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.