Search The Tattler

Sunday, January 19, 2025

New Partisanship Means Council Members May Not Vote Their Conscience Safely

 Partisan Politics at Council Means Members May No Longer Dissent Without Fear of Censure and Sanction

Priforce Punished for His Vote

News Analysis

The City Council majority broke precedent when they censured and sanctioned their colleague Council member Kalimah Priforce on December 3rd for how he voted; a thing that’s never happened in modern Emeryville history.   The sanctioning punishment, for his vote on the new Code of Ethics, is a Council action that will negatively effect governance in Emeryville far into the future.

At issue is Councilman Priforce’s refusal to promise to obey (by refusing to sign) the new ethics law after he stated the law as written is not meant to hold all Council members to account equally.  While true, Mr Priforce’s refusal to sign his name in support of the new law was a legitimate protest against it.  The refusal to sign was not illegal, nor was it unethical or immoral.  The refusal was a vote to abstain on the matter of the Code of Ethics law, a law that would constrain all Council members equally were it not for the fact that the Council majority refused to agree to an independent ethics commission overseer, a fact described by Mr Priforce at the onset as a deal breaker.  

The City Council majority 
decided to spend $7570 to send a
letter of their anti-Priforce resolution
to every Emeryville household. 
The Council majority spent the money in
spite of the recently revealed $12 million
budget deficit, the largest in
Emeryville history.
The Council’s didactic and fractious sanctioning action was unethical because it took away Mr Priforce’s right to vote his conscious, something that every voter, Council member or otherwise, always retains the right to do in a democracy.  In addition, the sanctions have had the unintended consequence of lowering public safety because Council member Priforce has been stripped of his committee liaison positions, one being the Public Safety Committee.  That committee, formerly met on a monthly basis with Council member Priforce as liaison will now meet bi-monthly without Priforce, a lessening of safety services offered to the people of Emeryville. 

It was not only Council member Priforce that warned us that a Code of Ethics without an independent ethics commission overseeing body would be weaponized against dissenting Council members (himself being the sole example), the City Attorney, John Kennedy and none other than former Council member John Bauters likewise warned the Council majority against it.

In the Council’s estimation, by his refusal to sign his name to a law he didn’t like, Mr Priforce did an unethical act as called out in their resolution.  The Council included a ‘whereas’ that states he is censured and sanctioned because, “Despite his many public statements calling for a Code of Ethics, Council member Priforce is the only Member who has not signed the attestation that he will abide by the Code of Ethics, despite voting in favor or the Code’s adoption.”  

For his part, Council member Priforce says he decided not to sign the Code of Ethics legal document put before him a month after the Council voted unanimously in favor of implementing it because his colleagues had refused to implement an accompanying independent ethics commission, something he says is necessary and what they had said they would do at the December 3rd Council meeting a month earlier.  Council member Priforce stated a Code of Ethics would be weaponized against unpopular Council members by the majority without an ethics commission stopping them.  Recent events have shown Mr Priforce’s prediction on a weaponized law has come to pass.

By refusing to implement a independent ethics commission, the Council majority placed Council member Priforce in a position where his conscience dictated he refuse to sign his name to the new law and then they used that to punish him: a ‘bait and switch’ example of unethical behavior by these Council members.  Council member Priforce, who won his 2022 election over Mayor David Mourra, is paid to vote his conscience.  That means his every vote can be a YES, NO or ABSTAIN, legally and ethically.  Ironically, irrational behavior based on the City Council members’ base emotions, in this case the hatred of a colleague, is untoward and unethical. 

The Council vote to condemn a member over their vote is done: that's a bell that cannot be unrung.  That is our history now. 

The City Council majority has gotten so partisan, the vote against Mr Priforce for voting against the Code of Ethics was not enough.  They they also chose to spend $7570.96 of the taxpayer’s money to send a US Mail letter to every Emeryville home to gloat about it.  This, during the current $12 million City Hall budget deficit, the largest in Emeryville history.  The sanctimonious letter to every Emeryville resident has a cover letter from Council member Courtney Welch, a political foe of Mr Priforce, stating the vote to sanction was not taken lightly but rather through great deliberation as if the Council, in so doing, was interested in doing the people's business instead of personal partisan recrimination. 

Politics has skewed Emeryville City Council so severely in the current age, they see scoring points against their enemy on Council as more important than doing the people’s business guarding against making worse the worst budget crisis in modern Emeryville history.  

Because dissent is necessary and even a barometer in a democratic deliberative body, from this day forward the people will know their interests are being looked after by the Emeryville City Council to the extent there are accompanying votes of censure/sanction.   If they're not censuring and sanctioning, they're not likely doing our business. In other towns the majority gets their way and then they move on.  In Emeryville, the majority gets their way and then they censure and sanction those in the minority who vote differently....and then they spend $7570 to gloat about it and then they move on.

14 comments:

  1. The code of ethics thing was only one of the charges against Priforce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. It is probably the most outlandish of the six charges. The Tattler will be going into the other charges in future stories.

