Councilmembers who want to "discuss" something at an official meeting will have to first win the approval of the City Attorney and City Manager following last month’s legally dubious direction to ban the needle exchange program in local parks.
While the directive at the Aug. 27 meeting was clear, the City Attorney forewarned councilmembers it was outside their jurisdiction and the City Manager said during the debate that staff would be unable to take any action on the motion due to the city’s lack of jurisdiction over the program.
Those warnings didn’t stop a 4-3 majority from supporting the measure with some saying it was about prompting conversation and creating a public record of support or opposition for the program. However, the vote drew condemnation from critics who said grandstanding by councilmembers shouldn’t expose the staff, or city, to legal jeopardy by passing illegal measures.
In response, Councilwoman Gleam Davis put forth an idea last week to require so called "16 items" (items put on the agenda by councilmembers for discussion) to be approved by the City Attorney and City manager for legality and feasibility. She said her proposal wasn’t about stifling debate, but rather protecting staff from unreasonable requests.
"It's not about saying no to any particular 16 item. It's about working with staff to try and figure out what the 16 item is trying to accomplish, and then do that in a pragmatic, legal and viable, feasible way," she said. "So it's not about saying no to what anyone wants to do, but it's about trying to craft these items in such a way that we don't put staff in the untenable position of passing, giving them directions to do things that they're just infeasible or illegal."
The City Manager and City Attorney had both warned about the needle exchange issue prior to the vote last month.
City Attorney Doug Sloan said that Council could always make a statement of opposition to any issue or direct staff to research solutions to a problem but the August motion did neither of those and instead demanded and impossible, if not illegal, action.
"I mean, the city manager and I are bound to follow the lawful direction of the majority of the council," said City Attorney Doug Sloan. "If it puts us in a very difficult position if you pass something that's not lawful, because the public is expecting us to do something and we can't. So that's kind of the rationale here."
Councilman Oscar de la Torre brought the needle exchange idea to the council last month and was initially opposed to the idea of a staff review for future items.
"I am opposed to putting guard rails, you know, on items … that come from Council, because a lot of times it's not just an individual thing. It's a collective thing. There's residents that are speaking, there's input, there's research, there's a lot of things that go into bringing an item forward at times, and I think we don't want to put guardrails with that item."
He said the process for passing any item at council requires debate amount members and a majority vote, meaning staff should try to work out how to implement whatever direction they are given.
"And if they can't do anything about it because it's illegal or we don't have the money to do it, they're just going to have to sit on it."
He said staff have more power than any individual councilmember saying there have been times when unanimous direction was given to no avail and that he didn’t think it would be "smart" for council to hand over more power to staff over the agenda.
Councilman Jesse Zwick supported the motion saying illegal direction was a potential disaster for the city.
"One council member is less politically powerful than staff, but four are more, and that's how the system works," he said. "And asking government staff the power of council to do something illegal isn't a political statement. It's a recipe for a political or constitutional crisis."
Vice Mayor Lana Negrete supported a revision to council process asking that the new system also account for and possibly prevent Councilmembers from clogging the agenda with repetitive motions on items already discussed.
The revised measure, including direction from Zwick to tailor the measure as narrowly as possible, ultimately won over de la Torre and was passed with a unanimous vote.
