220326 1147 Re_ Cypress council casts closed-session vote to battle push for district elections - OC Register ArticleFrom:Mario Bica
To:George Pardon
Cc:ADM; Mike McGill
Subject:Re: Cypress council casts closed-session vote to battle push for district elections - OC Register Article
Date:Saturday, March 26, 2022 11:47:27 AM
Hello George,
My opinion is that the City Council did the right thing by not caving to Shenkman's
demands. The Council held several forums to hear the public's opinion on this issue.
There is a point where one has to say enough is enough. When evil abounds (in this
case the CVRA's attempt to extort the City of Cypress) and good people do nothing
then evil has free reign. Moving to district style voting only dilutes the power of council
members to do their jobs.
Using the example below, "In 2018, small Los Alamitos agreed to carve out districts –
each comprised of only about 2,200 residents...." means our representatives on
council will have less support than those voted from an at large election. The article
suffers from extreme bias by saying "The sudden closed-session vote came six
months after what began as a rather common occurrence...", the author used the
term sudden to counter their own comment making it a ludicrous statement.
If the Asian community represents 1/3rd of the Cypress population why didn't they
vote for racial representation? Everyone in the city has the same opportunity to vote.
If racial bias was an important part of council representation the district voting would
not solve the issue. The issue is that those people that want to be represented must
vote. 1/3rd of the population should have voted for an Asian representative but they
didn't. Had the done so, or if they thought that was an important issue they would
have easily garnered enough votes to win.
As for making the district's walkable, that is a ludicrous claim. Former Mayor and
Council Member Mike McGill walked almost the entire city, I know because I joined
him. During this time Mike held down a job and was tending to a young family. Mike's
efforts are what we look for in the "At-Large" election. Mike helped had a lot of
support and was able to steer the City through the issues with Cottonwood Church.
That issue garnered national attention and we should learn from our past.
The CVRA hides behind unproven claims. If Asian representation is so important, is
the city going to create districts to ensure racial representation? What if there is no
one in the district that wants to run for office? When will the CVRA be sued for laying
false claims that a specific racial group lives in particular neighborhoods? Why don't
multiple cities join together to sue both Shenkman (CVRA attorney) and Marquez
(CVRA's Director of Development) personally for profiling proven with making racial
claims that races live near each other. The CVRA is merely a pain in the side of many
cities and both those players should pay for the pain they cause.
People may not like what I say, but the City did its part in asking for feedback. Even
though a poll may not have worked, people are not limited to communicating with City
Council because they can always write a letter, send an email, or attend the forums. It
sounds like a small group of vocal people are ticked off at the decision. The City of
Cypress has a long history of doing the right thing, and although I may not agree with
everything they do, I have to stand behind this decision.
Our City Leaders have said they have heard enough. As for making the decision in
closed session, I believe it was done so they could conduct the business of the City
for that night. The few angry people could have derailed the meeting and let to
additional inflammatory articles like the one below.
Kind regards,
Mario Bica
On Thursday, March 24, 2022, 07:59:39 PM PDT, George Pardon <georgepardon@gmail.com> wrote:
Cypress council casts closed-session vote to battle push for district elections
Legal experts and other city officials question the council's move to vote behind closed doors. Other
cities have lost millions in battles against district elections.
By SUSAN CHRISTIAN GOULDING | sgoulding@scng.com | Orange County Register
PUBLISHED: March 24, 2022 at 7:00 a.m. | UPDATED: March 24, 2022 at 7:01 a.m.
At the start of the city’s March 14 council meeting, Cypress City Attorney Fred Galante made a
surprise announcement.
Moments before, in closed session, council members voted 4-1 to ignore a legal demand that the
town transition away from at-large elections.
Rather than divide into political districts to avoid an expensive lawsuit – a move most cities in
Orange County have made when faced with the same choice – Galante said Cypress wants to keep
its citywide voting process.
