Presentation and follow up of agendized reconsideration of Peak Democracy contract

I made gave following comments during at meeting of  3/19/2014:
   
Members of the Council,  Mayor Barth
Normally, once a contract is signed and approved by the city council it is not reviewed. Knowing this, I request that such a review of the the Peak Democracy program be placed on the next agenda. 
Time prevents my describing more than the broad areas of concern, which include: Value provided relative to other options,  Alienation of voters,  and potential lawsuits for breach of the Ralph M. Brown Act that carry sizable financial penalties.   The problems and pitfalls are complex, but for now I will illustrate the risk by analogy with another popular movement, Capital Appreciation Bonds
Many remember the outrage by the public when they learned how these worked--- with interest payment deferred, requiring an unfunded balloon payment at a future date. While Poway got the most heat,  there were several hundred issued in California.  The business of selling these now discredited bonds had many similarities with marketing virtual city hall programs such as Peak Democracy.  The top executives were professional, persuasive, and now very wealthy entrepreneurs.  
As more districts purchased these financial instruments, the fad built on itself, as any objection such as the one I am making for this product was  dismissed by simply pointing to the many other California districts that had bought into it. Now there are laws restricting their sale, but the damage was done, as school districts throughout the state now face massive payments with no ability to meet them--but those who saddled the current citizens with this burden are long gone from the scene. 

Based on my research, Peak Democracy could cause different, but equally severe adverse effects. On the other hand such a review that I request could be valuable in allowing re-negotiaton and elimination of some identified objectionable elements of this service.  
A few weeks delay of implementation is a small price to pay to consider these risks. 


I sent this email a  few days later to members of the city council and the city clerk as a follow up:

My proposal was that we hold this discussion, as a pre-requisite to implementation of the Peak Democracy contract- at which time approval to proceed will be either be affirmed or negated.  This was the position that council person Muir adopted in his agenda request, and was seconded by council person Gaspar. 

Could you please verify that this is what is understood by the City Manager?

I would also like to call to the attention of the extended readers of this email the following means of communication now available to citizens.  It can be reached by this link to the Encinitas servers, which in this case the data is held by the citizen sponsors.  But as an alternative, such a survey could be done right now under initiation by council or its designee, with none of the adverse elements that I have Identified with Peak Democracy.  In this case it was a joint effort of an individual citizen group as augmented by our city, with nominal city IT cost  The city itself could sponsor such messages that would be directed to those who have chosen to be included in our data base of citizen emails that they could or could not join based only on their desire to be included.  This, in contrast to the Peak Democracy package,  would not be in breech of the Brown act Code section 54950 et seq.as they could still comment with no illegal "preconditions."

While this came to my attention adventitiously, the structure of this communication example allows comparison to what could be achieved by the Peak Democracy suite of programs with what is now available in house.  The other discussion would be the issue of how this will shift the nature of the communication between citizens and decision makers, along with the larger question of  the effect on trust in government that would result. Even in the unlikely event that we would be required to forfeit the contractual payment to Peak Democracy, this should be a minor consideration for the decision whether to implement their program. 










Open letter on traffic/ Public Safety commission

To:Encintas City Council
Re: Application to Traffic/Public Safety Commission

This is posted prior to my appearance at the council meeting on February 19th,2014 to amplify the oral presentation for your consideration of my appointment. The application provides three lines for "qualifications and what you would like to accomplish if appointed" which this letter will be an expansion beyond the limited space provided on the form and the brief oral presentation. I had applied for the Traffic commission several years ago, and upon further investigation decided that the scope of activity was too limited for the effort that I was prepared to bring to the position. With the current expansion which now includes broad provisions to enhance "Public Safety," if appointed, there is the potential to make such efforts worthwhile.

