Or shall we call it a “double standard”?
The news (to us) that Councilman Rogers has either helped to set up or is at least actively participating in a subscription-approval Facebook page about City of Burbank affairs reminds us of this.
It’s about the supposed shenanigans of an old Burbank anti-Airport group. The topic’s not the important thing. Guess who wrote it (no peeking!)?
One group even held a “meet the candidate forum,” inviting voters to discuss the issues with McConkey at a local restaurant. But Berlin announced a unique twist. She had to approve who could enter, and reporters (even columnists who are also Burbank voters) were not allowed. It was just another example of the double standards that McConkey, the Berlins and others applied to themselves.
Back to BVT and McConkey’s 2004 reappearance, Berlin again personally moderated the site, deciding who was or wasn’t allowed in. On that site, McConkey charged that, while on the council, he was threatened with arrest if he revealed the council was holding illegal meetings. The absurdity of the claim, that he’d be arrested for revealing illegal acts, coupled with the inference he was silenced by the bizarre threat, never gave pause to Berlin and the former councilman’s fans at BVT. They responded with pages of salutes to his “bravery.”
We live for this stuff. And you just knew such contradictory behavior was inevitable.
Btw, under both Burbank and state law, a city councilman can very well be prosecuted for divulging anything about closed session business, including if they’d gotten together and agreed to hold improperly noticed meetings, or are discussing non-agendized topics. It’s chancy for them to go public with such information.
McConkey was very much correct about that. And does Rogers actually believe that they weren’t holding some secret or sudden meetings back then, or were discussing non-agendized city business in violation of state law?
They still do!
(Photo credit: Fronnie)