I watched with great interest the discussion and vote that led to the removal of Denise Lite from her seat on the Santa Clarita Planning Commission during the City Council meeting on July 8.
In case you missed it, council members Patsy Ayala and Bill Miranda joined Mayor Pro Tem Laurene Weste in voting to remove Lite. Council members Jason Gibbs and Marsha McLean opposed the action, citing a lack of justification and rejecting the vague claim of “lack of communication,” which Gibbs called a serious misrepresentation of Ms. Lite’s character.
Weste offered only brief remarks. Miranda gave no explanation at all. But Councilwoman Ayala took center stage, speaking at length and with emotion in defense of the decision. Because her delivery was rapid and at times difficult to follow, I revisited her remarks to better understand the reasoning behind her vote.
Three key phrases stood out as central to her argument:
• Upholding the Constitution of the United States.
• Doing what’s best for Santa Clarita.
• Starting fresh to build positive working relationships.
Let’s examine each of these points more closely.
1. “Upholding the Constitution of the United States of America.”
Councilwoman Ayala invoked the Constitution with conviction — but failed to explain how it applied to the matter at hand. Was she implying that voting against Lite’s removal would somehow violate her oath of office? Or that removing Lite was a constitutional obligation?
The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to disagree, debate and vote one’s conscience. Upholding constitutional principles means making decisions based on facts and fairness. If Ayala were truly guided by constitutional values, she could have cast a “no” vote after reviewing the evidence — or lack thereof — surrounding the request to oust Lite.
Invoking the Constitution in this context added drama, but not logic. It may have sounded noble, but it simply doesn’t withstand scrutiny.
2. “Doing What’s Best for the City of Santa Clarita.”
That’s a worthy goal — but also a subjective and overused political phrase. If this vote was really about the good of the city, let’s consider the context:
Residents filled City Hall urging the council to keep Lite on the commission.
Thousands more, with differing political ideologies, expressed a common outrage across social media platforms.
Community members — conservative, progressive and politically neutral — spoke out, many noting a familiar concern: a pattern of political retaliation from Mayor Pro Tem Weste.
If this decision served the city’s best interests, why was there such broad and vocal opposition?
The truth is this outcome was likely decided before the vote was taken. Weste would not have agendized the removal unless she was confident Miranda and Ayala were on board. Ayala became the face of the vote — while Weste offered brief platitudes, and Miranda offered no comment at all.
What is best for Santa Clarita is leaders who examine the facts before acting, reject political pressure, and defend public servants against retaliatory tactics.
3. “Starting Fresh to Build Positive Working Relationships.”
This is a valid point. Our city benefits when officials work respectfully and collaboratively — even when they disagree.
Ayala stated that the relationship between Weste and Lite had deteriorated and that removing Lite would allow for a “fresh start.” Yes, a new commissioner will likely have a smoother relationship with Weste — but does that really solve the problem?
Removing Denise Lite may temporarily smooth over a conflict, but it does nothing to address the root issue — which is not Ms. Lite herself, but the behavior of any elected official who uses fear, intimidation or retaliation to advance a personal agenda. Removing Lite is like applying a Band-Aid to a paper cut while there is a bleeding gouge in the leg.
The action to remove Denise Lite from the planning commission may calm the tension for one person — but it leaves the city with a culture where retaliation continues to go unchecked.
Final thoughts: We now know that Mayor Pro Tem Weste never reached out to Denise Lite after the contentious Hartwell project hearings. The question must be asked: did either Mayor Miranda or Councilwoman Ayala attempt to speak with Ms. Lite before casting their votes? Did they truly seek to understand and get all the facts and perspectives?
I hold Councilwoman Ayala accountable for her vote and lack of thoughtful analysis — and I also recognize that she was likely cajoled and set up to defend what appeared to be a predetermined outcome. She followed where the political pressure was strongest, likely hoping to avoid fallout. Laurene Weste offered polite parting words. Bill Miranda remained silent. And Patsy Ayala, perhaps unknowingly, became the public face of a private agenda.
Now, she may understand what others before her have felt — the sting of political manipulation by Mayor Pro Tem Laurene Weste. It’s a harsh lesson. And one she may not soon forget.
Clare Bennett
Valencia
