Petaluma CA City Council Refuses to Consider Impeachment Resolution

Impeachment debate divides City Council
Split council declines to schedule hearing on whether Congress should investigate president
By COREY YOUNG | ARGUS-COURIER STAFF

Some called the issue emotional and polarizing. Others said it was a straightforward request of congressional representatives, while still others said it didn’t have a chance of succeeding.

And those were just the members of the City Council.

Following more than an hour of public comments — ranging from nuts-and-bolts talk about how Congress operates to impassioned and tearful pleas — the Petaluma City Council on Monday night decided not to weigh in on the controversial topic of impeaching the president and vice president.

No formal vote was taken, but four of the six members present said it was not appropriate for city government to take up what should be a congressional issue.

“We have several city issues before us that are much more pressing than something we have absolutely no control over,” Councilmember Mike O’Brien said, joining colleagues Mike Harris, Karen Nau and David Rabbitt in declining to schedule further debate on the topic.

Mayor Pamela Torliatt and Councilmember Teresa Barrett said they were in favor of taking up the issue and Councilmember Samantha Freitas was absent.

The council’s debate came after a presentation from the Progressive Democrats of Sonoma County and the “Resolution to Impeach” Coalition, which successfully urged the Santa Rosa and Sebastopol city councils to pass resolutions asking Cong-ress to investigate alleged unconstitutional crimes by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The group said Petaluma council members swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and as such have a duty to see that violations of the document are addressed.

“America is facing a constitutional crisis,” said Jerry Price, who presented 1,019 signatures from Petaluma residents in favor of having the council debate the issue.

He stressed that the council wasn’t being asked to say whether the president and vice president should be impeached — only to urge the U.S. House of Representatives, which has impeachment power, to investigate the men.

Most of the speakers who followed the presentation cited a litany of alleged crimes by the Bush administration, from torture to illegal wiretapping to lying about the reasons for invading Iraq.

Some said the city should be concerned about federal dollars being used for war instead of domestic programs, including money that might have gone to Petaluma.

“This is the Constitution that you, too, swear allegiance to,” said Sandra Shand. “Stand up for our Constitution and our community.”

Two speakers said it was not appropriate for the council to use its time debating impeachment.

“It’s not your job,” said Jeanette Lynn McFall, who urged the council to reject “this ridiculous proposal.”

Following the public comments, council members weighed in. Harris said the issue could divide the community and he wouldn’t vote to pursue it further.

“Being polarized is the last thing we need in our country and our city,” he said.

Barrett disagreed, saying “the nation is already polarized” and declaring, “I think we need to take a stand.”

Both Harris and Nau said that even if the president and vice president were found guilty, it is unlikely the U.S. Senate could muster the two-thirds majority needed to remove them from office.

Vice Mayor David Rabbitt urged impeachment supporters to take their case to members of Congress.

“Nancy Pelosi has said impeachment was off the table — that’s where you need to go,” he said. “The appropriateness of this for the council is what I’m concerned with.”

Torliatt, however, likened the request to other congressional lobbying the city has done, such as for flood-control money and infrastructure projects.

“This is another request we would be making of Congress, to consider representing us in the city of Petaluma,” she said.

After the vote, Price said the group hasn’t decided whether to continue seeking a council resolution on the impeachment topic.

“There are a lot of people who are pretty disappointed,” he said Tuesday. “This is not an issue of emotionalism or divisiveness — it’s purely law and order.

“What we’re asking for, in legal terms, is discovery — we need to know what has gone on because there are alleged crimes.”