Council Stops Short of Firm Time Limits : City Hall: Members respond to criticism of late-night sessions by deciding to start an hour earlier. There’s no guarantee, though, that marathon meetings are a thing of the past.

Faced with criticism that they were conducting city business in the middle of the night because of their own long-windedness, members of the Santa Monica City Council faced a choice: Talk less or start earlier.

Being politicians, they chose the latter, agreeing unanimously Tuesday night to begin their meetings an hour earlier at 6:30 p.m., starting Jan. 26.

Council rules say meetings are supposed to end by 11 p.m., but in practice 11 o’clock is just the shank of the evening at City Hall. An average session generally ends about 1 a.m., but it is relatively common for meetings to go past 2.

The marathon meetings were an issue in the November council elections. Candidates accused the council of micro-managing the city by asking incessant questions about ministerial matters, rather than concentrating on their policy-making role as defined in the City Charter.

At nearly every meeting, residents who had requested to speak give up, go home and are probably fast asleep by the time their name is called. This has led to the widespread opinion that late-night meetings discourage public scrutiny and public input.

The two new council members, Asha Greenberg and Paul Rosenstein, pledged during their campaigns to tighten up the ship. On Tuesday night, both said they are constantly asked by the public to do something about the late-night meetings.

Though supporting the earlier start time, Rosenstein said he is worried it will lead to even longer meetings if council members don’t discipline themselves.

“I’m not sure there’s a need to start earlier,” Rosenstein said. “The only thing I am sure about is there’s a need to end earlier.”

The suggestion to start the meetings earlier came from Councilman Ken Genser, one of the more talkative members of the panel.

But he and Councilman Kelly Olsen balked at a suggestion from Rosenstein that meetings be shortened by streamlining the council’s appeals process. Rosenstein said members of the public and, in some cases, council members themselves, appeal already resolved issues to make a political point.

Genser responded that Rosenstein wanted to avoid those appeals, most of them on planning on zoning issues, because they highlight a difference in political philosophy among council members.

Earlier in the evening, Rosenstein had accused Genser of bringing a frivolous appeal that night on a minor zoning issue decided by the council in December. Genser responded that he was “conscience-bound” to raise the issue again, though he had lost by a 5-2 vote last month.

The council voted 5 to 2 to ask the staff to look into ways of making the appeals process more efficient.

When the issue of streamlining the meeting was raised last month, Olsen resisted suggestions that council members be limited in their questioning of speakers. On Tuesday, he said efforts to curb appeals would have the effect of limiting public input, and he said council members should be willing to put in the time it takes to do the job.

“I’d rather err on the side of openness,” Olsen said. “I don’t want to get too obsessive about time limits.”

Whether a coincidence or a sign of good faith, Tuesday night’s meeting ended early--at 11:10 p.m.

“We always end early,’ Genser joked afterward, “early in the morning.