Not only is Rogers full of crap about Gordon (as well as our many other longtime airport critics), but his artful dodgings in a recent “We Love Burbank!” Facebook page comment also broke the law.
Here’s the Code:
2-1-204: CLOSED SESSIONS; VIOLATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY A MISDEMEANOR; MEMBERS-ELECT:ShareCopy link
A. Disclosure Prohibited; Exception: No member of the Council or other person in attendance at a lawful closed session of the Council may disclose to any person any information about or concerning any report, communication, discussion or any other matter discussed, considered or decided in such session, except as may be permitted or required by law or authorized or sanctioned by the Council.
Here’s his comment:
“Yes, along the way we did lose the support of one council member. But that flip-flop appears premised more upon an imminent reelection effort than any legitimate objection. He now cites features that supposedly came up since July, 2015 as the motivation for his reversal, but an ample record shows he’s offering a Trump-like version of the calendar. He was once a proponent of features he now condemns. We’re now in a strange “Twilight Zone” world where assuring the ballot measure is voted on by the largest number of city voters is supposedly scandalous, part of the devious machinations of the dark side – at least for those who always imagine a dark side, which coincidentally makes it that much more urgent to reelect the great protector.
It’s possible the turnaround came about just because the fifth council member was eager to accept credit for an agreement accomplished when he was Mayor or Vice Mayor. But once he was simply one of five, he reverted to his years-long pattern of distinguishing himself from the crowd by being the one to bellow, “no!” clumsily juggling for supposed reasons after the fact.
I can’t read minds, and so can’t explain another’s change of heart. In fact, even he claimed two weeks ago to have no serious issues with the terminal plan. Instead, he said his newfound doubts are premised upon an alleged “rush to judgment,” this because a council majority supports putting the plan before Burbank voters in an election where it will be considered by significantly more voters than the average municipal election turn-out. He claims that by November the public will have had too little time to consider the issue and offer input.
Odd that wasn’t a concern when the council was taking positions with the discussions held in secret. Despite virtually countless invitations for public comment and input in recent years, running the gamut from public meetings and presentations, to council members pleading for questions from constituents, now we’re being told the public will not have had enough opportunity to comment and offer input if they’re asked to vote on the current proposal in November.”
Not only is it legally improper for Rogers to cite the content of Gordon’s personal thoughts and feelings during their many closed sessions, which is largely what he’s doing here, it’s also unfair as well. How can anyone on the outside ever know that what he’s claiming is true?
And who cares anyway? So Gordon at worst changed his mind about the terminal — probably after reading some of our astute objections. Who wouldn’t? No one wants it anyway but the shills and beneficiaries and invested egos.
Objections with which Rogers will not engage, btw. He’d rather make phony personality cracks instead — you know, questions about personal character, people’s mental states, the pathology of Burbank paranoia, that kind of thing.
Just like what he’s doing here with Gordon.