My practice on every public policy issue that I engage in is to first research the legal constraints of any solution, and then the public perception--and integrate these into my own personal goals and broader values. Since this will be the first incarnation of this new commission, how it addresses the expanded mandate, its relationship with citizens with grievances and the comprehensiveness of its presentations to the council will provide a precedent for future embodiments. For this reason I will briefly describe some of my interests and approach for your evaluation. First, I'll go into the traffic aspect and next the expanded Public Safety mandate. Both of these areas require discretion, understanding differing parties perspectives, along with the will to take a clear position after such consideration, and proceed to make the case to decision makers.

"Traffic" is a benign word that defines the rules and the reality of that confluence of widely diverse entities, from Trains, Trucks, Cars, Bicycles, Pedestrians and wandering lost pets. All can be on a common right of way, either as a coordinated dance that can seem effortless, or with one single error, the occasion for tragedy. To prevent this we have rules, some are defined by law, others by custom, that ultimately rely on every actor having a deep understanding of the system to fill in its imperfections, sometimes described as "defensive driving" or a child learning never to step off a curb without looking.

There is a sub-division of academic psychology that focuses on traffic that studies the many human and external variables to keep traffic being a coordinated dance rather than organized confusion that too often becomes fatal. There is a wide variation in vulnerability of our traffic users, from the eighteen wheeler that can mow down cars, to the automobile that this entire region was built around-- thus urban sprawl with limited mass transit. Then there is human powered vehicles, mostly bicycles, that are gaining in use beyond recreation, as they are the ultimate in combining healthful exercise and protecting the environment. All areas are promoting walkable communities, which raises issues of pedestrian integration into the traffic system, whether to enforce the wait for that green light or allow a dash across an empty street. These are serious issues from mega-cities like New York to small communities such as Encinitas - with no easy solutions.

Each of the above groups promotes its own interests in their prime modality, as right now the struggle between cars and bikes is prominent. Personally, I used a bike regularly when I lived in Manhattan on some pretty busy streets and was always aware of my vulnerability, especially after being hit by a few opening doors and knocked for a loop. Now, I mostly drive, and value the convenience of being able to avail myself of the regional offerings that are only accessible by car. I'm also among the older generation, for whom rationally designed roads with intuitive signage becomes more vital with every passing year. For this reason I have done research on four way stop signs; contacted traffic engineers in several adjacent cities and investigated alternative signage on the U.S Department of Transportation website with discussions that I have participated in. Emotions run high in traffic issues, as one person's convenience is another's risk of grievous injury.

 While avoiding injury is paramount, efficient rational streets that facilitate and shorten car trips have safety benefits that are less obvious, as the non-accidents of less fatigued drivers do not make the news. Such aggregate safety effects are only shown by long term research such as one on multi-way stop signs that I have cited to this council and and in an article in The Coast News. In this same vein, traffic enforcement that is disproportionately aggressive can also become counter productive when it results in diversion of attention of the driver from actual emergent conditions of the road to scanning for law enforcers. Such excesses of enforcement have another potential pathology, as it can devolve into a culture of abuse by law enforcement officers. This is something to be vigilant against, ideally as in our city, before it even begins.


 This letter, although long, only touches on my interests that relate to the challenges of this Commission. If appointed I will conscientiously work with the other commissioners and this council to achieve the defined goals.
--------------------------

Addendum:
The open nature of this commission is indicated in the words, "includes, but is not limited to......" and lists a wide array of serious areas such as criminal activity. Since informational and educational meetings are both mentioned, the informational must refer to the the acquisition of such facts by the process of interviews and investigations. The following is from the legislation forming this commission:

 2.40.040 Duties of the Traffic and Public Safety Commission.

 A. It is the duty of this commission to serve as a liaison between the public and the City Council, and to conduct analyses and provide recommendations to the Council on matters related to the circulation of motorized vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles, and on matters related to public safety.

