JOHNSON USES TACTICS OF A TRIAL LAWYER, NOT A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, TO WIN RESTRICTING BATTLE VS. CITIZENS
By LBReport.com
[ OPINION FROM LBREPORT.COM]
Like an unwelcome but necessary medical diagnosis, the people of Long Beach got a clear view of the unhealthy political machine that’s taken root in their City Hall.
Former Sacramento lobbyist Mayor Bob Foster and his primary allies—former Sacramento aide James Johnson, former Republican-now-reinvented-Democrat Robert Garcia, developer-friendly-Democrat Suja Lowenthal and no-wasted-words Gary DeLong—showed it to the whole city last night (July 5).
After 8th district Councilwoman Rae Gabelich beat Councilman Johnson’s redistricting plan on the merits—sustaining her argument among the people she represents that Atlantic Ave. shouldn’t be split to enable Johnson to take more high propensity voters than he needs—those who scorn her and the public she represents resolved to get their way by any means necessary.
Johnson knew—but concealed from the public he represents—a maneuver to moot the arguments against splitting Atlantic Ave., instantly rendering public testimony on the issue irrelevant, while still getting nearly 1,000 additional residents that he’s wanted all along (we surmise to dilute the influence of Wrigley and West Long Beach residents).
Like a lawyer plotting to defeat an opponent instead of an elected official representing the public, Johnson kept from public view his plan to take all of Los Cerritos south of Bixby Road. In addition to (again) taking nearly 1,000 more residents than needed, Johnson’s plan also draws the 7th district line about half a block north of 8th district Council candidate, Mike Kowal, neatly shifting him into the 7th district. (Kowal, along with then-LBHUSH2 neighborhood advocate Gabelich, prevented a costly and potentially damaging expansion of LB Airport’s permanent terminal facilities (that had been urged by LB Area Chamber of Commerce, among other Wrong Way Corrrigans in this town).
Instead disclosing the substance of this proposal so the public could speak to it pro or con, Johnson kept silent about it. With no motion on the floor, the public was left in the dark to testify against what Johnson had already planned to take off the table.
Mayor Foster enabled the fix, inviting public comment before Johnson made his motion, a maneuver that effectively denied the public the opportunity to speak to what would ultimately be proposed.
Once the public (including a number of speakers who said they never come to City Hall to speak on anything) had expended their energy testifying against a proposal that he and a Council majority put forth on June 7, Johnson sprang his trap, unveiling his new map…and the machine swung into action.
31 Comments
As I have posted in comments on LBReport in the post:
How many of those people even voted in the last election? Voter turnout in LB City elections is so low that the typical council person wins by just a couple hundred votes. I mean seriously…if those people haven’t even been voting, what difference does it make which district they are in?!
http://www.longbeach.gov/civic…
See what I am saying? only 4171 voters (out of more than 20,000) voted in the 8th District in the last election for that district. It would appear to me that the”voters” in the 8th do not really care all that much about who represents them.
Incidentally, voter turnout in the 7th district was higher in their last election: http://www.longbeach.gov/civic… at 28+%. None the less so few voted that Johnson won by less than 400 votes. So really people, ask yourselves what this redistricting thing is about.
Also, don’t you think Gaeblich and Kowal are just as capable of “political maneuvering” as Johnson. Get real.
LBReport seems to lack neutrality and seems to be just a little toooooo supportive of Kowal, just sayin,
http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=27569
http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8167
sorry my link s didn’t work last time…
You are crazy if you do not believe this move to prevent Mike Kowal’s future election to council was not planned out beforehand by Mayor Foster and his councilmember majority gang of 6.
Kowal is not out of it yet…he can move!
Anyone who saw the Johnson ‘perfomance” knows this guy is a puppet and has to go…the annointed wonder boy is BAD NEWS for Long Beach and anywhere else the LB Democratic machine wants to send him. This town makes me ashamed of the Democratic party.
This is prima facie sleazy. There are rumblings of a recall for Johnson. Any legitimate hope of this?
I was present in Alan Lowenthal’s living room during a function for Suja years back. She promised she was a “progressive Democrat.” I met with Robert Garcia over breakfast. He promised that he was genuine, if newly minted, Democrat. I spoke with James Johnson at a Democratic meeting, surprised that he was a Democrat but he insisted that he was. But all three vote reliably with the very conservative Chamber of Commerce (read Republican) gang of six led by Gary DeLong and enabled by Mayor Foster.
