Council Workshop to Bolster Civility Ends in Bickering

They talk about civility, but the result is often more hostility.

As all its members will attest, the Thousand Oaks City Council--never known as Ventura County’s cradle of cordiality--has spun completely out of control in recent weeks. So Tuesday might not have been such a good time for the council’s annual “standards of operation” workshop, an informal sit-down to mull over ways to make meetings faster and more amicable.

For the second year in a row, the meeting itself dissolved into a bickering match and ended with the central issue--how to restore gentility to the City Council--unresolved.

With Mayor Judy Lazar, Councilman Andy Fox and Councilwoman Elois Zeanah all facing recall, tempers have flared on both sides of the dais. And the gabbing and infighting the city’s council meetings have long been known for have sunk so low that some council members are expressing shame.

“I’m reaching the point where I don’t want to say I’m the mayor of Thousand Oaks. . . . This council is dysfunctional,” Lazar said.

The standards of operation--a list of guidelines meant to govern the council’s behavior--already prohibit bickering, grandstanding, long-winded public comments, attacks on city officials, slanderous statements by residents and many of the other maladies plaguing the council.

The standards even include a ban on “end runs,” a political tactic said to be used by frustrated council members who gather their supporters at meetings to protest an issue instead of dealing with their peers.

So the problem, as several council members pointed out Tuesday, is not that Thousand Oaks lacks the restraints needed to keep meetings mellow. It’s that at one time or another, all the council members have broken the rules--and they frequently do so all at once.

“What’s wrong with our meetings is the facilitator. It’s the chair,” Zeanah said, blaming Lazar for instigating much of the sniping that occurs.

Lazar countered that it is Zeanah who starts much of the infighting with her accusations against her council peers and city officials.

“Would you like to take a vote on who needs the help?” asked Lazar. “Come on, Elois . . . “

Fox unveiled a plan to reduce council squabbling: giving each council member a red flag to raise when they feel that one of their colleagues is out of order.

But before the council could vote on Fox’s proposal, the meeting broke down into individual infighting and was adjourned.

The one thing the council was able to agree upon was a new format for the public to share its comments with the panel on most city issues.

Council members voted unanimously to institute a three-minute limit on all speakers who come to address the council during a one-hour public comment period before the council begins its agenda. The time limit applies to all public discussion other than comments made during public hearings.

Comments during public hearings will still be regulated by the old system, which limits the time residents can speak depending on how many people want to say something.

For instance, if five or fewer people want to speak on a council item, each receives five minutes. But if more than 15 want to address an issue, each receives only two minutes.

Zeanah and Parks argue that residents should have a minimum of three minutes to speak, noting that numerous residents have argued that the system makes little sense, because the issues that draw the most speakers are usually the ones that affect the most people. They also complain that two minutes is not enough time to make a complete argument.

“I think two minutes is intimidating,” Councilwoman Linda Parks said.

Councilman Mike Markey countered that the reason the council approved the time limits in the first place was to reign in meetings that were dragging on well past midnight.

“If we expanded the speaking time, we’d never get anything done,” Markey said. “We’re here to run a meeting.”