 The scope of the commission’s role with respect to public safety includes but is not limited to traffic safety, emergency response for fire, medical and other crises, as well as the City’s efforts to control and reduce criminal activities of all types. The commission may conduct informational and educational meetings, prepare reports and analyses, and work with fire, marine safety,ambulance, and sheriff personnel

Prayers in City Councils-Beyond Adversarial Resolution

Below is the article written as a preface to my requesting that the city council join an amicus brief in keeping in maintaining our country's separation between church and state.  This case was not about that, but that even if a legislature can promote faith in a deity, it must not be directed to a specific religion, especially the dominant one in the country.  Here are some references making this point. 
The decision went against the secularists, as described in this legal commentary

From Justice Kagen's dissent:

That principle (of non sectarianism) meant as much to the founders as it does today. The demand for neutrality among religions is not a product of 21st century "political correctness," but of the 18th century view-rendered no less wise by time-that, in George Washington's words, "[r]eligious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconciliable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause." Letter to Edward Newenham (June 22, 1792), in 10 Papers of George Washington: Presidential Series 493 (R. Haggard & M. Mastromarino eds. 2002) (hereinafter PGW).

 In an age when almost no one in this country was not a Christian of one kind or another, Washington consistently declined to use language or imagery associated only with that religion. See Brief for Paul Finkelman et al. as Amici Curiae 15-19 (noting, for example, that in revising his first inaugural address, Washington deleted the phrase "the blessed Religion revealed in the word of God" because it was understood to denote only Christianity).

 Thomas Jefferson, who followed the same practice throughout his life, explained that he omitted any reference to Jesus Christ in Virginia's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (a precursor to the Establishment Clause) in order "to comprehend, within the mantle of [the law's] protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination." 1 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 62 (P. Ford ed. 1892). And James Madison, who again used only nonsectarian language in his writings and addresses, warned that religious proclamations might, "if not strictly guarded," express only "the creed of the majority and a single sect." Madison's "Detached Memoranda," 3 Wm. & Mary Quarterly 534, 561 (1946).


8/14/2013

Prayer in City Councils

I first wrote this when the Egyptian Military opened heavy fire against the Muslim Brotherhood with hundreds dead.  Within  a few weeks while this continued, there has been escalation of the slaughter in the ongoing Syrian war, now with poison gas.  There is a common thread in these eruptions of mass violence, the root being religious dissension. 

The functional motto of the Christian Brotherhood could  be the same as of this country, "In God we Trust" --and for the Muslim group this trust extends to expanding of his revealed plan to become the law of the land.  Sadly, a similar aspiration is not uncommon in this county for our majority religion, along with other countries with a majority religion.  Our great American experiment of government reflects these dynamics in the case that will soon be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court,  City of Greece vs. Galloway being the vehicle.  While rabid partisanship is usually seen as harmful, this case does not reflect this, as the liberal party that usually includes our secular minority, has written an Amicus brief supporting  expanded prayers in city councils as described here. 

The first few pages of this brief from the plaintiffs shows what is at stake. Attendance at the opening prayer, which turned this city hall into a virtual church, was required for all, including people having business before the council.  As you read further you see that neither the original complaint, or the existing appeals decision, would abolish prayer in city council settings, but only mandates that such prayer be limited to a general support for religious guidance with the clear statement that participation is voluntary.

I contacted the plainfiff's attorney with a suggestion for an Amicus Brief based on the following essay that she encouraged me to pursue.  I did make a presentation to my local City Council of Encinitas to sign on to such an Amicus Brief, which they took no action on.  The following is the essay I submitted to several publications. 
-----------------------
God Bless America

At a local city senior center a few of us had been singing those great old tunes accompanied by the honky-tonk, piano, and then it was time for everyone at the dining hall to join in a single song before serving lunch. I not only knew the worlds but it was one of the few songs that I could sing on key. This particular song, God Bless America, brought me back to my earliest memories at the end of World War II, when as a child I felt, without understanding, what the words of this prayer set to music meant- an affirmation that this country was worth fighting for, and that in the midst of worldwide carnage there was still hope, personified by God- who I was just learning about in synagogue.

