Kiwanis and Zonta Club doomed, too?
By Rothenbach's asinine judgment, only citizens who don't serve
charities could be activists. The absurd standard would assure that only
Rothenbach and his cohorts can voice opinions in Burbank, their recurring
theme over the years. They're always eager to explain why their
dissenters aren't really entitled to speak or vote. Once, on the dais and
before he lost reelection, McConkey angrily claimed Mayor Bob Kramer
could not make a motion for or vote on a certain proposal McConkey
opposed, this because Kramer supposedly had a "clear conflict of
interest' by virtue of Kramer having publicly said there was a need for
the proposal being considered.
There's no shortage of examples of Rothenbach, McConkey and their
minions sanctimoniously announcing that everyone disputing their opinions
has violated some ethical or legal provision by speaking, this while
complaining that virtually every gust of wind is a devious attack on
their own rights to free speech.
As for Stamper's participation, that bad idea was dropped even before
Rothenbach's assertions. Rothenbach and McConkey should have hoped for
him to join in. Stamper, after all, was one of yesteryear's elected
officials blithely neglecting airport debacles and the push for
unrestricted expansion. When officials and voters later began objecting,
Stamper joined in ridiculing efforts to thwart expansion as the political
grandstanding of anti-business zealots.
That dismal record is immaterial to Measure A's fatal flaws, but
Stamper's opposition could have served perceptions of an imperious City
Hall, perceptions that fans of Measure A must cultivate in the absence of
favorable facts or credible leaders.
In what looks like similar reasoning, McConkey won't join Rothenbach
to defend the initiative they wrote. Rather than have constant replays of
the televised forum cement an association between Measure A and someone
soundly rejected for reelection, one whose temperament and credibility