1 Xavier Mota
From: Peter DiChellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2023 3:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 16A - Mayor
EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica City Council:
I oppose this Ɵme‐waster. The Council already adopted a process for selecƟng the Mayor and has far more important and urgent maƩers to aƩend: homeless bedlam, worsening crime, teetering financials, obnoxious overdevelopment, and Council meeƟngs that take about as long as a flight from LAX to Europe (but without the snacks or movies).
This Item smacks of poliƟcal hackery and I hope the Council spends liƩle Ɵme dispatching it to the waste bucket it belongs in.
Sincerely,
Peter DiChellis
Santa Monica 90403
ITEM 16.A.
October 24, 2023
ITEM 16.A.
October 24, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: T GROSSMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 2:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White
Subject: Absolutely NO! Agenda Item 16.A 10/24/23 City Council Agenda: Gleam Davis proposed change of rules for selection Mayor
EXTERNAL
RE Agenda Item 16.A on Tuesday’s City Council Agenda: Gleam Davis proposed change of current rules-based selection of the Mayor
Reference:
Hello Council,
I am completely opposed to this change proposed by current Mayor Gleam Davis which is designed to keep her in the mayor's office and deny the opportunity to another council person as agreed to last year. Reneging on the December 2022 agreement that gave her the office for a year?! Completely unacceptable.
Thank you,
Tina Grossman
Sunset Park Resident
44 year citizen of SM
References:
1. https://smmirror.com/2022/12/gleam‐davis‐and‐phil‐brock‐to‐each‐serve‐term‐as‐santa‐monica‐mayor/
2. https://surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/October2023/10_20_2023_Bureaucratic_Tweak_or_Effort_to_Block_Next_Mayor.html
3. https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News‐2023/October‐ 2023/10_23_2023_City_Attorney_Weighs_In_on_Proposed_Amendment.html
4. https://smdp.com/2023/10/23/the‐time‐to‐repeal‐the‐rotating‐mayor‐process‐is‐now/ (I don't agree with Mike.)
5. https://www.smobserved.com/story/2023/05/30/opinion/mayor‐gleam‐davis‐says‐that‐anyone‐who‐has‐slept‐on‐ the‐street‐here‐for‐a‐year‐is‐a‐santa‐monican‐local‐resident‐disagrees/7618.html (is her plan to register them as voters? Sorry, no)
ITEM 16.A.
October 24, 2023
ITEM 16.A.
October 24, 2023
1 Xavier Mota
From: Arthur Jeon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 9:39 PM
To: Gleam Davis; [email protected]
Cc: Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock Subject: Re: Absolutely NO! Agenda Item 16.A 10/24/23 City Council Agenda: Gleam Davis proposed change of rules for selection Mayor
EXTERNAL
Hey Gleam,
Just as long as Phil isn’t magically put “under investigation” within the next few months!●◐◑◒◓◔◕ I’m only half joking. As the anonymous email that poisoned a year’s worth of work with Covered 6 finally revealed, to a company that displayed infinite patience and professionalism in the face of irrational resistance, their 6 was never going to be covered in Santa Monica. They pulled out and Santa Monica lost the opportunity to work with a company that was convinced they could, with the help of their homeless liaison auditing the effectiveness of the fortune we spend on the problem, make a difference. Granted, this had more to do Andrew’s wavering as CEO of DTSM than the council, but it showed that the difference between baseless allegations (Eddy Bryce hadn’t worked with the company for two years and was never an employee) and “under investigation” is a faint one.
It was an “October suprise” and a cheap shot from those who couldn’t accept the democratic process and the resulting vote. Andrew should have shrugged off the email, or at least just taken it under advisement, and proceeded with deploying the program the next day. That’s what a leader with courage would have done. The fact that he didn’t proceed gave Covered 6 pause. What would happen if their officers had to use force to restrain somebody punching tourists, which happened to three tourists on the promenade that week? What if the perpetrator, god forbid, was an oppressed person of color? I spoke with Chris Dunn, the CEO of Covered 6, about his decision and he said he simply wanted to go to where they were wanted and supported. And that he was concerned their officers, who have never had a use of force complaint ever, would not be supported here. That’s a shameful reflection on Santa Monica, and one that bleeds into the way some people in this city view our own police officers.
Luckily, all this falls under a larger movement of ideological blinders that are starting to fall, although I’m sure we’ll be last to wake up in Santa Monica. But people are watching closely for a similar tactic to mess with our mayoral succession. And I too have become a supporter of district elections for the simple reason that if any of the council lived right off downtown like I do, and had to suffer like the residents here do, there would be at least one voice on the council fighting for those residents (and businesses). The bottom line is something's got to change here; the city’s byzantine political process is broken.
Arthur
On Oct 24, 2023, at 4:56 PM, T GROSSMAN <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Gleam, I'm not persuaded. Although I like you, this change is not acceptable.
Sorry. We should be working toward district elections.
Thanks
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 3:19 PM Gleam Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
ITEM 16.A.
October 24, 2023
ITEM 16.A.
October 24, 2023
2 Ms. Grossman, please read the item. It does not change the rule for selecting the mayor. It simply allows for a supermajority of the council to suspend the rule if it feels circumstances warrant doing so.
For example, as has happened in other jurisdictions, if the next person in line to mayor has been indicted or is under investigation for criminal behavior, a supermajority of the council could suspend the rule to keep such a person from becoming mayor. This is simply good governance; not an attempt to change the rotational system.
From: T GROSSMAN <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 11:36:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; David White <[email protected]> Subject: Absolutely NO! Agenda Item 16.A 10/24/23 City Council Agenda: Gleam Davis proposed change of rules for selection Mayor
EXTERNAL
RE Agenda Item 16.A on Tuesday’s City Council Agenda: Gleam Davis proposed change of current rules-based selection of the Mayor
Reference:
Hello Council,
I am completely opposed to this change proposed by current Mayor Gleam Davis which is designed to keep her in the mayor's office and deny the opportunity to another council person as agreed to last year. Reneging on the December 2022 agreement that gave her the office for a year?! Completely unacceptable.
Thank you,
Tina Grossman
Sunset Park Resident
44 year citizen of SM
References:
1. https://smmirror.com/2022/12/gleam‐davis‐and‐phil‐brock‐to‐each‐serve‐term‐as‐santa‐monica‐ mayor/
2. https://surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2023/October2023/10_20_2023_Bureaucratic_Tweak_or_Effort_to_Block_Next_Mayor.html
3. https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News‐2023/October‐ 2023/10_23_2023_City_Attorney_Weighs_In_on_Proposed_Amendment.html
4. https://smdp.com/2023/10/23/the‐time‐to‐repeal‐the‐rotating‐mayor‐process‐is‐now/ (I don't agree with Mike.)
5. https://www.smobserved.com/story/2023/05/30/opinion/mayor‐gleam‐davis‐says‐that‐anyone‐ who‐has‐slept‐on‐the‐street‐here‐for‐a‐year‐is‐a‐santa‐monican‐local‐resident‐disagrees/7618.html (is her plan to register them as voters? Sorry, no)
ITEM 16.A.
October 24, 2023
ITEM 16.A.
October 24, 2023