“The Council directed the City Attorney to respond to attorney (Kevin) Shenkman’s letter expressing
that Cypress does not plan to change to by-district elections at this time,” Galante said.
Residents who came to the meeting to weigh in on the matter were left with commenting on a done
deal.
“I’m a little taken aback,” said resident Katie Shapiro. “I didn’t realize this was going to a vote
tonight. Once again, this is indicative of the lack of transparency on our city council’s part.”
Because the vote was taken behind closed doors, council members did not discuss their decision
during the regular meeting. But in an interview afterward, Cypress Mayor Paulo Morales defended
the closed-session vote. “It’s frustrating to hear that we supposedly are making top-secret
decisions,” Morales said. “We held public forums and considered the facts. It’s just that the vote was
in closed session. That’s all.”
Was the vote legal?
Experts in municipal law, as well as leaders in other cities, said the behind-closed-doors vote was
inappropriate and, perhaps, illegal.
“Legislative bodies do have certain limited rights to go into closed session to get legal advice,” said
David Loy, legal director for government watchdog First Amendment Coalition. “But that does not
mean they can make the ultimate policy decision in closed session. Otherwise, you could make just
about every decision in closed session because just about everything a city does can get them sued.”
California’s Brown Act – or “Sunshine Law” – requires local governance to be conducted in plain
view.
“Exceptions to transparency must be narrowly construed,” Loy said. “The public has the right to
participate, to make comments before the vote, and to hear the opinions of their city council
members.”
The sudden closed-session vote came six months after what began as a rather common occurrence.
Like a dozen Orange County cities before it, Cypress received a letter from prolific Malibu attorney
Kevin Shenkman claiming that the city’s at-large voting system violates the California Voting Rights
Act (CVRA) by diluting the voice of minorities.
According to the 2020 Census, the racial and ethnic breakdown of Cypress includes 37% non-
Hispanic White, 36.8% Asian and 18.7% who identify as Hispanic or Latino. None of the city’s council
members are Asian-American.
Financial risk
In his missive, written on behalf of a Latino civil rights group, Shenkman notes that although Asians
comprise one third of the Cypress’ population, they are routinely unrepresented on the City Council.
Fighting claims involving the California Voting Rights Act has proved costly and fruitless for those
that try. For instance, Anaheim spent $1.1 million and Palmdale $4.7 million before eventually
conceding to district-style elections.
It’s also true that in many cities people of color have been historically underrepresented in city
politics.
So most cities switch to precincts rather than face off in court. And most city councils vote on the
issue in public meetings, not in closed sessions.
In 2018, small Los Alamitos agreed to carve out districts – each comprised of only about 2,200
residents.
“When we got the letter, we looked at other cities and we didn’t see anybody who fought and won,”
said Los Alamitos Mayor Shelley Hasselbrink. “I would love to stick it to Shenkman, but at what
cost?”
Hasselbrink said she was surprised by the Cypress council’s vote to dismiss the dreaded letter.
“Because the Cypress council members did this all in closed session, nobody understands their
thought process. Why, exactly, did they believe they could avoid a lawsuit?” Hasselbrink said.
Last August, Tustin, too, voted to ditch at-large elections. In Tustin’s case, the request came in a
letter from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The group noted that even
though 29% of Tustin residents identified as Latino, only one Latino had been elected to city council
over the previous 20 years.
“We looked at institutional information to see if we could come up with a counter argument and
found that history was not in our favor,” said Tustin councilwoman Letitia Clark, who was then the
city’s mayor. “We determined that fighting this would not be a smart way to spend taxpayer dollars.”
Clark likewise wondered why Cypress voted on this issue in private.
“Obviously, litigation can be discussed in closed session,” she said. “But it’s absolutely the best
practice to have the vote in open session. This is something that literally impacts every voter.”
Cypress took a different approach from sister cities in another way, as well – paying a consultant
$40,000 to organize public forums in advance of a council vote.
