Hypocrisy on display

 

will-rogers-on-council-0501

 

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)
 

Advertisements

46 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

46 responses to “Hypocrisy on display

  1. Ron

    well you have to know that there is a different standard for Rogers and for Golonski right ? Those two make the standards and force them down our throats but the standards they make don’t apply to themselves.

    • Anonymous 3

      That Golonski just haunts your dark little dreams, doesn’t he?

      Seek help.

      • Casandra

        Oh, wise one, recommend a source of Help for all of the Heathens that frequent this Blog.
        We’ve been waiting for a positive contribution from you.
        Here’s the opportunity right at the beginning of Lent.

  2. Anonymous 3

    What’s your point? That City of Burbank is a subscription approved facebook page?

    Do you have the LEAST evidence that any applications have been refused?

    Just asking.

    • semichorus

      You really should change your name to “Obtuse.”

      The point is that they shouldn’t be doing this. Why don’t they just set up an open web page on the city site, similar to agenda comments? And Rogers is a rank hypocrite to now be part of the kind of local political gatekeeping effort that he once went out of his way to insult and lampoon.

      They gatekeep, she gatekeeped. But hers was bad? Gimme a break.

      Carolyn Berlin’s at least made sense– her group had a simple candidate meet-and-greet at a local restaurant. She didn’t want Rogers in there. Big deal. And it was just a group of people of limited interests — not city council members joining in about a whole range of city business. Her later mail-list was by invitation only — and it was a small, PRIVATE group. Huge difference.

      And she was a private citizen for chrissakes!

      FB pages by the way (and by contrast) can be made completely open for view at least. Many commercial ones are.

      I’m not aware of this one being so– it doesn’t come up in any of the Google searches I’ve done. It appears to be behind at least one privacy level.

      It looks like what someone is trying to do is set up a social media alternative to “the blogs.” By using Facebook.

      And with four out of the five council members actively participating in mock symposiums there.

      • Anonymous 3

        Nonsense and drivel.

        • semichorus

          Give it up. City council members can’t run a Facebook symposium where they’re seeking consensus on city business. Period.

          The fact that you have to have a friend request honored before you can join in or even see what they’re doing (apparently) is money in the bank for any Brown Act/Open Meetings attorney.

          • Anonymous 3

            My god, what a vivid imagination you have. Especially when it comes to the law.

            Funny how many times you cite a sue-able action on the part of city council or any other govt agency in Burb vs how rarely (never) they get sued for brown act violations.

            A councilman is looking for venues to communicate with the voters and of course you condemn him for it.

            I suppose if he used YOUR petulant little blog for the same purpose he’d be a hero to you.

            • semichorus

              We’re not just talking about one council member. The majority are apparently joining in.

              Do you get this? Do you get the difference?

              I’ve also said many times — many — that if I had a spare quarter-of-a-millions dollars around it would be extremely easy to nail these people in court.

              But that’s what it takes, and they know it. That’s why they behave the way they do. Same with the school board.

              The City of Burbank’s got dozens of Brown Act violations under its belt regarding the secret airport discussions that they’ve been having among themselves, and Rogers (and the councils’) plaintive attempts now to turn back the clock and seek public input on a terminal plan that they have already approved for the ballot is pathetically dishonest.

              These concerns of his about public engagement should have been expressed a year ago, back BEFORE they voted in November to set it all in motion, and even picked the specific date for the referendum!

        • Anonymous

          Nonsense and drivel is what comes out of the mouth of Mr Rogers, remember his claim a group of old people stole signs ? It was nonsense and it was drivel and it left Rogers once again looking like a clown.

          • semichorus

            Yeah. I also remember his ignoring the story when McConkey’s campaign signs were getting stolen all over the place.

            He claimed that such behavior in city elections was routine– a non-story.

            The guy is so inconsistent. It’s funny, actually. I especially like — in view of his old lawsuit Roger v Superior Court — that he now refuses to divulge to the public who he talks to privately during the course of his official duties.

            This was a key point in his old request — he wanted to know who the old council people were dealing with behind the scenes. So he went to court over it.

            He was right then. He’s wrong now.

    • Anonymous

      My wife gave up waiting to be approved.

      • Anonymous 3

        Sure she did. What ever you claim.

        • Karen

          So annyous3 are you an approved member of the group ?

          • semichorus

            Funny.

            This is just so illegal what they’re doing. Even if it were an OPEN and truly public Facebook page, it would STILL not be allowed under current law. They can’t meet together on Facebook to build consensus on city matters under their jurisdiction.

            Jesus Christ, the utter insanity with these people. Or is it just arrogance? There isn’t an attorney in the state who’d tell them that what they were doing here was at all acceptable under the current Brown Act and Open Meetings requirements.

            • Anonymous 3

              Hogwash.

              A majority of council people can appear at the same public event and even answer questions about business without it being a violation of the brown act.

              • semichorus

                That must explain why they go to great lengths NOT to be together at outside meetings, eh? They can’t even sit with each other without great concerns. It’s been this way for years.

                Outside of previously noticed and agendized get-togethers, tell us where this has EVER happened?