This is nothing less than rot at the center of Long Beach government.
There is a blatant attack occuring at City Hall and I hope that EVERYONE who thinks their vote has meaning will rise up and defend the will of the people. What you are seeing here is what gave rise to the fall of the Roman Empire and the City of Bell. Representatives that think they have no obligation to the peons ( that’s us voters)
If there is a recall, let me know, I think it should be bigger than just one or two—just follow the money and see which person has any respect for the citizen’s of this City? Oh yes, money talks and we are soon to lose one of the clear thinking (not unprincipled councilmembers who’s eyes glitter at the sign of power & money) You go Councilwoman Gablich & Schipske, you make us all proud to know what a real representative you are.
Time to hit those mean streets….it’s over fellas and Suja…we will only accept your shoving stuff through just because you want it and you got the votes. This smell like the start of decomposition to me.
Believe it or not, wrong beach, as awful as it is, used to be even worse.
As to government rot, city (and county, State and federal) government is ours to maintain -as is- or to change as we will, but make no mistake, Councilmembers Dr. Lowenthal (bag ban), and Dr. Garcia (EBO) are predominantly liberal in their respective political approaches.
I do not think Councilmember Johnson has served long enough yet to get a firm read on. Recall he has only been serving for about a year and most of the substantive legislation he has sponsored has attempted to address fiscal responsibility (including pension reform) and government transparency, both of which are predominantly conservative cornerstones.
Some may have forgotten that there are many registered Democrats who lean conservatively, just as there are many registered Republicans who lean more liberally.
I wonder if it is possible that *all* of the Councilmembers who were concerned about this issue (including Johnson) had *each* considered and prepared *various* alternative redistricting proposals in the event that he or she felt it might prove necessary to offer them for consideration?
I am surprised, though not much, that Mayor Foster did not re-open public comment on Johnson’s new proposal. As seemingly impatient with public comment as Foster sometimes demonstrates himself to be, the public should still have been allowed to offer comment (even with further time restrictions) on a redistricting proposal that had not, up to that point, been publicly disclosed, let alone discussed.
In truth, had a point of order been properly raised, I think Mayor Foster would have had no choice but to re-open comment following Johnson’s proposal. I wonder why none of the members thought to do that?
Robert’s Rules of Order seem quite clear, in pertinent part, that “It is the duty of the presiding officer (in this case the Mayor) to enforce the rules and orders of the assembly, without debate or delay. It is also the right of every member who notices the breach of a rule, to insist upon its enforcement.”
It seems to me that Councilmembers Gabelich or Schipske could *and should* have raised this particular point of order and either insisted that Foster re-open public comment on Johnson’s proposal or insist that the members (the Council) openly vote on whether or not to end debate and call the question.
Sometimes I wonder whether our Council is as versed in Robert’s Rules as they should be and, if not, why not.
Perhaps we should require the appointment of a Parliamentarian for all Council assemblages.
It’s been my experience that Long Beach residents talk tough, but forget quickly. They are outraged, but feel it is everyone else’s responsibility to do something about it. Rather than bellying up, they chose to move to a different city. Over 85% don’t even bother to vote.
My prediction: this issue will be forgotten in a month like every other creepy, corrupt decision by these same elected officials.
It’s crucial to remember (and to consider legal ACTION based on) the very purpose of redistricting. Though you would never guess it from the LB City Council’s gab, per the 1960s Supreme Court decisions (Baker v Carr, Reynolds v Sims) this purpose is to PROTECT voting rights (equalizing district populations is just a means to that end).
Just about all the Council-considered redistricting schemes use a MyLai logic (must destroy in order to ‘save’)! The latest scheme too would ‘PTOTECT’ voting rights by in fact DESTROYING them (not only Kowal’s right to run for office, but each of his neighbors’ right to vote). Namely, on account of the staggering of Council terms, the scheme will defer and thereby deny the timely voting rights of all shifted (and thereby shafted) even-to-odd (e.g. 8th-to-7th) district residents.
