Santa Monica Councilmember Gleam Davis presented a draft amendment to the Council Rules regarding special council member discussion items was unanimously approved by the Santa Monica City Council at its meeting Tuesday. The changes agreed upon would require these items — referred to as “16 items” because they are listed under number 16 in the council agenda — to receive legal clearance from the City Attorney, determined to be feasible by city staff, and not be an item recently discussed and voted on before being approved for a council agenda. Davis’s move was itself a 16-item. 

The motion comes in the immediate aftermath of the council passing a 16 item at its previous meeting on August 27 that directed city staff to “eliminate” county programs like the Harm Reduction and Syringe Exchange Programs within 1,000 feet of establishments related to children or seniors. Before the item, City Attorney Douglas Sloan explained that state law prevented the city from interfering with the county program, but the motion still passed.

Councilmember Oscar De La Torre put the item forward at that August meeting and admitted Tuesday that he did not believe it would pass. Despite that, he said that even though city staff had no power to enforce the motion, it was important to do because it started the conversation and put something on record that the council wanted to do something about it.

“Sometimes, it’s important to challenge laws and get things on the record to show resolve on an issue,” De La Torre said.

As Sloan and City Manager David White explained, the issue with that is the position that city staff is placed in as a body that is legally obligated to follow the city council’s direction. Residents expect tangible results when the council directs staff in this manner, and there are better ways like political statements that could accomplish the goal of beginning discourse at the council level.

“There have been times where council has made statements to effectuate direction,” White said.  

Davis explained that she did not bring the item forward as a means to “say no” to any particular motion presented by a council member, but to avoid directing staff to do something they cannot do.

“It’s about working with staff to try and figure out what the 16 item is trying to accomplish,” Davis said, “and then do that in a pragmatic, legal, and viable way.”

Vice Mayor Lana Negrete suggested that the amendment also address repeating items brought by council members, arguing that was another way the system could be abused. Mayor Phil Brock noted a rule that did not allow council members to bring back items that they had struck down for 12 months, but Sloan explained that the rule is not universal and only applies to certain kinds of motions.

“If we already discussed an issue, we could keep putting it on,” Negrete said. “It just seems like a waste of time.”

De La Torre also brought up the powers of city staff as a concern, arguing that staff is more powerful than a single council member and that delegating more power to them would further that imbalance. He also had concerns about “putting guardrails” on what council members can do, and Negrete and Brock both expressed concerns over the personal bias of a city manager interfering with the purity of the process should they be given sole discretion over what is considered feasible in this motion. 

However, Councilmember Jessie Zwick argued that the council majority was more powerful than the city staff and that directing staff to engage in illegal conduct was a “recipe for a political or constitutional crisis.” He also agreed with concerns about the subjective nature of only allowing what was “feasible,” arguing that the amendment have specific criteria about what is practical for the city to accomplish.

“I would like it to [lean towards] the side of things that are literally not feasible as opposed to something more subjective,” Zwick said.

The motion passed unanimously with a 7-0 vote.

Photo by Ginton on iStockphoto.com