Whether it’s a Mayor who constantly interrupts speakers, a Councilman who tells presenters that they should never come back into his city, Councilmembers who tell members of the audience that they need to go back to the mental institution they escaped from, Councilmembers who tell members of the public that they’re stupid, Councilmembers who tell members of the public that they’re ghetto or Councilmembers who have forgotten what their parents taught them about how to behave in public, or Councilmembers who chastise speakers for wasting their time by challenging their positions when everyone knows that the votes have already been counted before the agenda item is brought up–there’s plenty of room for improvement.

This came across as a political statement by a member of the controlling party which dictates policy in Richmond yet it was distributed as if it were an official document from the Mayor’s Office–the voice of the highest elected official in the City.

Have you no shame, Madame Mayor? Have you no decency?

Perhaps you might be more successful if you tried to find solutions to the problem instead of going nuclear and either recessing the meeting when you get flustered or ejecting persons who voice opinions that differ from yours.

I’m not suggesting that the type of meeting you should attend is an AA meeting but if you were to drop by one you might learn that they tell alcoholics that they won’t be able to find a solution to their problem until they admit to themselves that a problem exists. The same goes for you and your associates on the Council–until you admit to yourselves that a problem exists, you’ll never find a solution. And pointing your finger at everyone but yourself (and I’m speaking to all seven of you) is not the solution.

Madame Mayor,

If you, the RPA-elected councilmembers and Tom Butt, actually represented your constituents there might be good reason to agree with your statement below. But instead you act unilaterally, promoting your personal ideology at every opportunity while disregarding many who hold different points of view, so I disagree with your assessment of the Council’s dysfunction.

The Sugar Tax, for example, was sweeping legislation that was nevertheless crafted without community outreach or coordination with local merchants. Residents had only 4 days to react to the agenda item and while many expressed concerns, no attempt to mitigate them was ever made. On the recent campaign contributions ordinance there are likewise numerous concerns but again there is no sign that these are being considered and it will undoubtedly pass as written when it finally comes to a vote. There are many similar examples but those above should suffice.

I agree that Corky’s conduct can be reprehensible; I cringe at some of his antics and if he doesn’t change soon he can forget about being reelected. But you have failed to represent the broader public and appear beholden only to your political allies – and for a resident who cares about Council decisions that’s far worse. Corky may consume a lot of time with his incessant questioning but frankly I’m thankful for it because otherwise no hard questions are ever asked. The time spent by Corky is also considerably less than the time the Council expends on partisan measures that have nothing to do with City business (Gaza resolution, recent teacher’s union letter, etc.), or the amount of time the RPA speakers spend at the podium repeating the same message.

I honestly believe you want the best for our City and I’m appreciative of the undeniably good projects that you and your colleagues have undertaken. But the dysfunction you’re attempting to address is merely a symptom of the damaging partisanship that you as a group continue to exercise rather than the behavior of one councilperson. In reality it’s the RPA who is holding the City hostage and if you truly wish Council relations to improve then I suggest you begin by collaborating with those who hold different points of view, both on and off the dais.

Respectfully,

Felix Hunziker
Richmond, California

Dear Mayor McLaughlin,

I am writing in response to your recent email expressing concern about the behavior of a “certain” member of the Richmond City Council. Based on the ongoing pattern of conflictual interactions between members of the Council, I am assuming that you must be referring to Council Member Boozé and my comments will reflect this assumption.

I’ve known Mr. Boozé since 1989 when he and I both ran for City Council. I’ve supported him over the years, as he has been a perennial candidate for City Council. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Boozé has fortitude and is devoted to serving the entire population of Richmond including, but not exclusively, the African-American community. It is my understanding that the reason Mr. Boozé originally became involved in City politics was because he was being pushed around by African-American politicians. He is a fighter in every sense of the word. Mr. Boozé is the common man’s candidate, a race-car driver, a Casper’s habitué, a plain-talking man with no pretentions. To date, Mr. Boozé probably holds the record for attending more City Council meetings than most of the current Council Members excluding, possibly, Tom Butt and Nat Bates. Granted, at times he can be a bit of a gadfly, but that is who he is. Like all candidates, he made promises to his constituents as to how he planned to serve them if elected and since he has been elected with significant support from the African-American community he has made it a point to keep his promises and represent their needs as he perceives them, namely creating jobs and stopping violence.