Council could readily propose a simple charter amendment which would end the unequal treatment (at various times) of different districts’ voters, and would thereby avoid destroying voting rights. For instance, unstagger Council terms, or give each district two members with staggered terms.
If Council fails to seize the ready remedy, its redistricting scheme will not only demonstrate utter cynicism but also be open to legal challenge. Yes, similar voting-rights-violating redistricting plans exist aplenty, at least for legislative bodies with staggered terms (eg LA County Supes, CA Senate). But that doesn’t make such plans right or truly legal. Eventually, given persistent legal challenge – maybe starting here in Long Beach in 2011?? – they will be voided – as finally happened to rotten-borough state legislatures by the above-noted court decisions.
By the way, Foster’s constraint on public comment may be defensible. As I understand the matter – please correct me- the actual Council resolution was just a directive to staff to prepare full documentation of Johnson’s latest scheme. Actual adoption of the scheme will require a motion, to be passed in each of two Council readings, each agendized in advance and open to public comment.
@ Joe: Your point is well-taken that this most recent redistricting vote is not the final one. However, I would suggest that it can sometimes be no less crucial to good order during public assemblages to afford attendees an opportunity to speak for the record on a matter, however briefly, even when it may not be technically required that they be given the opportunity to do so. Lest we forget, these weekly Council sessions are no less for the public than for their elected representatives.
As we can clearly see, many now perceive the manner in which this vote occurred as somehow under-handed and unfair. Mayor Foster’s choice to not re-open public comment after Councilmember Johnson offered his second substitute motion has only served to enhance that perception.
What would have been the harm to re-open public comment? The session may have lasted another 30-60 minutes but those wished to speak may have at least felt that they were given the opportunity to weigh in (as is their right) before the question was called.
What has been the harm of *not* re-opening public comment, a furtherance and enhancement of the “us v. them” perception that many in Long Beach currently have of their city government in Long Beach.
I think we lost far more than we gained in the area of public confidence in this instance.
Thanks to the PT for publishing the web site:
recalljohnson.com
After viewing the video, and learning that Rae was advised BEFORE going into the meeting, that the vote would be 7-2 , I am disgusted with the Council’s arrogance and their total disregard for public participation.
It’s a wonder anyone takes the time–perhaps even leaving their own jobs early-to attend a Council meeting. I will help with the recall–even though
I’m in the 3rd District….but the 3rd has learned early on about the “machine!!.”
One caveat–have a strong activist waiting in the wings to run for Johnson’s seat once he’s recalled.
At the risk of harming Ms. LB’s reputation here, I have to agree that she makes a very valid point when she calls into question LB Reports objectivity on this issue.
Apparently LBR is quite capable of *highlighting* Councilmember Johnson’s offering of an alternative redistricting proposal after public comment on the one hand and, on the other, completely ignoring and/or dismissing the fact that Councilmember Gabelich did the very same thing.
Yet in the LBR piece, Johnson is painted as some sort of concealing manipulator, conspiring with Mayor Foster on the “fix” while Gabelich is cast in a much more humble and benevolent light as a staunch crusader for those she represents who “maintained her dignity” in the face of Johnson’s lawyer-like manipulations.
Yet *both* Councilmembers offered alternative proposals after public comment and neither has any control over whether or not Mayor Foster will or will not re-open public comment on any given agenda item during any given Council meeting.
As previously mentioned, neither Gabelich nor Schipske raised a point of order and asked Mayor Foster to re-open public comment even though either one of them most certainly could have done so.
So why didn’t they?
Finally, this entire argument of “high propensity voters” seems fairly specious, to me. We should not draw district boundaries based upon who may be more or less “likely” to vote, but based upon keeping district lines as straight and district areas as compact, as possible. An objective evaluation of the alternatives offered seems to indicate that Johnson’s proposal is more in keeping with the latter set of principles and follows more of the redistricting guidelines that the Council had already established.
Instead of focusing upon those who allegedly have a “high propensity” to vote, we should focus on drawing more logically symmetrical lines and more compact areas, and then work on encouraging more eligibile residents *within* those lines to actually exercise their right to vote, whatever the question or whomever happens to be running.
In any case, however this question eventually shakes out, it should be accurately reflective of the will of a true majority of the eligible voters who will be effected. The best way to make sure that is the case is for those folks to make their preferences clearly known before the final votes are cast.
