City Council Notes: December 19, 2023 Agenda Item #13:
Meeting Mayor Rotation & Who Can Add Items to Council Agenda
The City Council Chambers were well attended at the December 19th meeting. People from every district in town came to oppose item #13 agendized by Mayor Nicholas Dunlap and Mayor Pro Tem Fred Jung. The first agendized item in Dunlap’s new role as Mayor was to propose dropping the Fair Rotation policy for selecting Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem and requiring a 3-vote majority to agendize any items.
Two things happened before the public gathered and spoke.
- The agenda item summary was revised on the day of the council meeting to say: “If an item has previously been voted on by the City Council that it cannot be agendized for one year unless three City Council members request it.” And “Change the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem policy to a majority vote on both and eliminate rotation part of the policy.”
- Mayor Pro Tem Jung said he was sick and went home.
Mayor Dunlap explained the gathered public was misinformed – his intention – he said – was to make it so something that had already been agonized and voted on would have to have three votes to re-agendize it. He failed to mention that the first configuration of this item stated that three votes would be required to put any item on the agenda. Though that wording was found to be against the law and the item summary was revised – the body of the ordinance was not revised and stated that though any councilmember can request an item be agendized, it requires a majority vote of three to actually agendize an item (with the exception that the Mayor and City Manager retain the right to agendize items on their own at any time). Thus, if approved by a council majority of three, it would have effectively ended the former tradition of allowing the votes of any two council members plus one to agendize an item.
Because Jung had gone home before the vote on this issue came up, there was not a three-vote majority, and the item died on the vine. It is interesting to note that had these items passed, the absence of Jung would mean that there would have had to be cooperation from all the remaining councils in order to agendize anything.
(Listen and watch the entire lineup of intelligent commenters by visiting the city website, http://www.cityoffullerton.com, clicking on “Agendas & Meetings” and then scrolling to City Council Meeting Dec 19, 2023, or following this link: City Council: December 19, 2023
Ninety-five percent of the public commenters on this issue opposed both items. Included in that number was former Fullerton Mayor Jan Flory, who offered each council member her research on how other cities handle agonizing items listed below. Three of our largest neighboring cities require only one council member’s request to agendize.
SURVEY OF 10 LARGEST OC CITIES + ALL ADJACENT CITIES Placing Item on Agenda
- Anaheim (Districts and Mayor at Large) 343,000 pop. Two council members or Mayor.
- Irvine (Districts w/be voted on March 2024) 314,000 pop. Mayor or one councilmember can request.
- Santa Ana (Districts and Mayor at Large) 308,000 pop. Written request by one council member and consult w/City Mgr., City Atty and City Clerk.
- Hunt. Sch. (No districts) 199,000 pop. One CM must complete a Request for Council Action. Reviewed by City Mgr. Agenda Review Monday B4 council to give Mayor and staff opp to ask questions, make recommendations, etc.
- Garden Grove (Districts and Mayor at Large} 172,000 pop. City Mgr, Mayor, or anyone CM.
- Fullerton (Districts, appointed Mayor) 139,000. City Mgr, Mayor, 2 CM.
- Orange (Districts & Mayor at Large) 134000. No formal protocol. 1 CM.
- Costa Mesa (Districts, Mayor at Large) 112,000. Any CM can submit a written request to the city clerk. If item is likely to take more than 4 hrs of staff time, majority of council has to approve.
- Mission Viejo (Districts) 93,000. No protocol. Any CM can place an item on the agenda.
- Westminster (Districts/ At Large Mayor) 91,000. Mayor or 2 CMs Adjacent Cities (Anaheim is set forth above)
- Buena Park (Districts) 83,000. Flexible; one CM can put an item on the agenda.
- La Habra (No districts) 62,000. CM has to bring up at cc, and the majority must pass.
- Placentia (Districts) 51,000. City Mgr, Mayor, or 2 CMs.
- Brea (No Districts) 47,000 . 2 CMs.
SUMMARY
- 5 cities (Anaheim, Fullerton, Westminster, Placentia, and Brea) require two city council members to place an item on the agenda. Most often, in these cities, the Mayor and/or City Manager can also place an item on the agenda.
- 8 cities (Irvine, Santa Ana, Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, Orange, Costa Mesa, Mission Viejo, and Buena Park) allow one city council member to add an item to the agenda. There is some variation in the protocol. For example, Santa Ana requires a form to be completed by the requesting council member and consult with the City Mgr., City Attorney, and City Clerk. In Huntington Beach, all agenda item requests are subject to the Agenda Review Committee on the Monday before the council so that the Mayor and staff can ask questions, make recommendations, etc. In Costa Mesa, one council member can request, but if it is likely that more than 4 hours of staff time will be required to “work up” the item, then the majority of the council has to approve.
- Only one city, La Habra, required a majority of the council to approve placing the matter on the agenda. It should be noted that La Habra is a small city (#18 in population with a population of 62,000).
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Local Events, Local Government, Local News
Makes perfect sense that they’re trying this… they want to leave their mark before they get voted out in the next election. Nick and Fred need to get off the Council ASAP before they can do any more damage to this City and its laws…
Oh Amy! They have not done any damage to the city or its laws… you need to stop blaming them and look at your boy Zahra and how he violates laws “criminal”
I’m not familiar with any allegations… which have you heard of? And Nick and Fred have done plenty…
Looked up and only found some misdemeanor charges against Zahra, which got dismissed by the DA itself – didn’t even have enough merits to run to pretrial hearings.