                And you obviously know nothing about the Brown Act — or Albano’s inconsistent application of the rules. By even her odd interpretation.

            • Anonymous 3

              Except Albano, apparently.

              So that is more than zero.

          • Anonymous 3

            That would be telling.

            Are you? Have you tried to subscribe? You will be admitted within a week, I assure you.

            • semichorus

              How would you know for certain anyway?

              I’m sure now they would be. But that misses the point. No one should have to go through such a gatekeeper. And the council members shouldn’t be chatting amongst each other about jurisdictional matters during non-agendized, non-noticed serial meetings.

              Anywhere.

              I love it. They aren’t allowed to discuss anything during response to orals — nothing at all, not even basic personal responses to speakers. But this is OK.

              • Anonymous 3

                I have not seen the council members discussing ANYTHING among themselves on that facebook page. Which, BTW, is privately owned, not owned by the city.

                Probably WHY the city does not have such a page. They would have to admit everyone and more to the point not be able to toss anyone out for being abusive.

                Sort of like the abuse here on your petulant little blog. Or the abuse of public comment at every city council meeting by the famous gadflies.

                • semichorus

                  This Facebook page has been apparently set up as an alternative to “the blogs.” And I imagine it’s this one.

                  Council members have no business going on it and making comments about past, future, or prospective city business.

                  I actually wish there was more abuse and affliction going at oral communications. There used to be.

            • 91506

              I tried to join well over a week ago and I’m still waiting

  3. Theresa

    Hmm responded with “pages of salutes? wish we all could see what they are responding with on the Talamantes City of Burbank page. Maybe Rogers will reveal it all for us ? doubt it !!!

    • Anonymous 3

      Hun? Was that English? I recognize most of the words, but it made no sense to me.

      There is no reason that you cannot read the whole page if you wish. Go look.

  4. Anonymous 3

    A real pity you endorsed him and got him elected, eh?

  5. Burbank Bill

    Will Rogers
    February 11 at 10:51pm

    Airport Magic Wand: OK, you have a magic wand to make (some) people do exactly and precisely what you want them to do (on the this narrow topic): Offering as much detail as possible, what sort of outreach do YOU think the BUR Airport Authority and/or the City should undertake to between right now and whenever (if ever) the Airport gets its Terminal Replacement plan on a municipal ballot? Weekly public meetings? One big meeting on a Saturday night? Meetings to discuss sections of the environmental impact report as each one is completed? All of these? None of these ideas, but others that you’ve thought of?

    If you were in a position to tell the Airport and/or the City, “This is what it’s going to take to convince me you’re really interested in hearing from the public…” what would you tell them one, the other or both should do?

    I’m not talking specific issues right now. I’m not asking what you need to reverse or increase support, i.e. Get an enforceable curfew, guarantee it will be less than 10 gates, get a Mission-Style exterior design. I mean, what do you need to see as a real and legitimate opportunity(s) to voice a demand or a prohibition? Feel free to PM me if you’d prefer.

    Thanks. w

    • semichorus

      He means, “What can the City do to lobby for a new airport terminal and thus gain a “yes” vote on Measure B, but without looking like we’re illegally lobbying for a “yes” vote…”

      What other purpose would there be? What “hearing from the public”?

      Hearing about what?

      This is like alternate universe time. The basic plans are in, the new terminal has been approved by the council. The details are being worked out before it goes on the ballot. They said this all in open session.

      So what else is there for “the public” to do? Help pick out the linoleum?

      What in the world is this guy talking about? This is all a Hobson’s Choice and nothing else. Measure B legislates a Hobson’s Choice– take it or leave it, voters. Nothing more — no co-planning effort with the voters, or array of choices offered.

      “Outreach” too means illegal lobbying. Rogers thinks they can do it before it goes on the ballot, but they have ALREADY called the election and voted to put it on the ballot. They did so in mid-November. Thus, any city “outreach” effort is now illegal.

      No phony attempt to backtrack now and make things seem indeterminate (“voice a demand or prohibition”) will make this fact go away. Again, a new terminal plan is headed for the ballot, and they have already called the election and PICKED THE SPECIFIC DATE (!)

      The City obviously blew it with the mid-November vote and staff report, and they know it. Even Golonski said they were going too far with this planned upcoming “approval” vote before the election. They royally screwed up by framing it all the way they did.

      But too bad, they’ve already gone on record as supporting the new terminal framework plan and placing it on the ballot. So after last November, they cannot spend a dime or a minute on promoting its passage.

      Or disingenuously call a blatant promotion effort on the terminal idea “outreach.”

      They’re obviously trying to get out of this by acting like things are still somehow open-ended, and so let’s bring “the public” in. Won’t work.

      Too late for that — by their own doing.

      • Anonymous 3

        Find a lawyer to take the case or shut up about it.

        • semichorus

          Give it up.

          • Anonymous 3

            Rogers is inviting the public to participate, to voice their concerns.

            Shocking!

            • semichorus

              A year too late, and to no effect. The deal was sealed on November 16. The staff report from that meeting proves it — quite foolishly in fact.