Dear John,
You have twice stated that either Schipske or Gaeblelich SHOULD have raised a “point of order”, and asked Foster to re-open public comment.
It would appear that such an action is within the purview of City Attorney Robert Shannon. Why didn’t he call for a “point of order.”?? I am sure he is knowledgeable, having been with the city for so long, regarding Robert’s Rules of Order and reconizes Johnson’s lawyer-like manipulations which INCLUDED counting votes prior to the commencement of a Council meeting, as verbalized by Ms. Gabelich’s video on recalljohnson.com..
John–you know this is a serious violation of the Open Meeting Act!!.
As someone who has some interface with the law, I am just flabbergasted at how little respect this council has towards the ‘Open Meeting Act”. We have City Attorney Shannon scoffing at it in effect giving notice that he will do very little to support this law…we have a Council who believes the only laws that exist are those that are enacted or established in Long Beach behind the rail or up on the 14th floor and the drama goes on.
If what Rae says is true James told her that the vote was 7 to 2 while they were on the 14th floor (before the vote) –we have a clear violation of the Open Meeting Act. One cannot count votes before the issue has come to the floor of the Council Chamber and the public has had an opportunity to comment on the issue. Don’t the views of the resident’s have any meaning anymore, or have we elected a King and his Court?
What is open about our Council? Most of them even refuse to publish their calendar–could it be they have something to hide? The question is not let the voters decide–because we can see how money drives the train. The only person supported by “insider’s money—now has a third run at a seat” and I am sure many “movers & shakers” will belly up to the bar to get another vote on the council. After all, Long Beach is now for sale.
@ Dancing: Yes, City Attorney Shannon also most certainly could and, I think, should have called a point of order and asked Mayor Foster to re-open public comment before the final vote, particularly in light of the alternatives that both Councilmembers Johnson *and* Gabelich offered *after* the public had an opportunity to weigh in during that meeting.
Any “member” of the assemblage surely could and, I think, should have raised that point of order, including the City Clerk, of whom the Councilmembers and Mayor also often ask parliamentary questions.
I choose to single out Councilmembers Gabelich and Schipske on this, however, since it was they who cast dissenting votes on Johnson’s second subsititute motion. Clearly neither of them felt Johnson’s alternative was acceptable. Had they raised the point of order before the vote, and had Mayor Foster re-opened public comment, other Councilmembers who voted for the proposal might have had more time to re-consider, change their minds, and vote differently.
This is not to say that Mayor Foster would have been *required* to re-open comment. It simply means that he, as the meetings Chair, could have been properly asked to do so through raising that point of order. It also means that if Foster declined to re-open comment, any member could have required a vote of the full Council on *that* question, by raising another point of order, and if 2/3rds of the members agreed, Foster would have then been *required* to re-open comment.
Do keep in mind as well, that there will be at least two more public hearings on this specific issue before it is finalized and the public should have ample opportunity to offer comment during both.
As to potential violations of the Open Meeting Act (or Brown Act), I would suggest that this is certainly a concern and should be looked into.
http://ag.ca.gov/publications/2003_Intro_BrownAct.pdf
However, as I understand it, the Brown Act only requires that all votes, except for those that occur in permissible closed session, must be *cast* in public (Emphasis added.)
I think it is reasonable to argue that when our Councilmembers discuss agenda items with one another outside of public view, they are not “casting” a vote, they are simply doing part of what we pay them to do, which is to research and discuss the various public policy matters that are of concern to us and get a sense from one another of how the may actually “cast” their votes when the proper time comes, and why.
This can be called “deliberation” and I do not think the Brown Act either prohibits this or requires that all deliberations by individual Councilmembers occur in public view. All the Brown Act expressly prohibits are “meetings” of either the legislative body or of a quorum of the legislative body, outside public view and absent specific exemptions.
So when, hypothetically, one Councilmember is observed meeting personally with another at a local restaurant, and documents can clearly be seen strewn all about the area of the restaurant which they are occupying, they are *not* violating the Brown Act because it is *not* a meeting of either the entire Council or of a quorum of the Council.
Still, there exist both civil remedies and criminal sanctions for violations of the Brown Act. If some in our community are truly concerned that a violation has occurred in this case, I think they should certainly avail themselves of those remedies and seek an imposition of those sanctions.
