Publication Date: Friday, October 22, 2004
Should the council tackle national issues?
Should the council tackle national issues?
(October 22, 2004) Mayor wants informal policy saying no; will likely meet resistance
by Bill D'Agostino
A longstanding city debate -- about whether the Palo Alto City Council should take a stand on national issues -- will take center stage Monday night.
That's when a resolution opposing a U.S. Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marries will come before the City Council.
Even though technically the council will only be asked for a referral of the resolution to a subcommittee, Mayor Bern Beecham wants to use the opportunity to set an informal policy that the council not use its precious time to discuss matters not of direct relevance to City Hall.
"Even though they may be important issues, they are not the right issues for this council," Beecham said.
The mayor's idea is expected to meet resistance, since it goes against what many of his colleagues have expressed in the past. If it finds unexpected traction, it would also effectively end discussion of the gay-rights resolution, which was brought to the council by the city's Human Relations Commission.
Commission chair Jeffrey Blum said the declaration was intended to send a message of support to same-sex couples in the community. He felt it was important for the elected officials to rally the citizenry on vital national matters.
"It can have an impact on the national debate and bring attention to some important national issues," Blum said. "I think Palo Alto is a prominent community and it enhances our national image for us to occasionally get involved in these important national issues."
The Human Relations Commission's role to lobby the council on such issues is written into the city's laws. According to the City Code, the commission may "encourage the council to support or oppose state or federal legislation."
Other national issues the council has taken a stand on in recent years include the second Iraqi war (against), the U.S.A. Patriot Act (against) and the death penalty (in favor of a moratorium).
The commission's vote on the same-sex resolution became controversial earlier this year when Councilwoman LaDoris Cordell called for the then-chair of the commission, Lakiba Pittman, to step down because she abstained on the vote that sent the issue to the council. Cordell argued Human Relations commissioners needed to support human rights for all, while Pittman rebutted it was her free-speech right to abstain.
The larger debate over the council's role in national issues was most recently highlighted when the council took a stand against the war in Iraq in February 2003. Council members Jim Burch and Judy Kleinberg presented that resolution to the council.
"I don't think going to war in Iraq is a superfluous issue and I don't think changing the constitution is just another issue," Burch said recently.
Beecham was absent from that 2003 meeting. Councilman Vic Ojakian was the sole council member who voted against the anti-war resolution, while Councilwoman Dena Mossar caused a stir by leaving the discussion and not voting. She similarly argued that the debate was not the council's domain.
Staff Writer Bill D'Agostino can be e-mailed at bdagostino@paweekly.com.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
