Posted on by Californiacontrarian

Company Time

When we elect a U.S. Senator or a U.S. member of the House, he/she is supposed to represent us in Washington D.C. Now we may or may not agree with that elected person all of the time, but he/she is our voice when it comes to national matters. These elected representatives are paid a salary that comes from the taxes that we pay. In essence they work for us. We, the citizens of  their state or district, are the employers and they are the employees.
Likewise when we elect a member of the California legislature, he/she is our representative in Sacramento when it comes to state issues. They are paid to deal with matters concerning California, and they are paid essentially by us through the state taxes that we pay. Again the citizens of California are the employers, and they are our employees. If they were frivolously wasting their time while on the clock, we, the employers, would have a legitimate beef. “Why, when you are on company time and we are paying you, are you not doing things that are related to the state’s business?

Certainly in any private enterprise the employer has the right to demand that his employees spend their time working – working on company items and company business. Certainly, the employer would be justified in asking, “Why when I am paying your salary, are you doing things on company time that are not pertinent to my company?”
Likewise when we elect someone to the City Council, they are our representatives in a matters related to the city. We, the citizens of the city, are in essence paying their salaries through the taxes that we pay. We are the employers and they are our employees. Should we not expect them, while on company time, to spend their time and energy dealing with city issues and city business?

On 10/17/17 in a closed door session the San Diego City Council voted to support an amicus brief in a case concerning a Colorado baker. This case is scheduled to be heard on December 5th before the U.S. Supreme Court. Apparently this amicus brief proposal was brought to the City Council for a vote at the bequest of Mara Elliott, a San Diego City Attorney.

There are so many things wrong here that I am not sure where to start!

First of all . . . “Closed door session”! Why in God’s name would this vote be held in a closed door session? From my perspective, there are only two reasonable explanations for discussing anything in a closed door session. One obvious good reason is that there is sensitive and private information that is being discussed. To me the other obvious reason is to hope that the public does not hear about it. If one was trying to cover up some frivolous behavior, a closed session would be perfect.

Second . . . why is the San Diego City Council wasting company time discussing and then voting to support or not support some case involving Colorado? Even if the case was centered in another part of California, this would not be a matter for the San Diego City Council. Again, forgive me, but shouldn’t our employees (the City Council) be spending their time dealing with our city’s issues? “Why are you not doing things, while on company time, that are related to the city of San Diego, when the citizens of San Diego are paying your salary?”

Third . . . Is the San Diego City Attorney also an employee of city of San Diego? If so, then it appears that Ms. Elliott also works for us (the tax-payers of the city). When she is on company time, we, the tax-payers, are paying her salary. To her I ask, “Why are you not doing things that are related to the city’s affairs, when we are paying you?” To make this even more egregious this is not the first time that Ms. Elliott has “brought forth a proposal for San Diego to get involved in controversial cases elsewhere in the country” . . . while on company time.

Fourth . . . What makes this even more ludicrous is that this case is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court in about six weeks. Does Ms. Elliott and the San Diego City Council really think that the judges on the Supreme Court are really going to let an amicus brief from the San Diego City Council influence their decision? Or is this merely a political stunt; a political stunt being done when they are supposed to be on the clock – working for the city?

Now, as one of the ‘San Diego tax-payer employers’ I say, “If the City Council and Ms. Elliott want to discuss matters and vote on things that do not relate to this city, please do it on your own time – not on company time!”

127 Replies to “Company Time”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.