My voice has changed since then and so have my values and convictions. I no longer believe that this God exists, yet when I was singing this song no one who saw me could have guessed this. For I was reliving the emotion, the sense of belonging, that joining in this song hearkened to. Only hours before this lunch event, at our post tennis bull session there was a discussion that included another person, John D. who was singing along with me. This man, a bit older than I, avidly not only believes in God, but that Jesus Christ is the way to bring people to him, with spreading this word his main goal on this earth.

Our earlier discussion was about a specific issue, the Supreme Court case, City of Greece vs. Galloway, which can be understood using the song John and I sang together. From one type of analysis, this song was a prayer given at a government facility, which could be seen as breaching that proverbial wall between church and state. In the evolution of our country, from its earliest times the challenge has always been to form a unified nation out of differences of all kinds. That first motto that conveyed this aspiration, “from many comes one,” should never have been replaced. In actuality our country never really had such a wall. It was more a semi permeable barrier that has changed its characteristics over the decades and still requires constant upkeep to be effective. This Supreme Court Case an example of this, and so to understand it, the partisan simplification that the outcome will either unleash the atheist mafia or the other bugaboo, that it could advance a Christian theocracy has to be defused. This court decision is a maintenance operation to tweak this wall to continue to work in our current times. However, It should be taken seriously, especially in this region of north country, which is made up of multiple cities and their legislative bodies, city councils, which is the focus of this lawsuit.

The proverbial wall between church and state has been shaped by hundreds of court decisions that interpret the establishment of religion clause of the first amendment of the constitution. This single sentence has engendered thousands of court cases—but almost no violence, no atrocities such as the world is viewing in horror at this moment in Egypt-- which has its root in exactly the conflict between church and state that we have relegated to our courts. The way our wall has evolved over these myriad legal challenges is that it does not actually separate the two domains, but goes through both of them. So churches can get involved in politics-to a degree, and government can support religion- but only in a limited way. The musical prayer that John and I sang together is protected against any overly enthusiastic atheist who sees a Christian version of the Muslim Brotherhood under every “God bless you.” But the wall must continue to be maintained from the other side; so instead of it being at a social lunch, had there been a prayer, whether in the form of a song, a pledge or a benediction, at a venue for official business, no one could pressure an atheist to bow his head and say amen. This is what happened in the city of Greece, New York. And even John, my evangelical friend, said that was wrong.

This case actually rests on some fine points of what is referred to as "establishment clause jurisprudence." It comes down to this, what exactly is the affirmative obligation for a city in an official setting to prevent the proceedings from becoming a virtual house of worship, with those who do not believe in the given faith being ostracized if they choose to point out that they are there for city business and not for spiritual enlightenment of any kind. Cases such as this should not be seen as meaningless, or proof that one side is being too aggressive, but rather as the functioning of that system of government that I could so happily raise my voice in song to praise.

Yet, this system is not self sustaining. Even though this particular case will be decided by nine unelected Justices, the root of all power eventually comes from the people- but only if we care enough to get involved. We are actually fortunate that this case transcends partisan politics, as both a majority of state Republican officials and the Obama administration have the same position on this case, that the atheists who were offended can be ignored and should just "tough it out." The President's Amicus brief does say that some changes should be made in the city's procedures, but that they are not bad enough to chastise them for not having them in place for many years. My position is different, that the wall should be moved a bit in the other direction away from religious services. A city council meeting is sacred in its own way, as it is a temple of democratic ideals that only thrives when it is independent of any religion, especially one that seeks universality of adherence.

I want the opportunity to choose to join in singing God Bless America in the government sponsored senior dining room, but also not have to pray in any form when I participate in a city council meeting. Personally, I would go further, that the Pledge of allegiance, that only was transformed into a type of prayer when I was older, also be outside that permeable wall; which means it can be recited voluntarily at official settings, with care taken that those who choose not to participate are not subjected to a hostile environment. But the case before the court does not address that issue, only the rules for actual head bowed, preacher led, real prayers at council meetings.