              Participate in what?

              What’s really going on is that they are trying to backtrack and make it look like things aren’t as determined as they are. They know that Golonski was right about what they were SUPPOSED to do in the process. They’re not supposed to “approve” a terminal plan before the vote, or vote (as they did in November) to approve it when the paperwork comes in.

              Ooops.

              They’re also trying to make promotional PR meetings about the terminal plan look like mere educational outreach and community “input” sessions. That’s what Rogers is talking about, and he’s full of crap now about his concern for some kind of public “outreach” and communication effort. It’s already a done deal by their own hand.

              Who does he think he’s fooling? He may not even realize how full of shit he is. Wouldn’t be the first time.

              As I said, it’s too late now for community input, and too phony. Maybe the paint color or something.

  6. Anonymous

    Anytime Rogers get called out here for his ludicrous shenanigans, A3 goes into an absolute tizzy.

    Passive aggressive hysteria at it’s most pathological.

    I LOVE IT

    • semichorus

      I wonder if Rogers realizes how transparently stupid he’s being here about that Facebook entry. There ain’t no more room for community input — except the actual Measure B vote!

      When he talks about “discuss,” what he really means is selling the Plan to the “community.” No one’s going to reverse anything. What if the crowd says they want a 5-gate terminal? Yeah, back to the drawing board ….

      These guys are all so full of crap. Their outside attorneys have obviously told them that they and the CM fucked up in November by going too far (that Golonski was right about the correct process), and so now they have to backtrack and act like things are still open-ended,

  7. chad

    Rogers certainly got his tail whooped by the Rancho folks and Anon3 certainly has a bee in his bonnet over something.

  8. Joe Mannix

    “under both Burbank and state law, a city councilman can very well be prosecuted for divulging anything about closed session business” That reminds me of something …

    Patrick Leahy, Senator from Vermont.

    Senator Patrick “Leaky Leahy” is best known for the time he leaked classified documents during the Iran-Contra hearings in Washington.

    He should have been indicted, tried and sentenced.

    Leahy’s Iran-Contra leak was considered to be one of the most serious breaches of secrecy in the Intelligence Committee’s 10-year history.

    Sounds serious!! It’s OK though, the Dems/Left’s interests were advanced, and in the end that’s all that really matters.

    Bottom line: Rogers does his best to advance the Dems/Left’s interests so who cares about a stupid Facebook page? Although he did cave and support the – no bikes on the mariposa bridge. The bike people are rabid left-wingers and do not like taking no for an answer. So much for standing on principles, right Rogers?

    • semichorus

      You’re defending Iran/Contra?

      I’m not sure how left Will is these days, and I would suspect the Rancho people rarely leave Burbank enough to have developed any political opinions that are not situated in about 1965 or so. They certainly live like it.

  9. Burbank Bill

    I watched the replay of Tuesday. The blubbering, sniveling ALL FEMALE,middle aged horse people were just pathetic. All this harm to the horses,yet they keep them in postage stamp stables in their backyards!,Notice they couldn’t cite ONE accident? It was all specualtion ,and what could happen., most of the time that dumb bridge sits empty. I get it, most of the bike fanatics are dicks. But I’m sure some compromise could have worked out. like A YIELD sign ? But no, that unctuous group of NIMBYS got their way yet again.

    • semichorus

      I agree. I think what’s going on too is they think that if they can block the bridge then they can also keep the bike riders off the trails. That’s really their main goal.

      These Rancho people have been getting away with murder for years.

  10. chad

    Joe Mannix. How does selling arms arms to Iran, who had an arms embargo imposed on it because they had seized our embassy a few years earlier and kept Americans hostage for just a wee bit, in exchange for money to be funneled into the release of a couple of hostages in Lebanon, I think, but mainly to supply arms to the Contras, who had themselves been excluded from any arms agreement by Congress because, well, they tortured and killed civilians (and that’s the least of of their crimes), compare with Patrick Leahy leaking documents which had information that essentially everyone knew anyway? It’s kind of like Burbankians being shocked to know the City Council and lead staff have already brokered a “yes” on airport expansion before ever discussing it in public. We don’t need a Leahy leak when the City Attorney says in an open Council meeting “when the new terminal is built” not “if the new terminal is built” to know the deal is already done in their minds and it’ been brokered behind closed doors.

  11. June

    I think it’s reverse the bike riders think if they take the bridge next they take the trails. It is like if the horse people took the skate park or tennis center and why not shouldn’t horses be allowed to rude there ?

  12. Anonymous

    How the rest of the sane world handles this. I blame staff CA and CM boobs.

    http://horses.about.com/od/horsesportsexplained/qt/multiusetrails.htm

    • semichorus

      I know. The Rancho people have always been thugs. They think they’re Burbank’s aristocrats. That’s what’s going on with that bridge.

      But the oldtimers would tell you that the Rancho area used to be considered the dregs of Burbank. It was tacky and low class, like Tobacco Road.

      They used to laugh about that crowd’s grand pretenses. (The same thing was true of Montrose, too, btw.)

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s