To fully and properly understand the current conflict on the City Council it is critical to look at it in the context of its history. Council Member Boozé was aggressively targeted from the beginning once he made it clear that he is his own man and will not be dictated to by the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA) or anyone else. This has set the tone for the escalation of misunderstandings and personalization of differences that has continued to date.

In my opinion, three significant events occurred which demonstrate that Council Member Boozé is not the primary contributor to the ongoing conflict on the City Council but instead is a victim of mean-spirited, self-righteous attacks from some members of the Council and the RPA, solely because he has exercised his right to vote his conscience, his right to do campaign fund raising and his duty as a Council Member to address the City budget deficit.

The first significant attack on Council Member Boozé came shortly after his election. He was threatened over the phone and at a Council meeting by Juan Reardon, a prominent leader in the RPA. He was told that if he changed his position and voted against supporting the West Bank flotilla action his political career was over. Council Member Boozé responded to these threats by stating that he would not be intimidated and he voted against the action. From that time on, he came under attack by the members of the RPA.

When Council Member Boozé attended a fundraiser held in his honor by local businesses and business leaders he was again attacked for accepting their contributions to his campaign. Although he has stated many times that he can’t be bought and would always vote his conscience, this did not deter the RPA from putting out a hit piece headline on their email newsletter questioning his integrity because he accepted such contributions. This is a clear example of the RPA’s double standards as they have held a community party celebrating Obama’s victory despite his fund-raising practices and, at the local level, they have turned a blind eye to Council Member Tom Butt’s campaign contributors who have included Veolia.

More recently, Council Member Boozé was attacked for doing what should be expected of any council member. Confronting a city budget deficit, he suggested that the City consider charging rent for the berth provided to the Red Oak Victory ship as one way to raise additional sources of revenue. The Council and the RPA reacted to this suggestion as though Council Member Boozé had committed a sacrilege despite the fact that they were all aware that there was no chance that his motion would pass as he did not have the votes. They were once again using the issue to target him.

When treated with such disrespect, Mr. Boozé will respond at times in kind. He is not an architect, a social worker, a lawyer, or a doctor. He does not follow the unwritten rules of polite discourse which people from that class expect. But, like the majority of people who live in Richmond, he gives others respect and expects to be respected in turn. I don’t think Council Member Boozé has been respected.

The kind of interpersonal conflict that we have been witnessing at Richmond City Council meetings is never the responsibility of just one party to the conflict. Such interpersonal strife will not be diminished as long as all council members view the problem from the perspective of blaming others. In my opinion, each individual council member needs to look closely at his or her own behavior and start to make changes towards more acceptance and understanding of the other members of the Council as well as the public. At the last Council meeting Council Member Ritterman suggested that August be a cooling off period. I think that is a good idea and that possibly it could be a period of reflection, mediation and reconciliation as well.

If such healing does not start to happen and the City Council meetings continue to be filled with strife and disrespect the entire City is going to suffer. The divisions being created in the Council have implications for the wider community and are aggravating the social, cultural and economic divisions already being experienced between various segments of our community as the City struggles with significant economic and social changes. It is critical at this juncture of Richmond’s history that we have a Council who can lead us towards a new and united Richmond. The kind of disrespectful and immature behavior we have witnessed recently in the Council is having the opposite effect and if there is no change I have no doubt members of the Council will have some unpleasant surprises when their turn to run for reelection comes.

Sincerely,

Charles T. Smith

Richmond, CA 94805