The plan below is also a great way to make the anti-airport argument into just another cranky Dr. Gordon issue, and thus marginalize the criticism even more.
Sounds like a Rogers’ idٚea here, doesn’t it? Make Dr. Gordon the issue.
Arguments in Favor and Against
Lastly, on July 26, 2016, Council discussed having the four Council Members who voted in favor of the project write the argument in favor of the ballot measure and that the dissenter writes the argument against the measure. The City Attorney confirmed with its outside election counsel that the state election code supports the Council designating members to write the ballot argument in favor and another member to write the argument against the measure.
Since up to 5 people may be signatories to the argument, the Council may also designate that the argument against can include other signatories. Further, if Council designates themselves to write the in favor and against arguments, and multiple people submit arguments, the only ones to be published are the Council’s for and against arguments. If for some reason Council Members on either side fail to submit arguments on time, then other submittals would be published based on the statutory priority list. Arguments in favor and against a measure may be no more than 300 words.
First of all, a “no” vote on Measure B is not a matter of “dissent.” Dissent from what? It’s supposed to be a yes or no vote by law.
And for a Measure B ordinance that was consciously intended to keep both the city and council members out of the initial decision making approval process, this planned ballot argument scheme exalts their political position even more. As Golonski mentioned to them last fall, the Burbank City Council is not supposed to have any skin in the game here. The whole point of Measure B was the exact opposite.
So why are they jointly getting involved in writing both of the actual ballot arguments? There’s no law that says they have to.
The “yes” might make sense, but controlling the “no” as well doesn’t.
This is going beyond simple arrogance on the part of this city council. We’ve never seen such a restriction of opinion to the policymakers alone when it comes to all the published ballot arguments, and that means anywhere. Especially the critical “no” arguments, and when it’s the politicians who are pushing the “yes.”
What is this council-majority worried about here to be actually controlling the opposing opinion? That someone besides Dr. Gordon could write a better “no” argument?
Oh, sorry. Dissent.
What Gordon will probably do is make things fair and branch it out. But it will be no thanks to the council.