All of this seems slightly beside the point, though. It seems to me that given the various redistricting options that are offered, we (through our Council) should select the one that follows the greatest number of guidelines the Council has, itself, adopted for such selections. Like it or don’t, it is Johnson’s latest offering that seems to do so in this case.
We have re-drawn many District boundaries over the years and none of them have been *entirely* perfect and all of them have resulted in one District or another gaining *or* losing a number of residents more than was completely necessary at the time.
Whichever current redistricting option is eventually adopted, this will surely be what happens in *this* case as well.
Because the districts not within a half mile of the Marine,Stadium,
the inner an seminal issues of the two Districts are not known to me.
Here though is my take,based upon:
A.Being at the Council Meeting last week.
B.Reading that which has followed in the media-including the well reasoned
editorial from LB Report.
C.Knowning essentially nothing about the individual that is being targeted
for gerrymandering out.To best of my knowledge,never met him,never
seen him.He could be the best thing the 8th District could have-or he
be worse than Bob Foster and Gary De Long combined–if such a thing
were ever possible.
If Councilman Johnson goes through with this plan;throwing his lot in with
the two most disconnected elected officials this City has had-he will find
the reception at the ballot box-and beyond as cold,frigged,piercing,painful,
as a January cutting winter’s wind whipping in from the South Bay
lacerating the Charles.
The people of this hamlet have no stomach for- and my sense is,would be
repulsed by the artifice and device which unfolded last week.If one can
not make their case at the ballot box they should box up their box and
go,Alas,it would be that the Councilman’s Eagle Scout project was well
distanced from ethics.
I’m sorry Mr. Greet…but you are not correct about the “Open Meeting Act”. I have first hand knowledtge that public officials are not allowed to discuss issues that rightly belong in the public arena. My Commissioners thought they could have serial meetings to discuss issues. You know, 1 or 2 get together to talk, then they each go to another person and so on till they know they have the votes. This is Verboten…and is contrary to the act.. If we had a proper Atty, it would and should be stopped.
In our case we had the CA AG came down on them hard…you cannot count votes nor can you lobby your cohorts separately and this was clearly done in this case. Do you remember when Suja and Gary went on vacation and there was an issue as to whether or not they would be in a public place during the meeting, a place that could be visited by any member of the public and one that allowed the entire Council and the public to hear what they had to say. Suja could, but Gary at his private resort was not able to do it– This my friend is the Open Meeting Act—it is what Gary and his SEADIP committee went down on…and it is designed to serve the public. You and me.
Thanks very much for your information, OMG. I am the first to readily admit that I am no expert on much of anything, let alone the Brown Act. I simply read the Act as it exists in current statutory law. Many interpretations have no doubt been offered by various courts since the Brown Act was initially enacted.
The Act certainly does specifically prohibit serial meetings and it also clearly defines what a meeting is for the purposes of this legislation. Two Councilmembers gathering and discussing an issue under their jurisdiction (as I described in my hypothetical) does *not* appear to meet the definition of “meeting” found in the statute.
However, as I said, if the Brown Act has been violated, here, then there exist specific remedies under the law.
The Brown Act means NOTHING in Long Beach because the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division refuses to enfore it. I’ve filed several Brown Act complaints at the urging of DA Jennifer Snyder, who told me over the phone that the way Long Beach and its commissions were conducting their meetings was clearly in voilation of the law.
Upon receiving no response to my complaints, I followed up with the DA three months later. Ms. Snyder told me; 1. there had been no violation of the Brown Act; 2. the DA had NOT investigated my complaint; and 3. she DENIED ever telling me the city and its commissions were in violation of the Brown Act. Furthermore, Ms. Snyder was downright hostile to me for no apparent reason. Something had definately changed.
When I discussed this strange resonse from the DA’s office with local activists, I learned LA County District Attorney Steve Cooley is good friends with Mayor Bob Foster. Furthermore, Bob Foster hired Steve Cooley’s brother to be his lead attorney when he was President of Southern California Edison. Both Cooley’s were heavy campaign contributors to all of Foster’s elections.
