Hall on October 28 from 7:00 PM at St. Thomas Episcopal Church, 7501 Hollywood Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90046. For more information or to RSVP, click here.

    As California voters prepare for the Election Day ballot, they have a critical opportunity to address a potentially dangerous inconsistency in the state’s constitution regarding the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

    Think of it as a firewall against a potential 2nd Trump administration and Supreme Court effort to overturn same-sex marriage.

    Proposition 3, the Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment, seeks to remove outdated language from the Prop 8 era, a ballot initiative that successfully defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman. 

    Although federal court rulings have rendered this language unenforceable, it has lingered in California’s constitution since 2008.

    Proposition 3 would not only eliminate this vestigial language but also establish a constitutional right to marriage regardless of gender or race.

    The history of Prop 8 is a complex and contentious chapter in California’s past. Passed in the 2008 state election, Prop 8 effectively banned same-sex marriage, following a California Supreme Court ruling that had declared a previous ban (Proposition 22 from 2000) unconstitutional. Prop 8 added language to the state constitution stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

    The passage of Prop 8 shocked many who viewed California as a bastion of progressive values, highlighting a divide within the state and igniting intense debate and legal battles. Religious organizations, particularly the Roman Catholic Church and the now somewhat repentant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, played significant roles in supporting Prop 8, with the LDS Church notably contributing more than $20 million to the campaign and mobilizing volunteers for door-to-door canvassing.

    The legal journey of Prop 8 has been long and complex. Initially upheld by the California Supreme Court in 2009, it was later challenged in federal court. In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. This decision was upheld by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012, albeit on narrower grounds.

    The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court in “Hollingsworth v. Perry” (2013). However, rather than ruling on the merits of same-sex marriage, the Court decided that the proponents of Prop 8 lacked legal standing to defend the law in federal court. This effectively upheld Walker’s 2010 ruling, paving the way for the resumption of same-sex marriages in California.

    The uncertain landscape of LGBTQ+ rights

    The current Proposition 3 arises from recent concerns about the stability of LGBTQ+ rights at the federal level. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested reconsidering other precedents, including the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This potential threat prompted California legislators to act proactively to safeguard marriage equality at the state level.

    Moreover, 2024 has seen a surge of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation across the nation and in Congress. “Extremist lawmakers in Congress failed in their hateful attempts to add anti-LGBTQ+ provisions to must-pass spending bills. These measures would have restricted medically necessary health care for transgender people, allowed taxpayer-funded discrimination against married same-sex couples, and further stigmatized the LGBTQ+ community,” said a spokesperson from Equality California.

    Strong bipartisan negotiations led to the removal of 51 of 52 anti-LGBTQ+ riders, thanks in large part to the efforts of the Congressional Equality Caucus and the relentless advocacy of LGBTQ+ organizations. Speaker Mike Johnson — considered the most anti-LGBTQ+ speaker in history — attempted to slow the appropriations process with these “poison pill” amendments, leading the country to the brink of a government shutdown multiple times. 

    Despite his failures, Johnson is attempting to claim victory by highlighting a limited provision that prohibits the flying of Pride flags on embassy buildings, which imposes no limits on other displays of the flag. “While we are disappointed in the passage of this provision, it is important to consider it in the context of the overwhelming defeat of other measures. The Speaker’s attempt to use this as a symbol of victory is as laughable as his dysfunctional term as Speaker has been,” the spokesperson added.

    The fragility of rights

    The overturning of Roe v. Wade has sent shockwaves through the legal community, particularly among LGBTQ+ advocates. The decision raised alarms about the vulnerability of other civil rights protections, including marriage equality. Legal experts are now grappling with unprecedented questions about how to secure these rights amid a shifting judicial landscape.

    The fragility of unenumerated rights — those not explicitly written in the Constitution but granted through Supreme Court interpretation — has become increasingly apparent. Marriage equality, like abortion rights, falls into this category and has been upheld through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. However, Thomas’s opinion in the Dobbs case hints at a willingness to reexamine these precedents.

