Our city council is also being asked this week to fill an LTC position solely because they kicked off one of the tenant representatives for reasons of absenteeism — despite the rest of the Commission pleading for his retention. Rogers wanted to keep this member on, but the other four voted to remove him.
The problem with this action is that — besides being unfair, and against the wishes of the rest of LTC membership — it involves replacing him with one of two landlords. Both of the applicants for the open position work in property management, and they are the only two people on the appointment list.
Now this would not be happening if Burbank hadn’t changed its old LTC membership rules about 15 years ago. In the old days the Municipal Code spelled out a 2-2-1 qualification requirement for the Commission: two members had to be tenants, two landlords, and one a neutral resident who was neither.
Since the LTC member removed last month was not a professional property manager (he worked in the entertainment industry), the old rules would have necessarily pegged his replacement as a tenant — or at least someone not in the business. So what you have right now is an either intentional or unintentional bias in LTC membership, and in favor of the landlords. Those two up for tomorrow night could be considered under the old rules.
So where are all the tenants on the Commission? Where are their voices?
For reasons of equitability, the LTC membership rules must be changed. And why were they ever changed to begin with?