CITY HALL No one said life was fair, but when one goes before the City Council on an appeal, they should have every right to expect a fair hearing.
At least that’s what one would hope, but that didn’t seem to be the case during a contentious council meeting in June when attorney Christopher Harding argued to have a landmarks designation overturned for his client, the University of Illinois Foundation, the owners of an historic cottage at 2219 Ocean Avenue.
With only five members present, Harding asked for the item to be postponed to a later date, something he considered to be a common practice. That request was not granted and the landmarks designation was allowed to stand after the council failed to act.
At one point during the meeting, Council member Pam O’Connor walked off, leaving only four members. It takes four votes to overturn a landmarks designation.
Harding, who did not return phone calls requesting comment for this story, was visibly upset and frustrated with the council, calling their decision not to postpone “unprecedented” in light of the lack of a full council. Harding went so far as to threaten to sue City Hall.
The council last week discussed the potential lawsuit in closed session, and then during a public meeting, members O’Connor and Bob Holbrook broached the subject of fairness, saying something needed to be done to ensure the process cannot be manipulated.
They then asked the council to change its rules so that on nights when an appeal is heard and fewer than six council members are present, the appellant would have the option to continue the hearing to a later date.
“If a vote comes to four-one, that is really a tough situation to face,” Holbrook said. “If this is a trial and the jury was supposed to have seven members and the jury kept getting smaller and smaller, would anyone like this or think it is fair?”
The council agreed, all except Kevin McKeown, who had reservations about changing council rules because of one incident.
“Here it seems the cure is worse then the perceived disease,” McKeown said. “I’d prefer to leave things as they are.”
The council also asked staff to explore changing the rules so that if there are less than six council members present, the majority would be allowed to continue an item.
Members did admit that the process could be easily manipulated, but also said the incident with the University of Illinois was a rare one.
Councilman Ken Genser suggested a council member could inform staff that they would be present for a hearing and then not show up. He was also concerned about manipulation by appellants, who could request an item be postponed if they didn’t have the votes in his or her favor.
While he was leery of amending council rules, Genser did vote to explore the issue further.
Mayor Richard Bloom, who was also reluctant to change council rules, said the issue really is about treating one another with respect.
“If there is an issue of respect and a lack of courtesy, we should force ourselves to address that problem,” Bloom said. “I’m concerned that we would turn immediately to a rule change … For us to take action that gives up control of our agenda, like a judge giving up control of his docket, I don’t think we should be doing that. We should be working out our issues with one another, and if all else fails, maybe then something needs to change.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 22, 2007. Read the original PDF.