      Delete
  2. Will he still follow the law as enacted ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt it. The rest of them don't. The Emeryville Code of Ethics has some very stupid provisions and it's unnecessarily restrictive in a schoolmarmish way. The way it's been implemented is to simply serve as a cudgel against political enemies. If you're on the Council and you have at least two colleagues that will vote your way, you can censure and sanction the other two (or in this case, one) council members as much as you want without fear of being held to the same restrictions. It's pure weaponization. In the age of Trump, this is becoming normal for politics. The Council majority will never allow an independent ethics commission because it would spell the end of the weaponization of the CofE, something they won't willingly give up because they benefit from it. Imagine being able to dispatch your enemies with such ease.

      Delete
  3. Do you agree that his refusal to disclose where he gets his money and how he spends it even two months after his censure casts doubt on every vote he makes? What is he hiding?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your comment is located in the wrong story. Please copy and paste it in a story about what you are commenting on. Unless what you're asking me is do I think because Council member Priforce was late in filing his FPPC form, he should be censured and sanctioned for every vote he makes on the Council? In that case the answer is no. That's pretty obtuse. I think you simply put your comment in the wrong story.

      Delete
  4. This is a pissing contest over which I, as a constituent, have absolutely no control. I wish it would go away. We need to save some money, here and there!

    ReplyDelete
  5. There’s an ongoing campaign to rewrite history. Unlike what the headline and story intro suggests, Emeryville Councilmember Priforce was not censured on December 3 because of his vote and refusal to sign. In fact he voted for the code of ethics in the August 2023 city council meeting. The vote was unanimous.

    Councilmember Priforce was censured on December 3 because he has a sustained and continued pattern of years of violating campaign finance laws. He was censured for violating the Brown Act in his handling of closed meeting information regarding the hire of the new city manager. He was censured for his behavior against other councilmembers, commissioners and the public.

    Remember: Kalimah Priforce voted for the code of ethics in August 2023. He could have voted no at the meeting. He did not. He could have abstained. He did not.

    What changed his mind to not sign it?

    In November 2023, the FPPC slapped him with an investigation for campaign finance violations happening since he was voted in office in November 2022.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have made a few incorrect statements:
      Mr Priforce was censured and sanctioned because of his vote on and his refusal to sign the Code of Ethics. Please re-read the story because the 'whereas' quote from the Council majority is posted verbatim. I'll post it again for you here: “Despite his many public statements calling for a Code of Ethics, Council member Priforce is the only Member who has not signed the attestation that he will abide by the Code of Ethics, despite voting in favor or the Code’s adoption.” This is the exact reason why he was censured and sanctioned. But as the story shows, that is an improper use of government power.
      As the story and the resolution says, he voted yes to forward the Code of Ethics and then later, he refused to sign it; a vote to ABSTAIN, canceling his first vote to forward it. He is allowed to do that, legally, and ethically.
      He told everybody why he abstained and it's in the story: his Council colleagues reneged on the ethics commission.
      The FPPC did not 'slap' him with an investigation. They conducted an investigation because of a complaint from a citizen (you?).
      The other charges will be reported on separately in future Tattler stories.

      The Tattler does this kind of thing because the government is not informing the citizens of the facts because of the desire to forward partisan and nasty politics at City Hall.
      There is no attempt to re-write of history. The Tattler reported the facts in this story but YOU are denying them and thereby you are: what? rewriting history? No, you're just wrong. Please read more carefully before you comment. But you can just spout off too like you have done and your comments will still be posted in the Tattler but your erroneous statements will be corrected.

      Delete
    2. In what city council meeting was there an agenda item for vote called for signing of the code of ethics that the city council unanimously voted to adopt?


      Delete
    3. To Mr Anonymous- The meeting when the CofE was approved was Sept 26, '23 at a 'Special Meeting' item 12.1
      Later the Council members were each asked to sign the Code acknowledging they will obey it. However, every single member has violated what they signed in ways large and small (except member Priforce who didn't sign it). Member Welch has been the most egregious violator of the CofE but her colleagues refuse to censure and sanction her for the violations....they only do that to Priforce. They are oblivious about the adage about those who live in glass houses.

      Delete
    4. There was a vote to adopt, which Priforce voted yes. No “vote” was ever called for signing.

      So a “vote to abstain” on the matter and signing is a figment of Priforce’s imagination to rewrite history.

      To imply a “vote” happened to “abstain” from signing like a vote occurred in the city council meeting is deceptive.

      https://emeryville.legistar1.com/emeryville/meetings/2023/9/2049_M_City_Council_23-09-26_Action_Minutes.pdf

      Delete
    5. To Mr Anon Jan 30 2:53- Please clarify. I don't quite understand your point and if I am having trouble, most readers will have trouble. If you please, what exactly is the point you're trying to get across?

      Delete
    6. The reason I'm having trouble is I don't understand where you see a problem. First Mr Priforce voted yes as the story says. That was Part A of the legislation. Then he refused to sign the new Code as the story says. He refused because the Council majority reneged on the essential ethics commission as the story says. The fact that he refused to sign is a legal and ethical responce as the story says. The refusal to sign transformed his former yes vote to abstain because he refused to take part in part B of the legislation. No government in America can force a vote in any way. This is the way of dissenters and dissenters are (still) allowed in America. The fact that the Council majority censured and sanctioned him for this, what they call an ethics violation, is in itself an ethics violation. I understand you're sore about this for some reason but there is no way what Mr Priforce did can be construed as unethical. If you're having trouble, ask somebody that is better versed in ethics like an HR director or a religious leader or college professor in philosophy.

      Delete