Unless this is strictly an employee review, Burbank’s violating the Brown Act again by refusing to roughly sketch out the subject(s) of this sudden little get-together on Friday:
http://burbank.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&event_id=5023
Since they’re obviously not planning a surprise New Year’s Day termination down at City Hall, what are the approximate topics?
Maybe some pending litigation? How to respond to a bad FPPC ruling say, making sure of course to keep everyone on script and on track? Ninety-nine percent of the time these supposed employee evaluations are used by staff as illegal catch-alls for the topics they want to keep secret and don’t want people to know about.
While we’re at it, it’d also be nice for the FPPC to take a look at that “informational” brochure the city sent out at taxpayer expense last fall about their hoped-for airport “replacement” terminal. It seemed more than a bit promotional to us.
Burbank, California 
The subject is Amy.
More time is apparently needed.
She recently recommended the extension of the Hospitality deal.
Now, she wants to change the terms.
Including kicking the out of Gov’mint buildings?
Does she honestly think that would change the legalities here when it comes to BIDs? Or the responsibilities of the city? Moving them offshore?
These discussions need to be made in public. It’s the law!
Hey Mike, Is that Gordon talking? We all know he tells you what goes on in closed session.
Several years ago the city’s lawyers did everything they could to try to verify how it was GORDON who was feeding me with inside BPD information.
Didn’t work. Gordon says nothing. My best sources actually came from outside of Burbank. People talk.
Anyone else remember as well how Golonski & Co tried to tie Gordon up with a phony FPPC complaint a few years ago? No, Dixie listens around. That’s how he knows things.
Gordon clearly campaigned against B from the Dais, a violation of FPPC rules. Doesn’t bother you though.
Personal campaigning is no violation. In fact, it would be “tri-able” for someone to have stopped him. First Amendment and all that.
In fact, the council as a whole can endorse a ballot proposition if they want. The BUSD governing board does it all the time.
Keep trying.
Campaigning from the Dais is a violation. The CA and CM said so and I trust their judgement on this and everything else over yours.
Personal opinions are not subject to those laws.
Can’t do it from the Dais. That is using public money to get the opinion out.
Nonsense. Individually and collectively they can endorse and support anything they want. Statements made at a formal meeting are allowable.
What they can’t do is use public resources to promote something on the ballot. Merely televising a formal meeting containing such language won’t trigger the law. School board does it all the time.
Anyone in fact can go to a meeting and televise their support or non-support of an election issue.
What would it take for one council member to say publicly that certain issues discussed in closed session should/could have been brought out for public discussion. I’m saying like every time this happens. He/she does not have to name the issues but just say in a general way, “I felt the closed session on Dec. 30 had two items on the agenda that should have been addressed in public. I can not mention these in public for fear of being sued by the City but I feel the public needs to know how at least one CC member feels about this.” Just do something like that every time this comes up.
They can actually be prosecuted for this under a local ordinance, as well as state law (yes Will, go ahead and laugh. You repeatedly ridiculed Ted McConkey for making this same accurate claim). Any reference to closed session topics would be culpable, even veiled ones that can be identified. Even a reference to an illegal closed session itself.
One thing I’d like to see happen next year is this phony “performance evaluation” thing get eliminated. The council needs to start spelling out the issues of discussion, as well as report out on any actions taken. That’s the law, and it especially applies to closed sessions.
Could you describe what that mailer looked like? I’m not sure I am familiar with one sent by the city. Oh…..and look at this! Just found this when I was looking for the mailer you reference in the post – guess Bill Wiggins and Golonski know all about mailers: http://articles.latimes.com/1998/aug/22/local/me-15465
It was Bob K. and Ted M. as well on the council.
They got in BIG trouble over this.
Perhaps this is the mailer you reference?
Click to access Bob_Hope_Airport_Brochure.pdf
Interesting how the city hosts this file but it’s from the AA.
No, that’s the airport one.
Of course the city would host the airport mailer, after all, with Frutos and Rogers in charge the airport, as in Glendale and Pasadena, now running Burbank. They ran out of opportunity in Glendale for big developers so the focus is now on Burbank, where Luddy, Frutos and Rogers are in the bag.
Check the leader it had ads every week. I think they all listed the CC as supporters. Along with Chamber Warner bros Cussamono.
Was Saint Gordon there? Why don’t you ask him. God knows that he does not care about keeping closed sessions private.
There are two broad subjects listed. What more do you need? Is it another conspiracy hatched in your fevered mind?
I think Rogers is the one with the conspiracy laden fevered mind.
Well he does traffic in too-easy cliches about what people are up to and why. He has a more difficult time with me though because I’m not the normal sort of classic Burbank yahoo, and so he has to pathologize things in his old historic way, that being when he’s not going out of his way to ignore me. His little sources on the topic give me a laugh.
When you live in a world where you don’t like to listen to criticism, constructive or otherwise, you tend to eventually lose perspective on what’s and what’s wrong. I think when reasonable people end up in working environments like this, they end up doing things they probably in a million years never would have anticipated. A lot of those actions tend to be ones that protect the bureaucracy at all costs.
“what’s right and what’s wrong”