    A significant concern for marriage equality advocates is the idea that rights relying on due process must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” Since nationwide marriage equality is only seven years old, it lacks the historical foundation that might protect it from future challenges.

    The patchwork possibility

    If Obergefell were overturned, the U.S. could revert to a patchwork of marriage laws reminiscent of the pre-2015 era. According to the Movement Advancement Project, as many as 32 states could potentially revert to banning same-sex marriages. This scenario would create a stark divide across the country, with some states recognizing LGBTQ+ marriages while others outlaw them.

    Such a reversion would have far-reaching implications for hundreds of thousands of couples who have married since Obergefell. While it’s unlikely that existing marriages would be invalidated, the legal status of these unions could become uncertain. This potential outcome underscores the urgency of enshrining marriage equality in state constitutions and laws.

    The challenge of codification

    While some lawmakers have expressed interest in codifying marriage equality at the federal level, legal experts are divided on whether Congress has that authority. Traditionally, marriage laws have fallen under state jurisdiction, complicating efforts to establish federal protections.

    This uncertainty adds pressure to state-level efforts to protect marriage equality. In states with existing bans, securing marriage rights would require constitutional amendments or ballot measures, necessitating extensive public education campaigns and grassroots organizing.

    The importance of proactive constitutional change

    Despite California’s progressive reputation, the state constitution still contains language that could be used to restrict same-sex marriages if federal protections were overturned. This highlights the importance of Prop 3.

    Currently, 35 states maintain constitutional or statutory bans on same-sex marriage. Although these bans are unenforceable due to the Obergefell decision, they could be reactivated if the Supreme Court were to overturn that ruling. California, despite its forward-thinking values, is among these states due to the lingering effects of Prop 8.

    Without the passage of Prop 3, California could face a situation where existing same-sex marriages remain valid, but new marriages could be denied. This potential legal limbo underscores the urgency of updating the state constitution to explicitly protect marriage equality.

    By passing Prop 3, California would not only eliminate discriminatory language from its constitution but also create a robust state-level protection for same-sex marriages. This proactive approach would ensure that, regardless of future federal court decisions, the right to marry would remain secure for all Californians.

    The path forward

    The journey to this point reflects a remarkable shift in public opinion. In 1996, 68 percent of Americans opposed legalizing same-sex marriage. By 2023, that figure had flipped, with 71 percent supporting marriage equality. This change crosses party lines, with a majority of Republicans now in favor. The trend is particularly strong among younger voters, indicating a generational shift toward greater acceptance and equality.

    The importance of Prop 3 extends beyond its practical effects. While same-sex marriages are of course recognized in California, enshrining this right in the state constitution provides an additional layer of protection against potential future challenges. Moreover, it represents a formal acknowledgment of past mistakes and a clear statement of California’s values of equality and inclusion.

    Critics of Prop 3 have raised concerns about its potential to open doors for challenges to laws against polygamy or underage marriages. However, these arguments are misleading. Constitutional rights are not absolute and can be limited by compelling state interests, as seen with other fundamental rights like freedom of speech.

    This situation highlights the ongoing nature of the struggle for equal rights and the importance of vigilance in protecting hard-won freedoms. Prop 3 represents an opportunity for California to lead by example, demonstrating how states can take concrete steps to safeguard the rights of their LGBTQ+ citizens in an uncertain legal landscape.

    As the November election approaches, California voters can align the state’s constitution with the prevailing values of equality and inclusivity. By voting yes on Prop 3, Californians can eliminate the last remnants of discrimination from their constitution and send a clear message that bigotry has no place in California’s fundamental laws.

    In a time when LGBTQ+ rights face renewed challenges across the nation, California has the chance to reaffirm its status as a progressive leader and to correct a long-standing injustice in its constitution. 

    Prop 3 is not just about changing words in a document; it’s about enshrining the principle that love and commitment deserve equal recognition under the law, regardless of who you are or whom you love.

