Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
City Weakens CPVAW At 7-13 Council Meeting
At the crowded afternoon session of the Santa Cruz City Council on July 13th, the Council voted 5-2 to rush approval of a new set of bylaws for the City's Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women [CPVAW] over the objections of Councilmembers Madrigal and Beiers. They wanted more time to study the bylaws, presented by city staffer Kathy Agone. Initially buried on the Consent Agenda, the bylaw changes were the only item removed by request from the public when both Norse and Greensite made the removal request.
Greensite is an old-time fighter for City action against sexual assault, critic of the SCPD incompetence and indifference in this area, and recently laid-off UCSC Rape Prevention Education Co-Ordinator. Mayor Mike Rokin removed Greensite from the CPVAW possibly in retaliation for her strong criticism of the CPVAW's inaction in the face of SCPD's extremely low rape closure rate. [See "Rape in Santa Cruz--the CPVAW Annual Report " at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/10/18478155.php].
City Council members acknowledged they had not actually the specifics of how the bylaws altered the CPVAW Initiative language. Still they voted to rubberstamp the staff's weakening language anyway rather than delay the issue for two weeks to actually read what they were voting on as proposed by Madrigal and Beiers.
Greensite's concerns included increased power for ad hoc committees not open to the public and significantly weakened oversight over the SCPD.
City Council had to be forced to pass this measure by citizen vote. It cannot be legally changed without another citizen vote. However in the absence of a legal challenge (which costs money), it seems likely that weakened bylaws will guide the CCPVAW rather than the stronger original language.
Greensite's letter to City Council and the uncodified portion of the community Initiative creating the CPVAW back in 1981 are attached below.
The codified section of the CPVAW ordinance can be found as section 2.40.110 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code at http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/ .
City Council members acknowledged they had not actually the specifics of how the bylaws altered the CPVAW Initiative language. Still they voted to rubberstamp the staff's weakening language anyway rather than delay the issue for two weeks to actually read what they were voting on as proposed by Madrigal and Beiers.
Greensite's concerns included increased power for ad hoc committees not open to the public and significantly weakened oversight over the SCPD.
City Council had to be forced to pass this measure by citizen vote. It cannot be legally changed without another citizen vote. However in the absence of a legal challenge (which costs money), it seems likely that weakened bylaws will guide the CCPVAW rather than the stronger original language.
Greensite's letter to City Council and the uncodified portion of the community Initiative creating the CPVAW back in 1981 are attached below.
The codified section of the CPVAW ordinance can be found as section 2.40.110 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code at http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/ .
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Santa Cruz City Council
From: Gillian Greensite
Re: Commission Bylaws changes
Dear Council members,
I have reviewed the proposed changes to the Commission’s bylaws and have the following concerns:
The bylaws need to be consistent with Ordinance 81-29. The proposed changes to the Purpose section substantially change the policies of the Ordinance.
The Ordinance states:
“Section 1. Purpose: The purpose of this Ordinance is to implement educational programs that would aid in the prevention of sexual assault and domestic violence against women in the City of Santa Cruz. A further purpose is to implement policies and programs which will ensure adequate services for women who have been raped or battered.”
You are being asked to remove the above two purposes which constitute the major focus of the Ordinance and replace them with new content that is nowhere mentioned in the Ordinance. This is a significant change and that is not allowed without a vote of the citizens of Santa Cruz. Section 7 (b) Ordinance 81-29
Nowhere in the Ordinance does it state that the purpose of the Commission is to,
” Continue to work with law enforcement to develop strategies for the successful prosecution and conviction of the crimes of violence against women.” If you review the Powers and Duties section of Ordinance 81-29 you will see that the Commission has a significant oversight role with respect to the Santa Cruz Police Department. In fact, the rationale articulated in the ordinance is a summary of the inadequacies of law enforcement with respect to sexual assault and domestic violence. Adding this new purpose of “working with law enforcement” does not advance the policies of the ordinance, it compromises them. For example, when I brought to the Commission my concerns about SCPD’s response to rape survivors, I was harshly admonished by one Commissioner for my criticisms of the police department. Not admonished for the substance of my criticisms but for the fact that I was perceived as being critical of law enforcement. Such a stance by the Commission violates its legally mandated role. In order to implement policies and programs that ensure adequate services for women who have been raped or battered, sometimes it will be possible to work with law enforcement; sometimes it will be necessary to work against law enforcement. The ordinance anticipated this tension, hence its stated purpose does not include “working with law enforcement” and the bylaws should reflect that fact.
