Brown Act story, extended version
By Andrew Edwards
Staff Writer
SAN BERNARDINO -- Councilwoman Wendy McCammack on Tuesday repeated her allegation that some of her colleagues broke the law by making a private decision on a matter that should have been handled in public.
She said Tuesday morning that she is intent upon reporting her allegations to the District Attorney.
"I'm working on those details as we speak," she said.
McCammack, who represents the 7th Ward, first made her accusation at Monday's City Council meeting during an intense debate over how the council should select one of its own to a leadership position.
She charged that some council members violated the state's open meetings law by somehow deciding beforehand that 6th Ward Councilman Rikke Van Johnson would be granted authority to decide which council members get to work on the various committees that focus on specific city issues, such as the budget, personnel or law enforcement.
On Tuesday, other city officials expressed disbelief at McCammack's accusations.
When viewed in the context of recent San Bernardino politics, the tone of the controversy reflects continued divisions relating to the Operation Phoenix initiative, but 3rd Ward Councilman Tobin Brinker said that's not the whole story.
Tuesday, Brinker said he's wanted to change the way the council chooses its own leadership for more than a year.
"This has been an ongoing dispute. It's not new," he said.
[
McCammack and 1st Ward Councilwoman Esther Estrada cq have developed a strong alliance, but some of their recent activity has annoyed others on the dais.
"Esther and Wendy have done a pretty good job of alienating everybody (by) themselves," said 4th Ward Councilman Neil Derry.
In a telephone interview Tuesday, McCammack accused 2nd Ward Councilman Dennis Baxter, Brinker, 5th Ward Councilman Chas Kelley and Johnson of improperly coming to an agreement prior to Monday's meeting.
She also suggested that Mayor Pat Morris could have helped shepherd an agreement before Monday's open meeting.
Johnson and Baxter could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Brinker, Kelley and Jim Morris asserted there were no illegal conversations.
McCammack acknowledged that her allegations would be difficult to prove without a confession.
Asked why she is convinced state law was broken, she said "you knew straight up. Based on their conversation."
The Brown Act prohibits a majority of council members from meeting out of the public eye to settle official business. The law makes it illegal for politicians to meet in a proverbial back room or to reach an agreement through a series of communications.
Brinker said Tuesday that he has talked about the issue off and on for the past year, but merely repeated views he had previously expressed in open meetings. He said he did not lobby council members before Monday's meeting.
Jim Morris cq said Pat Morris "has religiously abided by the Brown Act."
The issue at the center of the controversy is Brinker's proposal to have the council elect one of their own to serve as mayor pro tempore for one year, with power to decide which of the seven council members are assigned to which city committeeS.
Currently, that power is vested in the position of senior council member. That position is currently held by 1st Ward Councilwoman Esther Estrada and would have been eliminated if the council approved Brinker's idea.
But the council did not make a decision Monday. Instead, the body accepted Johnson's suggested to delay the issue until Oct. 20 after City Attorney James F. Penman reported that Brinker's proposal was not properly written.
Kelley said during Monday's meeting that no there was no kind of conspiracy among the council members.
"We haven't done it. How do we know who the hell the mayor pro tempore is?," he said
Tuesday when asked if he spoke with other council members about Brinker's proposal.
Jim Morris acknowledged that the mayor spoke with Brinker about the leadership proposal. He also said the mayor had provided some information to other council members, but was unable to name who those members were.
"It's not like he had some substantive conversation," Jim Morris said.
At the very least, the allegation shows just how fractious San Bernardino's council has become in recent months.
Two council members on different sides of the issue said the controversy stemmed from efforts to seize power within the council. However, they had very different views on who exactly is trying to grab power.
In McCammack's view, other council members are seeking to punish Estrada for seeking subpoenas that would have forced city officials involved in the administration of Operation Phoenix to testify before the council.
Phoenix, an anti-crime effort that involved collaborations between police, code enforcement and recreation officials, became a subject of controversy after the July 3 arrest of community center Mike Miller cq opened the door to news or management troubles within the program.
McCammack was the only council member to support Estrada's bid for subpoenas, which were voted down twice.
When Brinker discussed his proposal Monday, he said the idea was a way to make council leadership more fair, since the seven-member body could take a vote to decide who assigns members different duties, rather than vest that responsibility with whomever has the longest stint on the council.
Derry agreed. He noted that McCammack is next-in-line to be Senior Council Member and opined that her effort to preserve the current system is a power play.
In an interview Tuesday, Derry said the council needs to reform the way it runs itself and eliminate the Senior Council Member position.
"It's an idiotic way to appoint committee members," he said. "It's an anachronism. It's undemocratic."
Watcher says,
This is all a game by Kelley and Brinker who do not care about the city and its troubles. These two care about paying Wendy back for not supporting their personal issues. Yes very sad but they can’t agree because it’s all about payback.
Brinker is a hypocrite who puts up yard signs and campaigns against the corruption that is affecting his union but refuses to fix the problems in his own backyard. He has the opportunity to do so in San Bernardino, but refuses. He then has the audacity to portray himself to his union membership as one who wants to get to the issue and provide for needed change , but is stonewalled by politicos he has to deal with. That’s probably because he is a flip flopper and changes his mind by what he gets. He pushed the Mayor Pro Tempore resolution so he could be in the driver’s seat and the Mayor helped him. It’s hard for the weak minded to stand up for what that truly believe in. Perhaps Brinker should stand by the saying, “there’s no right way to do the wrong thing”.
Brinker has pulled this type of crap since he joined the council. Does anyone remember the "I'm not going to vote unless everybody is voting 7-0"? This is a republic Mr. Brinker. Sometimes everybody doesn't agree but that shouldn't stop the government process.
Unfortunately there is a lack of strong leadership in that ward. This is a big reason that the ward system should go by the wayside. We need to pick the best 7 candidates - not the one that can afford to run in that ward.
Watcher - a weak mind? Are you sure he has one?