Torrance City Council – A Town Hall Style Conversation About Local Politics

Last Thursday a suspicious package was left near a Social Security office in Torrance. The incident prompted a response from a bomb squad and resulted in the closure of Crenshaw Blvd. Fortunately, the package ended up being nothing more than a lunch bag containing creamer and nobody was harmed, but a delay in residents receiving notice about the event has prompted concerns.

The Daily Breeze reported that the package was first discovered at 3 pm. TorranceAlerts messages did not reach many residents until 4:23 pm. The delay in notification irked Southeast Torrance Homeowners’ Association President, John Bailey, who commented “It is not acceptable to take an hour and twenty minutes to notify the public that they shut down both directions of a major thoroughfare like Crenshaw Blvd.”

Bailey, who had fielded several inquiries from concerned residents prior to receiving the notification from the City, wrote an e-mail to City officials asking whether there were problems with the Everbridge system Torrance utilizes to send out Torrance Alerts.

Liutenant Jennifer Uyeda responded to Bailey’s inquiry as follows:

Hello Mr. Bailey,

I am looking into the Everbridge question you posed to Kelli below, but do not believe there was an issue with the system. I completely understand that it seems like it took a long time for a notification to be sent, and I will admit that we can always do better. A big part of our organizational philosophy is Continuous Improvement.

I would also like an opportunity to share my insight from behind the scenes that these types of calls are extremely chaotic during the initial stages of response. The Watch Commander and Communications Supervisors’ primary concern is getting resources on scene to lock down the area and begin evacuations of people who are physically in the immediate danger zone. Once this is all in place, we then try to get a TorranceAlert out to the public.

Again, I acknowledge there is always room for improvement.  One way in which we are looking to improve our communication with the public is that we are in the initial stages of hiring a Social Media Coordinator! I, for one, am very excited about the strides we will take with a full-time employee dedicated to this.

Thank you for your involvement in our great community and your dedication to your Homeowners’ Association. We rely on our engaged citizens.

Best Regards,

Lt. Jennifer Uyeda

A confusing internal memo released by the City Clerk’s office raises troubling concerns of whether the City Council violated the Brown Act in deciding whether to approve joining a lawsuit challenging the ballot language of Measure M.

The memo dated September 7, 2016 is signed by City Attorney John Fellows and was written to the City Clerk. The contents of the memo contradict previous information provided to the public by the City Clerk’s office. In the memo, Fellows asserts the City Council approved the Measure M lawsuit in closed session at the July 26, 2016 meeting. In a prior communication, the City Clerk had provided minutes from the June 28, 2016 meeting as evidence of the City Council’s approval.

The contents of the memo are captured in full below:

On July 26, 2016, the Torrance City Council met in Closed Session under Council Agenda Item 14(c) to discuss anticipated litigation between Torrance and a number of other South Bay cities as plaintiffs and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority as defendant. By a 6-0 affirmative vote (Councilman Rizzo absent), the Council authorized staff to participate in work on joint educational outreach concerning the Measure and to join in a lawsuit with other South Bay cities challenging the language of the Measure.  Final action was not taken that evening by the Torrance City Council, since the makeup of cities who would participate in the lawsuit was not clear at the time, nor had cost-sharing or non-disclosure agreements been finalized.  The lawsuit was filed on August 26, 2016. The filing of the lawsuit was reported in the Daily Breeze on August 29.  In response to the Daily Breeze report, the City Clerk received an inquiry on September 06, asking when the City Council met and approved participation in the Measure M litigation.  The City Council did not meet on either August 30 or September 6, so there was no opportunity to announce publicly the Council’s action of July 26.

With final action now having occurred and a request for disclosure having been made, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.1(a)(2), the City is now required to make the public disclosure outlined above.

In the memo, Fellows first indicates that the matter was discussed at July 26 meeting, but that final action was not taken. Oddly, later in the same memo he acknowledges that final action did occur. He also claims that the action taken at the meeting was not disclosed because there was no opportunity to do so.

California Government Code Section 54957, otherwise known as the Brown Act, requires that approval given to legal counsel to enter into litigation during closed session “shall be reported in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held.” No such disclosure was made at the July 26, 2016 meeting. In fact, the minutes from that meeting indicate that, “No formal action was taken on any matter considered in closed session.” The video from that meeting corroborates the statement from the minutes.

Fellows conflicting memo raises the question of why whatever action taken by the Council at the July 26 meeting was not disclosed at that same meeting to the public per the Brown Act. If “final” action did not occur at that meeting, as Fellows at one point infers, when did it occur? To meet the Brown Act requirements, the Council would have had to meet again either in closed or open session to take additional action on the issue from what was approved at the July 26 meeting.

It appears from the record that such subsequent approval on the final action taken was neither discussed or provided.

Labor Day Launch of Measure M Campaign (Courtesy of www.movela.org)

A recent article appearing in the Daily Breeze revealed that Torrance had joined 6 other Los Angeles County cities in a lawsuit over proposed ballot language for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s proposed Measure M. Whether the City Council approved joining the litigation remains in question.

The article quoted Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager Doug Willmore who noted that the City Council there voted to join the lawsuit because they felt “the county is ignoring the needs of southern cities.” No record of a similar vote occurring in Torrance seems to exist.

In response to an inquiry requesting at what meeting and agenda item the issue was discussed, the Torrance City Clerk’s office provided the minutes from the June 28, 2016 Council meeting and referenced an urgency item that was added to the agenda on the subject.

That urgency item came at the behest of Councilmember Weideman who sought direction from his colleagues as to whether he should vote to oppose the measure at the June 30, 2016 meeting of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG). The approval granted by the Council was limited to allowing Weideman to vote in opposition to the measure at the SBCCOG meeting. No discussion was held at the time with regard to any potential litigation and whether Torrance should join in a lawsuit challenging the proposed ballot language.

The lack of documented approval by the City Council raises concerns that someone within city government made the decision to join the lawsuit without seeking a vote from the Council. Should that be the case it would raise questions of who really represents the City and speaks on behalf of its residents.

To compound matters, the lawsuit itself appears lacking in substance. Indeed, the Daily Breeze reported that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mary H. Strobel quickly rejected it just yesterday saying that there was no evidence the wording was confusing to voters.

Yusef Robb, of the campaign on behalf of Measure M, was quoted in the article calling the lawsuit “a political stunt that has nothing to do with the law or reality.”

Carson Mayor Albert Robles, however, stated that he and the other coalition members, including Torrance, were disappointed with the ruling and are considering an appeal.

The Daily Breeze did not report on how much the litigation has cost taxpayers in legal fees or will cost should the 7 city coalition file an appeal.

Municipalities already tread a thin line when it comes to taking a position on ballot measures as California Government Code section 54964(a) provides that, “An officer, employee, or consultant of a local agency may not expend or authorize the expenditure of any of the funds of the local agency to support or oppose the approval or rejection of a ballot measure or the election or defeat of a candidate, by the voters.”