C. Under Policies in the Ordinance, it reads, “Citizen Involvement. It shall be the policy of the City of Santa Cruz to assure meaningful citizen participation in carrying out the policies and programs of this Ordinance.”
The bylaws changes weaken this policy by shifting it away from Policies into Purpose and changing it to read, “To facilitate meaningful citizen participation in the work of the Commission.” “Facilitate” is not the same as “assure”. Furthermore, since the changes proposed include dropping three of the four Standing Committees and replacing them with ad hoc task forces, which require no agendas, no minutes and no ability of the public to attend without Commission approval, meaningful public participation is further removed from the policies of the ordinance.
In conclusion, I ask that council read Ordinance 81-29 carefully and evaluate the proposed changes to the bylaws from that perspective. It also would be valuable to have Ordinance 81-29 accessible. I could not locate it on the Municipal Code database, nor is it on the Commission’s website, although the bylaws are. Given this vacuum, the bylaws become for all intents and purposes the de facto ordinance, in practice if not in law. If you approve the changes proposed, the ordinance itself is compromised.
Respectfully,
Gillian
Gillian Greensite
7/13/10
From: Gillian Greensite
Re: Commission Bylaws changes
Dear Council members,
I have reviewed the proposed changes to the Commission’s bylaws and have the following concerns:
The bylaws need to be consistent with Ordinance 81-29. The proposed changes to the Purpose section substantially change the policies of the Ordinance.
The Ordinance states:
“Section 1. Purpose: The purpose of this Ordinance is to implement educational programs that would aid in the prevention of sexual assault and domestic violence against women in the City of Santa Cruz. A further purpose is to implement policies and programs which will ensure adequate services for women who have been raped or battered.”
You are being asked to remove the above two purposes which constitute the major focus of the Ordinance and replace them with new content that is nowhere mentioned in the Ordinance. This is a significant change and that is not allowed without a vote of the citizens of Santa Cruz. Section 7 (b) Ordinance 81-29
Nowhere in the Ordinance does it state that the purpose of the Commission is to,
” Continue to work with law enforcement to develop strategies for the successful prosecution and conviction of the crimes of violence against women.” If you review the Powers and Duties section of Ordinance 81-29 you will see that the Commission has a significant oversight role with respect to the Santa Cruz Police Department. In fact, the rationale articulated in the ordinance is a summary of the inadequacies of law enforcement with respect to sexual assault and domestic violence. Adding this new purpose of “working with law enforcement” does not advance the policies of the ordinance, it compromises them. For example, when I brought to the Commission my concerns about SCPD’s response to rape survivors, I was harshly admonished by one Commissioner for my criticisms of the police department. Not admonished for the substance of my criticisms but for the fact that I was perceived as being critical of law enforcement. Such a stance by the Commission violates its legally mandated role. In order to implement policies and programs that ensure adequate services for women who have been raped or battered, sometimes it will be possible to work with law enforcement; sometimes it will be necessary to work against law enforcement. The ordinance anticipated this tension, hence its stated purpose does not include “working with law enforcement” and the bylaws should reflect that fact.
C. Under Policies in the Ordinance, it reads, “Citizen Involvement. It shall be the policy of the City of Santa Cruz to assure meaningful citizen participation in carrying out the policies and programs of this Ordinance.”
The bylaws changes weaken this policy by shifting it away from Policies into Purpose and changing it to read, “To facilitate meaningful citizen participation in the work of the Commission.” “Facilitate” is not the same as “assure”. Furthermore, since the changes proposed include dropping three of the four Standing Committees and replacing them with ad hoc task forces, which require no agendas, no minutes and no ability of the public to attend without Commission approval, meaningful public participation is further removed from the policies of the ordinance.
In conclusion, I ask that council read Ordinance 81-29 carefully and evaluate the proposed changes to the bylaws from that perspective. It also would be valuable to have Ordinance 81-29 accessible. I could not locate it on the Municipal Code database, nor is it on the Commission’s website, although the bylaws are. Given this vacuum, the bylaws become for all intents and purposes the de facto ordinance, in practice if not in law. If you approve the changes proposed, the ordinance itself is compromised.
Respectfully,
Gillian
Gillian Greensite
7/13/10
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$220.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network