Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council‑ethics‑benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents accuse council of secrecy over proposed council medical benefits change
Summary
Public commenters urged the Manhattan Beach City Council to kill item 23, arguing staff reports lack cost and legal detail and that the agenda language masks a proposal to alter medical benefits for a council member who already receives city retiree benefits.
A group of residents told the Manhattan Beach City Council on Monday that a short staff report labeled “item 23” fails to provide the information taxpayers need to decide whether to alter councilmember health benefits.
“After I heard the June 17 meeting, I thought it was odd that nobody was surprised by Steve’s request,” resident Christie Hogan told the council during public comment, saying she made a public‑records request that produced three pages suggesting prior out‑of‑meeting exchanges. “Don’t allow this to go any further.”
Michael Jenkins, another longtime resident, echoed that view and said the staff report contains no substantive description of the benefits at issue, who is excluded, or what the fiscal cost would be. “It is devoid of any substantive information,” Jenkins said. “How much would it cost to be equal? Nothing in the report.”
Both commenters referred to a council member identified in comments as “Steve” who Jenkins said is a CalPERS annuitant and argued that the proposed item looks like an attempt to create a workaround to add benefits to someone already receiving retiree medical coverage. Neither the staff report nor councilors provided new cost estimates or a legal analysis during public comment; the mayor clarified that the process that placed the item on the agenda followed the council’s three‑step procedure for member‑initiated items.
Council members did not vote on item 23 at the meeting; the item requires two council members to initiate and a third to place it on a future agenda. Chair stated there was not a third vote to send the item forward this evening.
What happens next: Item 23 remains a council‑initiated matter; no policy change or appropriation was adopted at this meeting. The council may revisit the item only if a third member requests placement on a future agenda, at which point the item would be scheduled for additional study and public comment.
Speakers quoted and referenced in this article are taken from the council chamber transcript and listed in the article’s speaker roster.
