County Government & How it Abuses Its Constituents

(by Michael Kotch, SCOPE President)

On Tuesday, March 24^th, I joined a couple of dozen other residents of Santa Clarita for a city-sponsored bus trip to the Board of Supervisors to testify on the appeal of the Newhall Ranch project. We were joined by two busloads of Ventura County residents, who feel they have just as much, if not more, to lose if Newhall Ranch gets approved as currently planned. Riding the bus together eliminated a lot of traffic from the freeway (better one bus than 25 cars!), and saved us each the $12 or more we would otherwise have to pay for parking. And it gave us time to discuss with each other the aspects of the project, the appeal, and what we would say.

It was a nice day, a welcome break from El Nino, and we had our picket signs for the "pre-game warm-up", and our carefully prepared presentations.

We were first escorted by Sheriff’s Deputies, one at a time, through metal detectors, while any briefcases, purses, etc. were examined closely by personal search – guess the County can’t afford an X-ray machine. I’ve traveled a lot recently on business, and never once did my titanium eyeglass frames cause me to lose the metal detector test. They did with the County. Tough room!

Business at the Board of Supervisors is a lot different than business at City Council. At City Council when a motion is made you actually see and hear the councilmember make the motion. And you actually hear a second from someone else. And you actually hear meaningful discussion on the matter.

The Board of Supervisors are a lot more advanced than we Santa Clarita yokels. At "the Supes" the chairperson has the item declared by a clerk, reads off that Supervisor StuffedPockets has made the motion, states the item is seconded by Supervisor GlazedEyes, then bangs the gavel with the favorite phrase "without objection, so ordered". This all takes place in the span of time it would take our obviously untrained City Clerk to even declare the item at our local City Council meetings. What a marvel of efficiency! No need for a Supervisor to orally make a motion, nor secure an oral second. No need for discussion, nor even a need for a vote! Should the Santa Clarita City Council adopt such practices, they can probably shrink an entire council meeting to, say, fifteen minutes, including smoking breaks?

This "sweatshop" method of providing local governance should have clued us in as to our fate when we rose to testify against the largest single development in Los Angeles County. We were given one minute each to testify. For some, that was sufficient time for them to state their name and address, then make closing remarks.

Others went into hyperdrive, and rattled off as many facts, points and figures as they could in the shortest amount of time. Maybe the County has the technology to do magical work on the audio tape, and reassemble this into recognizable English, but it went well over the heads of the Supervisors in real time, and I doubt the County cares.

Others "hit the wall" on the time deadline, and were shot down by the chair.

The remainder of us tried to pick a pearl of a point, whittle it down to it’s purest form, and attempt to convey that point in a quasi-relaxed manner within 60 seconds (including name and address), hoping it would be the "magic bullet" that will bring this project to its knees.

One of the last speakers was Mr. Leonard Shapiro. Mr. Shapiro is a retired citizen who attends both County and Los Angeles City meetings faithfully as a public person, and who produces a newsletter on these events. Because he devotes his personal time toattend and speak at these meetings, the Supervisors and LA City Council label him a ‘gadfly’, which under Webster is "one that acts as a provocative stimulus". As well he should, in this instance.

Mr. Shapiro spoke on the naivete of the Santa Clarita and Ventura County speakers. He noted that they came in good faith to the Supervisors, expecting to be heard and expecting that their words would carry some weight and would stimulate some meaningful discussion about all we found wrong with Newhall Ranch. And they, instead, were buried by a County business practice that severely limits public testimony in public hearings, allows pre-arranged motions that operate at the very edge of legality under the Brown Act, and are typified with a decision of "without objection, so ordered!!".

We object!! The Board of Supervisors needs to "cut us some slack" on Newhall Ranch. This is an entirely new city, not the routine granting of a utility easement.

I ask each reader to call Mike Antonovich – 213-974-5555 – and request a full hearing on Newhall Ranch, in the Santa Clarita Valley, with enough time given to each speaker that they can adequately testify. We all know when a speaker is rambling and should be cut-off, but an arbitrary one-minute limit is a miscarriage of justice, and, under the Constitution, impedes our right to approach the government and redress our grievances.

Even if you never intend to go to a Newhall Ranch hearing and testify, make the call for the rest of us. A government that shackles public hearing testimony abuses not only those who seek to speak, but also those who observe in silent sympathy. Enough calls will make a difference, enough that we won’t have Newhall Ranch decided by "without objection, so ordered"!!!

(Cartoon courtesy of Sherffius and the Ventura County Star)