Here is a letter to the editor of Voice of San Diego that I wrote on Donna Frye's correct vote on Item 331 during the city council hearing yesterday. It should be noted that I have spoken with a number of attorneys on the docket item. We are coming to a conclusion that possibly illegal actions occurred. With the item published just last Wednesday, when were discussions with the San Francisco City Attorney held? Who paid for his air flight here. Why was he involved as a pro-active participant? Why was Mike Aguirre involved and when did these discussions take place outside of the city hall area? There is a real possibility that the Brown Act was violated.
And this was all dumped on the voters with no notice, or opportunity to retain counsel to counter the San Francisco city attorney, etc. There is clearly not enough time between now and Sept. 18th to investigate this matter adequately, to question the San Francisco city attorney on the meetings he held with Councilwoman Atkins and City Attorney Mike Aguirre on this matter. There has been a real breach of the entire political process on this matter and the hearing for a revote must be set aside pending an investigation on these issues.
Correct in Her Vote
By James Hartline, Hillcrest
Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2007 Regardless of one's position on expanding the historical definition of marriage to include those that engage in homosexuality and lesbianism, Donna Frye was correct in her vote yesterday on the issuance of a legal brief in support of same-sex marriage for a number of reasons.
Although the notice for the hearing fell within the legally required time constraints, Councilwoman Frye was correct in her analysis that there was not appropriate public education, awareness and opportunities regarding this volatile and devisive demand by Councilwoman Toni Atkins to force all citizens in San Diego to agree to the use of their names in the lawsuit before the California Supreme Court. It is important to note that the passage of this divisive legal brief would mean that the majority of San Diegans who are opposed to same-sex nuptials, would be forced to endorse said relationships via this legal filing by the city.
What is clear, is that Councilwoman Atkins docketed this very serious item right before the weekend AND a Monday holiday when nearly everyone in San Diego would be distracted and unfocused.With the appearance of the city attorney from San Francisco at the hearing, it was clear that some corruptive behind-the-scenes activism without any public awareness had transpired. This represents a typical trait of long-term City Council members for wheeling and dealing for their pet projects while keeping the public out of the loop. Who paid for the San Francisco city attorney to fly to San Diego for this hearing?
And equally important, in a time when San Diego desperately needs to unify to resolve financial problems that have brought us close to bankruptcy, the idea that Councilwoman Atkins would bring forward this ill-conceived request that took nearly an entire day's worth of precious city council time and hearings, demonstrates why Councilwoman Atkins has been one of the biggest contributors to our entire municipal financial instability.
Councilwoman Frye seems to be maturing as a politician by seeking to find common ground with her traditional opponents. Her smart vote yesterday on this issue shows that she may be expanding her unifying movement to include the concerns of Christian Conservatives and reasonable Republicans.