Parking Commissioner Wieboldt Summons City Attorney to Muzzle Fellow Commissioner

In Washington, when one is on the verge of a political reprimand, censure or expulsion, he or she has done something truly terrible like Rep. Charles Rangel’s not paying taxes on his Dominican villa and lying about his assets (censured) or Rep. James Traficant’s conviction for bribery, racketeering and tax evasion (expelled) or Rep. Gerry Studds & Rep. Daniel Crane’s admitted sexual misconduct with minor pages (censured).

In La Mesa, where Parking Commissioner Jim Wieboldt is concerned, one merely has to disagree with him and have the nerve to voice it to be in some kind of trouble involving the City Attorney. 

For the more than two years I have served on the La Mesa Parking Commission—an advisory board to the City Council consisting of five members— Wieboldt and I have disagreed on many issues.

I support $4,700 (or 1.5% of the $300,000 raised annually in parking fees) be used to plant and maintain beautiful flowers in the large planters that line La Mesa Boulevard.

Not only did Wieboldt vote against dedicating a miniscule portion of the budget toward flowers, he got the parking commission, minus my vote, to unanimously vote to remove the planters entirely. How does that improve the Village? 

Luckily, the mayor and City Council voted unanimously against Wieboldt’s vindictive proposition and the planters remain. 

I would like to see gift bags placed over our parking meters during the week or even the day before Christmas as a Holly Jolly free-parking gift to the shoppers, diners and merchants of the Village. Immediately blocked by Wieboldt & Commissioner Lynn McCrae. 

At another meeting, I wanted to discuss a business owner’s complaint about five arbitrary meters situated far outside The Village. Again, blocked by Wieboldt. 

And now the issue that has roused Wieboldt to summon City Attorney Glenn Sabine to the September 20^th parking commission meeting: public toilets. 

Wieboldt and McCrae want to dedicate approximately $200,000 of parking meter money toward the installation of two public toilets in La Mesa Village. I think this is a huge mistake and as a sitting member of the Parking Commission, I feel it is my duty to inform the residents, visitors and businesses of La Mesa Village what is being proposed with their meter money.

I think this project would be a waste of valuable public money; we already have several public toilets at the library, police station and City Hall. Also, public restrooms notoriously attract graffiti, trash, vagrancy and criminal activity. La Mesa needs less of this, not more.

There is also the added expense of maintenance and supplies, and I do not believe these two “Portland Loos” would improve our image or increase business revenue. 

Because this topic is important and most La Mesans have no idea what the Parking Commission is up to (evidently Wieboldt wants to keep it that way), I published my opinion in a La Mesa Patch blog in July.

So now Wieboldt, invoking new Parking Commission rules written just last year (ostensibly to silence me), has summoned our city attorney to do something regarding my actions.

The Rules at Play:

(2.e) “Be discreet in the discussion of pending matters outside regular or special meetings of the Commission and make no prejudicial comment in advance of official action of the Commission.”

 (2.f) “Refrain from issuing any public statements or other public communications, whether written or verbal, on behalf of the Commission without authorization from the Commission, as evidenced by an affirmative vote of the Commission during a regular or special meeting."

(2.g) “Public statements and other public communications representing the Commission shall be approved by an affirmative vote of the Commission during a regular or special meeting prior to issuance.”

Rule 2.g I have not violated because I never qualify my statements as representative of the Commission.

Rule: 2.f. I have not violated because I clearly state my opinions are mine and never speak on behalf of the Commission.

Rule: 1.e. is unenforceable as it violates my First Amendment Right to Free Speech and should have never been written in the first place as no rule can contract out constitutional rights. Additionally, “discreet” is a matter of opinion and hard to define or enforce.

Whether one agrees with my opinion or not, all should agree I am entitled to it. As is Jim Wieboldt. If he doesn’t like what I am saying, he too can publish his opinions and do his best to sway public opinion toward his goals and objectives for the Parking Commission.

That Wieboldt is instead trying to censor me by calling on Sabine to block my publishing my own opinion or what is a matter of public record is a strong indication of Wieboldt’s character.

And that character is a bully.