I was present at the Burbank City Council meeting on Oct. 16. All of the council members conducted themselves professionally and civilly except for one, Council Member David Gordon. Granted, when an issue is controversial and there's disagreement, things can get heated, but there's a fine line that Gordon continued to cross.

The issue I'm referring to is the Burbank pet store/puppy mill ordinance. Gordon would say his piece, then when others tried to respond, he often had his head down shuffling papers. He said what he had to say and couldn't manage to afford others the same courtesy. If you're not even listening to what your fellow council members have to say, how can you vote effectively? Moreover, why should you be allowed to?

What was even more troubling was his suggestion that the motivation behind this ordinance was perhaps “gender-driven” (i.e. female). Normally, an elected official would be held accountable for such a prejudicial remark.

He then accused those in favor of the ordinance of coming with an “agenda.” Doesn't anyone coming to show support or disapproval of an ordinance have an agenda? Gordon's agenda, in spite of all the evidence in front of him, was clearly to protect the business interests of his friend, the owner of a pet store.

I can't help but wonder if more Burbank citizens had attended council meetings and witnessed how Gordon conducts himself, whether their vote might have been different.

Melissa Maroff
Sherman Oaks