Who told you the charges were dismissed. That’s not in anything you can look up.
Are you serious?!? Zahra was charged.. what have Nick and Fred as you say been charged w “plenty”? Show me your proof
I know! Let’s count which councilmember(s) have been charged by the District Attorney with a crime.
Don’t forget to subtract the number where the charges were dropped
Charges were dropped? You can’t prove that assertion. But Zahra could if it’s true.
As a matter of law the government saw fit to seal the record on the case. So I cannot prove the charge was dropped but what is clear is the government was willing to make it as if the incident has never happened. They decided as a matter of law an procedure to make it none of your business.
That’s good enough for a reasonable person. And makes the unreasonable slanders you and Jeff are engaged in wrong.
John!! You just contradicted yourself..
“but what is clear is the government was willing to make it as if the incident has never happened.”
So you’re admitting that Zahra actually did something to make him look like he’s not a criminal?
No, that is not what I am saying, nor does it follow from the facts. I’m saying that the records are sealed and it’s officially none of anyone’s business how or why.
Under our laws the government saw fit to make it as if the citizen’s arrest and the charge never happened.
The end.
So it’s okay to throw everyone’s else’s business out in the open but Zahra’s?
There were actual charges.. if there wasn’t then the DA would have nothing to seal, right? Again the DA doesn’t charge if they do not have evidence!! NONE of the other council members have charges or criminal records but Zahra!
The End!
“Again the DA doesn’t charge if they do not have evidence!”
They can and do. And beyond that sometimes the “evidence” turns out to be false or invalid. Or they decide that to prosecute some behavior as a crime would create an injustice.
Regardless… innocent until proven guilty. Note how it’s not “innocent unless charged.”
If what you’re saying was correct there would be no need for trials.
But do you know what :IS: a crime?
Operating a motor vehicle in the State of California withOUT a front license plate attached.
Fred operates EVERY vehicle he owns withOUT a proper/valid front license plate (novelty plates are NOT the same as vanity plates)…and he even admitted to knowingly doing so.
Has he taken accountability and corrected the error? Nope…
Oh Bernard! Bernard!!
Let’s start to turn fingers towards Fred Jung to take the heat off Zahra’s wrongs!!
you should go troll in Anaheim!!
You can’t prove it, but Zahra can. All he has to do is produce the correspondence from the DA saying the case was dropped. And he would have by now if he had it.
Slander? All the man has to do is show evidence of his claim of exoneration and I will be happy to happy to apologize for my doubts on the matter. Should be easy.
Defeats the purpose. He doesn’t need to, shouldn’t have to. It’s lawfully nunyo.
Like it never happened, as a matter of law. If it’s good enough for the DA why not you?
He’s an elected councilman who represents City of Fullerton!!! That’s not good enough for me to represent the city I live in!! It shouldn’t be good enough for anybody!!
Exactly.
Doesn’t matter what’s enough for you because a) you’re blowing an incident that’s none of your business out of proportion as a political tactic and b) he’s duly elected by d5 even with your concerted campaign of distortions
I live in District 5 and yes it isn’t good enough for me!!
Like you said in a previous comment you put
“John
December 20, 2023 at 10:18 am
The city of Fullerton. I live here so that includes me.
So this is my business!
@Jeff: D5 already decided this issue. The DA already decided this issue.
If the record is sealed how do you know anything is being blown out of proportion? The dubious behavior of electeds is the business of their constituents like Jeff.
@David: round and round. Because it has been adjudicated in Zahra’s favor as a matter of law by the DA and at the ballot box. The end.
So what’s left is Jeff doesn’t care that it is a charge that never mattered, he’s just trying to make hay without any straw. Just like you.
This story is riddled with so many typos, unintelligible sentences, and unwarranted editorial conclusions that it really should be pulled from the website (“agonized” for “agendized” multiple times).
She’d have to pull everything.
SASKIA are you actually saying a sick Jung should have stayed?? Dumb article.
The article doesn’t say what you said. Yet you called the article “dumb” based on your unsupported inference.
The Imperial Council Majority’s antidemocratic power plays aren’t dumb either. They are acting to shut out the minority, to the advantage of the ruling faction. But maybe this one was a bridge too far for Jung.
We will only know when he is ready to participate again.
You dummies are all falling for the banana in the tailpipe. Zahra is a criminal. Dunlap is corrupt. They all are. Stop defending them. Join the rebellion. Cat piss is making us sheep.
Saskia. In your letter in the printed version you state “do not plagiarize” as one of the most important values for local journalism. A little hypocritical of you to say anything about plagiarism when you published Ahmad’s stolen water article. He put his name on the byline and lied that he wrote it when it was a staffer at OC Water.
I did not publish any “stolen water article” and Ahmad has not written anything for the paper since I have been editor here. I believe the information about the water board that was written by OCWD staff members and submitted under OCWD Board member Ahmad Zahra’s name were published by Jesse La Tour who was the editor at the time. I have made many mistakes, but that is not one of mine.