If you are privy to exchanges on the Inglewood Neighborhood Association e-list concerning a poll conducted there on the council's nondiscrimination bill (passed second reading last week), you are aware that as of a couple of days ago 40 people favored the bill and 6 people opposed it.
Being observant, you also know that CM Karen Bennett, who voted against nondiscrimination and then encouraged those who asked her to oppose to express themselves on the down-low in the future, was moved to engage the poll chatter. She asked a nondiscrimination supporter whether they really thought that opponents of nondiscrimination would take the poll given the dominant support on the e-list. Me thinks she protests too much.
After an e-list participant pointed out that the poll did not require any personal ID information disclosure, CM Bennett replied that this made her glad because people whom she spoke with on the phone said they would never take the poll for fear of being identified. She also wrote that she did not keep the names or addresses any of those who called her in her records in order to protect their privacy.
Another e-list member deftly pointed out to her that she has said in the past that she keeps records on her constituents' views so that she would know how the majority wants her to vote. That participant also asked her how she could verify--without records of names and addresses--that the nondiscrimination opponents were not calling her multiple times to cheat the process.
It seems to me that this ongoing question of constituent privacy is actually hurting the council member's credibility on the rationale for her vote.