Those who share the views expressed here, especially those who are now serving or have served on government councils, do have an opportunity to sign on to this message in the form of an Amicus brief, and with luck actually have it read by those Justices who will decide the case. Check out my website (AlRodbell.com) for the actual details. If you agree with my general position contact me, and whatever the outcome, the effort alone can advance the now quaint idea that this still is a government of, for and by the people.
----------------------
 
I would like to switch focus by using as an example a different area of law, that of domestic litigation, or divorce procedure.  It became generally understood decades ago that the very process of litigation became harmful to the larger goal of allowing the newly separated parents to continue to go on with their own lives and to nurture any children. It was partly because the very process exacerbated mutual hostility, and there was the actual cost of litigation which increased the imperative to win, often at any cost.  Out of this came the practice of divorce mediation, where concern for the separated post-divorce family superseded the traditional "zealous advocacy" of contending parties.

I am convinced that the current procedure of litigation and adjudication in "establishment" law has reached a similar place. Beyond lack of functionality, which should provide principles to create a widely understood legal landscape for common usage,  it unnecessarily exacerbates the cultural divide.  When numerous decisions rest on self described "sum totality of all elements of religious symbolism" we have an acknowledgement of subjectivity which is incompatible with the concept of the rule of law.  Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent to a Utah Cross case refusal of cert elaborated on this recently, with myriad examples that are valid irrespective of his own unique perspective. 

It is for this reason that I am reluctant to give up my efforts.  I have sent my "God Bless America" essay to several people, one a most well known atheist, copied here,  who took his attempt to have "under God" removed to the Supreme Court, the other two with odd backgrounds.  Tom C. is a man of contradictions in his rare achievements.  He has created an international company for research and manufacture of antibody based therapeutics.  However, he describes this as secondary to "job one" which is more important than his scientific-commercial efforts.  It  is bringing people to his creationist Christianity, having founded a Museum in San Diego county and a massive church inside  his manufacturing facility in Mexico to pursue this end.  When he read my essay, he gave me something to work with, not to convince atheists like myself, but for other Christians, none being more fundamentalist than he.  He wrote back, after disagreeing with my broad secular values, that the bible makes it clear that, unlike the City Council of the instant case, "no one should be forced to believe, and should only come to God by their own free will."  When I asked him for chapter and verse in the bible, he sent me several references that implied this.  

The second is a women who wrote a book and screen play for the  artistically acclaimed "Higher Ground," which sensitively described growing up in an evangelical Christian surrounding.  She only responded briefly, but appreciated my essay, probably because it was not contentious, rather seeking a means of accommodation with our majority Christian heritage.  The challenge for mutual understanding had special meaning to her, as this was her own life from her earliest memories.

This case could be decided 5-4, for reversal, with ramifications beyond the relatively small issue of degree of sectarianism allowed at municipal councils.   With all of the Amicus Briefs mentioned, certainly by those who will effectively marshal a pro secular narrative from existing precedent, I fear that the administrations brief shall prevail.  I see this as a loss of the opportunity to, paradoxically, gain support of Justice Thomas for a re-evaluation of establishment precedent.  By acknowledging the reality that the Supreme Court does make law, it would be best if they made new framework in this area that could be a model for the clash of civilizations that has already started in Syria and Egypt.  Unlike the battle of the last century between communism and capitalism, we are embarking on a new era, that of conflict between revealed transcendent higher authority and that of liberal democracy.  This case, City of Greece v. Galloway, could be the opportunity to articulate the principles of our own national foundation, expanded for our times that provides a clearer structure for accommodation that will be a model to other countries, where such a solution is rapidly becoming essential to their very survival.
-----------
-----------
Addendum:

This is the link to the transcript of the oral argument before the Supreme Court in this case.

This essay describes how both Democratic in 2008 and Republican in 2012  Presidential Candidates distorted the Pledge as a wedge issue in their campaign.