Let’s face it, truth and transparency can sometimes be difficult to find, especially in government.
The latest saga began in June of 2021 when longtime Council member Stacy Berry unexpectedly resigned her seat on the Cypress City Council.
Results of the 2020 census revealed that the city’s Asian population was nearing 40 percent. Voices immediately were heard that the seat should go to Carrie Hayashida, an Asian candidate who finished third in 2020 with nearly 6,000 votes.
At the July 12, 2021, Council meeting, people spoke in favor of appointing Hayashida to the seat or call a special election.
Instead, the previous Council instituted a process wherein they picked Scott Minikus. After interviewing all candidates, including Hayashida, they chose a retired Long Beach law enforcement officer to fill the seat.
Not long thereafter, the city received a demand letter from Shenkman & Hughes, a Malibu law firm representing the Southwest Voter Registration Project, alleging the city was in violation of the California Voting Rights Act.
Cypress denied the allegation and for the past two years, the city has held more than 15 executive sessions regarding the lawsuit, never once discussing the matter in open session.
There has been such a lack of transparency that CalAware is suing Cypress. In addition, the website of the First Amendment Coalition in Sacramento suggests the draconian cuts Cypress has made to oral communication periods are flat-out “unconstitutional.”
Still, residents try to be heard and deserve to know what its leaders are doing.
The ENE reported on Sept. 13 that the city had voted in closed session to meet with the plaintiffs and a court-approved Encino mediator on Nov. 1.
Makes sense. Once the State Supreme Court ruled against the City of Santa Monica in their CVRA challenge on Aug. 29, Cypress and their legal team may have seen fewer promising legal avenues to pursue as the legal bills mount.
In light of the Santa Monica ruling, the city could either continue the lawsuit and potentially spend more taxpayer funds, knowing they will likely lose, or perhaps the city could move to mitigation and reach a potential settlement.
There may be more legal options, but Cypress seems to now be in a legal box of its own making and has no one but themselves to blame.
If the city goes to mediation, what’s the harm in being honest and open with residents? After all, they have a right to know. Do not confuse them by sending accusations before the facts that have everyone pointing fingers at everyone else but themselves.
And the truth is, Cypress should realize that citizens simply want and deserve to know.
Instead of limiting oral communications, why not schedule full-on listening sessions with residents? Making citizens feel comfortable with being open about government would be hard, but what is happening today is clearly not sustainable, so why not try?
There was no earth-shattering and sensitive information in the Sept. 13 report, as intimated by the city, only general vote totals (not even mentioning who voted for what) that routinely get reported out of closed session. Victimizing and intimidating the press is a diversion and people know it.
Interesting also that the attorneys in the case issued a letter that is also printed here. We understand and appreciate their position.
When Fred Galante, the city’s legal counsel submitted it to the ENE via email, he included comments that, among other things, suggested generic inaccuracies and requested a retraction. The comments were immediately refuted by Kevin Shankman in a separate email a few minutes later.
“To be clear, I join with Mr. Galante in the letter attached to his email. I do not, however, join in the second paragraph of his email below. I do not know whether the 9-13-23 story ‘contained several factual errors and inaccuracies,’ as Mr. Galante asserts, and therefore I cannot request a ‘published correction’ or ‘full retraction’ of that story,” said Shenkman.
We stand by the story.
Just think, all of this may have been avoided had the city simply spent $200,000 to have a special election to fill Stacy Berry’s seat to let citizens decide.
Our political climate is unhealthy. Not just in Cypress. Everywhere. We all know it.
Local government’s top priority should be to act responsibly to its citizens, not constantly treat them like they are on simply a ‘need to know’ basis. Granted, it may take extra time and patience to enhance civic engagement, but going forward we have no choice but to find a way to change.
Not only in Cypress. We must find a way back to the public interest in our neighborhoods, cities, and communities. It may take a new generation of leaders but hopefully not.
In Cypress, every citizen has an equal share of civic ownership in the outcome of the districting lawsuit. Therefore, citizens deserve the truth. Openness. Future generations will have to live with whatever the outcome, so the stakes are indeed very high.
We need level-headed leaders who say, ‘Here is the kind of community we want to build, and here’s how we can get there.’ Together. The City Council would be amazed at how effective a listening strategy could be if they tried it. Investigations, silencing, and finger-pointing simply lead to more of the same.
What remains clear for now, however, is that too often, when you tell the truth in Cypress, there can sometimes be a huge price to pay. We can only hope that this changes with whatever comes next.