Survey, workshops
Typically, cities foot the bill for public workshops after agreeing to implement voting districts. The
legally required seminars allow residents to assess several potential maps drawn by demographers
to create balanced representation.
“We wanted to educate the community and get their input,” Mayor Morales said about the Cypress
forums.
The city hired Communications LAB consulting firm, headed by Orange City Councilwoman Arianna
Barrios, to create a questionnaire asking residents how they feel about district voting. But the results
of that survey were not published until after the council’s vote.
When speakers at last week’s meeting complained that they had not seen the data yet, City
Manager Peter Grant said his staff experienced technological glitches trying to post the survey
online.
The city, with a population of about 50,000 people, had “disappointingly, only about 150 residents
responded” to the survey, Grant said, adding that about 10% more respondents favored at-large
elections over districts. The city did not inform consultant Barrios in advance of the March 14
meeting that it would forge ahead with a decision. When reached for comment a week after the
vote, Barrios expressed confusion and suggested the council had only discussed the lawsuit in closed
session.
“I would be highly surprised if they voted,” Barrios said. “They will vote after the public process of
deliberation.”
Morales conceded that the city had neglected to keep its consultant in the loop.
“She is not a part of the decision-making process,” he said. “Yes, we could have put this off. But what
are we waiting for?”
Attorney Shenkman speculated that Cypress council members held the forums to justify a
preordained vote. “When they waste millions of taxpayer dollars fighting a lawsuit, they can say,
‘Our constituents wanted us to,’” he said.
Hasselbrink pointed out that when it comes to state law, opinions and polls don’t matter. “Even if
every single resident had told us, ‘We don’t want to go to districts,’ we still would have gotten sued,”
she said.
Districts offer mixed bag
As is the norm for a town of its size, the majority of Cypress council members are neighbors who
already knew one another before their elections. District-style voting can pit friend against friend
running for a single seat.
Many in city government, including Hasselbrink, also argue that districts can make council members
too focused on their own back yard rather than the city as a whole. And tiny districts in small cities
don’t always attract enough candidates for a robust election.
Still, districts do offer some advantages.
When Orange received a challenge letter in 2019, Barrios said, “I was really against the district
system. All council members should answer to all voters.”
But she soon discovered a silver lining. “I can tell you that being in a district has made me closer to
my constituency,” Barrios said.
Another plus: “You do not need to be well-funded to run for office,” she said. “Districts are made to
be walkable.”
Indeed, precincts can diversify councils not only ethnically and racially, but also socioeconomically.
“Council members tend to live in a few select neighborhoods,” said demographer Justin Levitt.
“Certain neighborhoods are chronically underrepresented, including those with higher levels of
apartment housing. They become the dumping ground for undesirable policies required by the state,
such as affordable housing developments.”
Levitt, who specializes in drawing precinct maps for California municipalities, predicted that people
ultimately will become comfortable with districts.
“The benefits of the at-large system are ingrained in our local political culture,” he said. “I’m sure the
newer generations will have a different attitude.”
For the time being, however, cities often make the shift to district elections reluctantly or, as did
Cypress, even refusing.
“The narrative in recent years has been that if you got a demand letter, you really had no other
option but to comply,” Levitt said. “But now we are seeing a wave of resistance.”
Irvine has yet to concede to Shenkman’s 2021 demand letter, claiming that the city is integrated and
its council already representative.
Whatever argument Cypress might offer, Shenkman said, “It can expect a lawsuit.”
But first, Brown Act expert Loy said, Cypress may need a redo on its vote – this time, in a public
setting.
“An action not in compliance with the Brown Act can be declared null and void,” Loy said. “Residents
can demand that the council go back and do this in open session.
“Citizens have the right to hear why elected officials vote the way they do,” Loy added. “It’s the
oxygen of democracy.”
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/03/24/cypress-council-cast-closed-session-vote-to-battle-push-
for-district-elections/