03-19-1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilman IViarkel responded that he had read the City Attorney's opinion and was aware of the remedies available if~ he refused to serve; and that he would not sit on the Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency per se with all of its ramifica~ions~' Councilman Herrin stated that he probably shared many of the same emotions as Councilman Markel regarding the Housing Authority and the Redevelopment AgenFy; that he had not supported either of them and had made a public statement that he would not serve as a member of the Housing Authority; however, after having some serious discussions with some of the people he considered to be supporters and constituents who had expressed their desire to be properly represented, he felt that he had no alternative but to serve; and that by not serving, the result would be the same as an approval. Councilman -Villa stated that Mr. Markel's actions set a precedent which would allow any Councilman to walk out when he did not want to face the issue; that the alternatives set forth in the attorney's opinion were too drastic; that when the people are not being served, they should come forth and protest and it should not be left to fellow Councilmen to point out the failure. Councilman Evans stated that there were many issues that were difficult to face, but that it was the responsibility of a Councilman to cast his vote; that Councilman Markel was failing in his duty to the elected people by not protesting by negative vote. Mayor Griset stated that he was very disappointed in Councilman Markel's position, however, he would have no part in any effort to recall or judicially remove or prosecute him. Councilman Yamamo~o stated the~e were others on the Redevelopment Agency who would expect to be given the same treatment ;and be given permission not to vote if they did not want to; that he knew Councilman Markel was very sincere in his opinions, but that the people were not being given proper representation by his refusing to serve. Councilman Evans stated that under no circumstances would he support action of any kind against Councilman Markel, but that he would expect to receive the same treatment from Council if he refused to serve on any controversial mat ter. Councilman Patterson stated that his main concern was one of precedent; that he did not believe that Councilman Markel deserved special treatment; that he would support any, kind of action necessary to cause any Councilman to do his job. (CA 81.1; CA 82) TRAFFIC CONTROL Council received and ordered STANFORD STREET filed the report of the Director AT KING STREET of Public Works dated March 14, 1973, and instructed the Police Department to continue speed enforcement activity in the area of Stanford and King Streets, as much as manpower limitations permitted, on motion of Councilman Herrin, seconded by Councilman Yamamoto, and unanimously carried. (CA 18.3a; CA 151.5) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 85 MARCH 19, 1973