David Saliby

8AM MWF

On March 7th, 2017, I attended a Placentia city council meeting. It was held in a room that I felt

was like a time machine bringing me back to the 1970s. The walls were a mustard yellow color and the

seats had orange cushions. The room was filled to the brim with people most of which were children.

The meeting started with a role call to make sure that every member was present. There were nine

councilmembers that were present. Next, and much to my surprise, there was a prayer or invocation. I

had believed that all types of religious proceedings were prohibited at the cities governmental meetings.

Although the chaplain made the distinction that this was not a prayer tied to a specific religion, I thought

it was a fitting way to begin the evenings proceedings. After this, the city presented some of its youth

basketball league winners. After this the room emptied to about eight people. This is how I originally

pictured a city council meeting to look like. Next began the oral communication period where audience

members and residents of the city could ask questions directly to the board of officials. I had a problem

with the way this was executed however. In order to speak at a hearing, you have to submit a question

prior to the meetings start time. This is counterproductive, because if a resident has a question about

something happening in the nights hearings, they would have to wait another entire month to get that

question answered. This to me seems very illogical. Most people who stepped up to the large podium in

the middle of the room, came only to speak of advertising and plugging a business. This was

disheartening to me, only because the citizens of the Placentia dont seem to care about policies

affected therere very quality of life. After the two business woman gave the speeches, the mayor

moved on to whats called the consent calendar. What happens during this time is considered to be

routine, happening at all the city council meetings. They ask about the citys budget for the fiscal year

along with various other programs that require a signature from the major. The last part of the meeting I

saw was the Public hearing part. This was the most interesting part because it involved debate between
the council members on whether to pass certain bills and or other city ordinances. One of the issues

brought up was a bill that would replace a title 8 bill of the municipal code with a new title 8.28 bill

prohibiting the use of marijuana in all city facilities. Although most council members were in favor of

this, one member by the name of Chad Wanke was not. He brought up some very good points during his

debate with the mayor and other city council members. He asked how much the insertion of no smoking

signs at all public facilities would cost. This is one aspect I never thought of before. He also argued that

the states laws already cover this issue and that a city ordinance to supplement a law already in place

would not be a good use of our budget. I appreciated Wankes ideas and the fact that he challenged a

otherwise congruent council. Healthy debate is essential in making a successful policy. The last thing we

should all want is a council or government that is always agreeing with one another.

In all I would vote for most of these council members again. I wouldnt vote one of the council

members by the name of Jeremy Yamaguchi back into office because of a previous incident showing a

lack of transparency regarding a dispensary allowed in our city without the proper consent of the

people. For this reason I wouldnt vote him back in. All the other members seemed worthy of a vote

based on their knowledge and respect for the citizens of the city they are presiding over.

All of what I heard seemed to follow the guidelines of the constitution. Although the deferral

constitution doesnt directly apply to the states, the states are able to use their respective constitutions

in order to guide the decision making.