It all started to fall into place when a LA County District Attorney unknown to me, moved into my neighborhood three houses from me and started bad mouthing me to all of the neighbors. She had never met or talked with me. Yet, she told all of my neighbors that I was a troublemaker. I find it interesting that my filing a Brown Act complaint with the DA’s office makes me a troublemaker according to a DA staffmember who had never met me.
Mr. Ruehle you most certainly *are* a troublemaker, but that isn’t always a bad thing. Our nations founders were, themselves, considered the consummate troublemakers of *their* day.
I have found that the best defense against slurs and slander, from any quarter, is the truth backed by factual and objectively verifiable documentation.
Do you happen to have any that supports your version of the story you have told here?
Five days. No factual and objectively verifiable documentation.
And no particular surprise either.
Direct quote from John Greet:
“I simply desire that the discussions in which I choose to participate remain, meaningful, constructive, productive, courteous, respectful and factual. The degree to which a discussion departs from those is usually the degree to which I sometimes take exception.”
Another direct quote from John Greet:
“And just like the despicable Mr. Ruehle, you have now chosen to speak flippantly, superficially, and with considerable dishonor.”
http://www.lbpost.com/news/greggory/11971
Apparently Greet’s standard for courteousness and respectfullness applies to everyone else but himself. What a hypocrite.
Oh but Mr. Ruehle, that *was* courteous and respectful. You have no idea how difficult it was to restrain myself from using the sort of insulting and derrogatory epithets that you typically employ.
A threatening John B. Greet comment:
“You have no idea how difficult it was to restrain myself from using the sort of insulting and derrogatory epithets that you typically employ.”
This comment follows Long Beach Police Officer John Greet’s claim that he still continues to carry a gun even though he is recently retired. Exact quote from John B. Greet:
“I do sometimes still carry a gun, High, and quite lawfully”
Are Greet’s comments meant to threaten me?
Does ex-cop John Greet carry a throw-down hose nozzle with his gun?
Do I need to be in fear for my life from this Long Beach gun carrying ex-cop?
Ironically, do I need to report Greet to the police?
Mr. Ruehle and other alleged adults who debate and discuss as they do could have so very much to contribute if they would only stop acting so very childish.
Tell that to the families of the victimes of Columbine. It causes me grave concern when you make such comments as you frequently do and also claim to carry a gun on your person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
Its probably time to notify the police in order to avoid another “comtempt of ex-cop” killing.
Notify whomever you like about whatever you like, Mr. Ruehle. But if you insist upon quoting me, please try to do so accurately and completely.
Just re-visited this conversation re-reading comments. Topics include Redistricting, Gerrymandering, Brown Act violations, Recall Johnson, LB Political Machine, Johnson, Gabelich, Foster, Garcia, Lowenthal(s), Schipske, Larry Goodhue, Mike Ruehle, John Greet and others. Diverse comments about issues and politicians from involved and interested citizens are totally what is needed to encourage more resident involvement from across our city! Sadly before we can turn the corner and make Long Beach a better place to live more people need to get activy and speak out! As I have recently been advocating for a transparent and open discussion on the current redistricting issue I want to add my two cents on that subject. Several people spoke before council last night about following the Redistricting Criteria as adopted by council prior to any maps being drawn. So to figure out who did and who did not I went over the 17 points one by one and marked a G for those Gabelich followed and a J for Johnson. Strangely my score came out 7 to 2 (8 points I simply marked as N/A), in favor of Gabelich… the same number of council votes for Johnson’s prevailing proposal. I suggest those interested do the same and share your scores. You can find the criteria at: http://www.longbeach.gov/citymanager/redistricting/redistricting_process_and_criteria.asp
Hi Mike: Do you happen to know how Mr. Pearl determined the numbers of “likely high-” and “likely low-propensity voters” he used in his OpEd entitled “A Machine, By The Numbers”?
Do you know how he defines “many” in the phrase: “…many of whom are likely high propensity voters”? Do you happen to know how many of the 2334 Los Cerritos residents Pearl mentions are eligible to vote, of those how many are registered to vote, and of those how many actually do vote? Same questions concerning the “918 Wrigley residents” and the “1268 current 9th District residents.
Isn’t it likely that the actual number of voting residents impacted by the lines the Council is currently drawing is considerably less than either Councilwoman Gabelich or Mr. Pearl are stating?