In general, I think the type of concern raised by Ms. Frye is reasonable. However, I'm not sure this article provides enough information to voice a responsible opinion. I would love to know, for example, if there are compelling reasons not to docket these issues for council discussion. Also, I imagine the council has a finite amount of time to consider matters and more issues to address than that time allows. If that premise is true, I think it would be worthwhile to know a) what issues were being calendared at the time of Ms. Frye's requests that caused those requests not to make the cut, and b) whether a reasonable person in Mr. Peters' shoes could see those issues as more pressing to the City. With that information I think readers could offer reasoned opinions on the issue.

Posted by Omar Passons | reply to this comment
November 2, 2008 11:17 am

Of course these issues deserved to be on the docket. It is easy to see why Mr. Peters wouldn't want a public discussion of these important topics. Too many untidy concerns here that question the company line that Mr. Peters represents. Systemically, Mrs. Frye and Mr. DeMaio are right on the mark. The personalities will change so people like Peters and Ben Hueso are like tooth aches--they hurt a lot, but it isn't forever. The council has plenty of time to docket items suggested by the ELECTED council members who represent the public. Nothing wrong with a little representative democracy. Lastly, over the term of the Peters Council Pres., any average citizen (not part of a business enterprise) who has been part of any activist cause, will authenticate that Scott Peters orchestrates a stacked deck before and during council hearings.

Posted by Dale Peterson | reply to this comment
November 3, 2008 7:10 am

The City Council has committees to vet issues prior to them coming to the City Council. Items in committee require 3 votes to be moved on to the City Council for a full debate. This means that Councilmembers only need to garner the support of three of their colleagues to get an issue on the docket. This seems like a reasonable threshold. I think Councilmember-Elect DeMaio and Councilmember Frye's suggestion of using the clerk to assign issues to committee is reasonable, but the chairperson still needs to have discretion on docket timing for logistical reasons. Why not let the committee system work, as long as it can be assured that items will, in fact, be heard in that committee in a timely manner.

Posted by Clif Williams | reply to this comment
November 3, 2008 10:19 am

There is no doubt that Peters has used the power of the office of Council President to block discussion of important issues that he would be voting in the minority on. Arguing that the power of Council President counterbalances the power of the executive branch. If Faulconer were Council President, for example, that would cement the power of the Mayor since Mr Faulconer is little more than a puppet for the Mayor. With regard to hearing docketed items at a time certain that would prevent a Council President like Peters hearing controversial items he may be on the losing side of the vote on at the end of a long session even though it appears first on the agenda. He has done this repeatedly with the transparent goal of forcing speakers on the item to leave before it is heard because of work or family responsibilities.

Posted by ian Trowbridge | reply to this comment
November 1, 2008 1:34 pm

First, Ms. Frye is never off! Remember, Frye was the only one to listen to Shipone. Second, why can't each council person bring an item up for council discussion and have a vote to see if it merits future discussion? That way the public would know what is important to them and not so important to others and encourage dialogue and better representation. Mr. Passons, if the council has enough time to do a who's who day at the initiation of a council meeting, then then have enough time to bring up undocketed items. Take a look at City TV archives. Since July 08 council meetings average less than 5 hours per day (excluding lunch) that means they have PLENTY of time to talk about more stuff. I believe most of us work 8 hours a day, NO???

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
November 3, 2008 7:07 am

Do the readers a favor. Tell us what the average pension will be for the current employees and compare it to other cities. Maybe Ms. Frye will tell us. Then we will know if the taxpayers are being taken, or there is much ado about nothing.. The pension fund is by far the biggest issue in the budget every year, and it seems, is the main reason that the police union, the firefighters union, and the municipal employees union spend large sums on local elections.

Posted by mel | reply to this comment
November 3, 2008 8:49 am

the simple answer to your question, Clifton: because the existing vetting system hasn't worked to protect the interests of the citizens and taxpayers of San Diego. 3 votes is simply too high a theshhold -- not that many clowncil members are going to buck the system/prez. I would add that the whole knock on Donna has been that she can't build a coalition with other members of the council. Well my response has always been, that is more of a compliment than a criticism. The quality of our council is embarassing. Knocking Donna for failing to co-operate with those guys is like knocking Eliot Ness for failing to co-operate with Al Capone. Think that analogy's a little overdrawn? Well I have two words for you: Ron Saathoff

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
November 4, 2008 7:50 am

Why does the council need a permanent president? With a monthly rotation all councilmembers and presumably all issues will receive a hearing.

Posted by Ed Burditt | reply to this comment
November 3, 2008 12:21 pm

There is more to this than just what gets docketed. It also involves when items gets heard. Peters is notorious for placing controversial items which often break the law or items with speakers who would raise embarassing points at the far end of the agenda. Those issues often then miss the news cycle and citizens with relevant comments leave prior to the hearing. The planned plum appointment of Peters to the Port Commission demonstrates that, in the eyes of those that control the city for their own personal gain, Peters and the office he held peformed flawlessly. That should give the rest of us reason to consider restructuring.

Posted by GHJohn | reply to this comment
November 3, 2008 3:11 pm

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.