    [ad_2]

    Gisselle Palomera

    Source link

  • Chicago Public Schools CEO Pedro Martinez speaks out after school board shakeup

    Chicago Public Schools CEO Pedro Martinez speaks out after school board shakeup

    [ad_1]

    CHICAGO (WLS) — Chicago Public Schools CEO Pedro Martinez spoke out for the first time Wednesday after all members of the Chicago Board of Education resigned and Mayor Brandon Johnson made his new appointments.

    Meanwhile, the Chicago City Council met Wednesday ahead of a now-canceled special meeting in the afternoon, where city leaders had planned to address the recent Board of Education shake up.

    ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

    Martinez spoke to ABC7 Wednesday, responding to criticism that he has no CPS funding plan and is relying on proposed cuts. He was also asked if he thought the mayor’s picks for a new school board could end up firing him.

    “I don’t know. I really don’t. I’m being sincere,” Martinez said. “I will say what’s great right now is that, you know, it’s very transparent what my contract says.”

    Martinez told ABC7 there has been a plan in place for months that Mayor Johnson was well aware of. The plan included using the city’s TIF surplus dollars to help fund CPS. Martinez said there a formal ask on April 30 for $462 million dollars in TIF funding to pay for pensions and union contracts, including one for the teachers union that included 4% raises.

    “At that time, we didn’t get an answer. We continued to ask. Eventually what we were told over the summer was that instead they wanted us to take out a loan,” Martinez said. “I was making a case to really solidify more TIF funding. I was surprised. So was our board. The response was instead borrow, and of course everything since then.”

    The previous school board was not willing to fire CPS CEO Pedro Martinez or secure a short term, high interest loan to help pay for a new teachers’ contract, which led to their mass resignation last week.

    “I did not expect for this to escalate to the way it did,” Martinez said.

    Using TIF funds is the same idea the Chicago Teachers Union presented in plan Wednesday.

    The Chicago Teachers Union, community leaders and CPS parents gathered near City Hall earlier Wednesday to propose what they are calling the “Revenue Recovery Package.”

    CTU leaders said the plan provides more than $1 billion in immediate revenue for city schools by redirecting TIF funds from developers to CPS.

    First District Cook County Commissioner Tara Stamps said it’s the city’s collective responsibility to care for children across Chicago.

    “What’s happening within Chicago Public Schools isn’t the responsibility of the Chicago Teachers Union, or CPS or parents. It’s all of our responsibility,” Stamps said. “How our children get educated in this city because whether you want to believe it or not, they are all our children.”

    The mayor now says Martinez is taking a page from their playbook.

    “Whatever is there that we can surplus, I’ve made a commitment. Those are my values. That’s not something that anybody had to call for me to do,” Johnson said.

    SEE ALSO | Future of ShotSpotter unclear after Mayor Brandon Johnson refuses to veto ordinance to revive system

    Meanwhile, multiple City Council members said Wednesday they have been working with the mayor’s office to have the outgoing and incoming board members appear at a hearing before the education committee to answer questions.

    City Council was supposed to hold special committee hearing Wednesday to hear from the mayor’s six new board picks.

    “We still have questions, process matter, how you do things matter and we need to make sure there is stability,” Ald. Maria Hadden said.

    The special meeting was canceled. It will be held later in the month as an Education Committee Hearing.

    At a future education meeting, City Council members want to question the mayor’s nominees appointed to be on the CPS board.

    “Right now we want to know about their biographies, we want to know about their mindsets, we want to know what they are bringing to the board as individuals and as a collective,” 15th Ward Alderman Ray Lopez said. “We know very little about these individuals and as a collective.”

    So, the agreement was to have the new appointed board members to come to a meeting and also we talk about the budget,” said 15th Ward Ald. Jeanette Taylor, Education Committee Chairman.

    The agreement was made with the mayor’s office, but before adjourning the regular City Council meeting Wednesday, Johnson made no guarantee the new school board members will show up.

    The mayor said the new school members are invited. He has no plans use his executive authority to make sure they attend. Alderpersons say they may subpoena the members, but the city’s law department insists the Education Committee has no subpoena power.

    Copyright © 2024 WLS-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    Christian Piekos

    Source link