On
September 9th I contacted Terry Francke, founder of
Californians
Aware, regarding Glendale Mayor Frank Quintero’s policy of not
permitting members of the public to address the city council UNLESS
they submit Speaker Cards BEFORE the presentation of agenda items. Mayor Quintero contends that the Brown Act
gives him the CHOICE
of allowing public comments “BEFORE OR DURING” agenda items. Otherwise, he contends, the Brown Act would
have read “BEFORE AND DURING”.
The
following series of messages document statements by me, Terry Francke and
CalAware Board Member Richard P. McKee, who joined in the exchanges and stated
in no uncertain terms his opinion. At
this point I have no idea who the other Board of Directors members are, nor any
idea of their individual positions on this issue. As I find out I will post the information on
the Open Government (???) in
Hal Weber
******************************************************************************************************************************
----- Original Message #10 -----
From: halweber@earthlink.net [mailto:halweber@earthlink.net]
Sent:
To: Richard P. McKee
Cc: Francke - Terry; Snyder - Jennifer Lentz
Subject: RE: The Richard P. McKee Perspective
We don't agree, Rich, but thank you for making your position crystal
clear!
By the way,
it is certainly a shame that I that I had to wait until age 81 to
encounter someone wise enough to let me know what really does not
matter.
Sincerely,
Hal Weber
******************************************************************************************************************************
-----
Original Message #9 -----
From: Richard P.
McKee
Cc: Francke - Terry; Snyder -
Jennifer Lentz
Sent:
Subject: RE: The Richard P. McKee
Perspective
I would only
point out that 54954.3 does not say
"before and during." There is no
requirement that a legislative body must allow public testimony during
the consideration of an item of business. As I say, there many agencies
that do not allow comment during the consideration of an item.
I believe what
the mayor is doing is reasonable and defendable. After all, someone
has to control the meeting and he was elected.
You may find
someone who wants to join you in this cause, but I will not.
For my part, I
would take a step back and fight the battles that really matter.
Best wishes and
with great respect for your involvement, Rich
******************************************************************************************************************************
----- Original Message #8 -----
From: halweber@earthlink.net [mailto:halweber@earthlink.net]
Sent:
To: Richard P. McKee
Cc: Francke - Terry; Snyder - Jennifer Lentz
Subject: RE: The Richard P. McKee Perspective
Reference:
California Attorney General Opinion No. 92-212,
From the above
reference:
(a) Every
agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the
public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the
public, before or during the legislative body's consideration
of the item, that is within the subject
matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be
taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise
authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2. However, in the case of a
meeting of a city council in a city or a board of supervisors in a city and
county, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to
address the council or board on any item that has already been considered by a
committee, composed exclusively of members of the council or board, at a public
meeting wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the
opportunity to address the committee on the item, before or during the
committee's consideration of the item, unless the item has been substantially
changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by the council or
board.
Rich:
I find it
very difficult to believe that anyone, other than an attorney or a
politician, could believe that the intent of the Brown Act is to allow a
moderator (in this case Mayor Quintero) of a legislative body (in this case the
Glendale California City Council) to refuse to allow a member of the public to
address said legislative body because he or she indicated the desire to do so DURING the legislative body's consideration
of the item. That, however, is exactly what Glendale
Mayor Frank Quintero declared to be his policy, as you can see and hear for
yourself by clicking on VIDEO.
The fact
that the Glendale City Council uses Speaker Cards as their method of
allowing members of the public to indicate their request to address the
council has NOTHING to do with my request for CalAware to look into this Brown
Act violation.
Respectfully,
Hal
******************************************************************************************************************************
-----
Original Message #7 -----
From: Richard P.
McKee
Cc: Francke - Terry; Snyder -
Jennifer Lentz
Sent:
Subject: RE: The Richard P. McKee
Perspective
Hal,
I'm sorry, I
thought I made clear my position on the Mayor's requirement to
submit speaker cards prior to the item of business, when I
said:
"I agree that
And I'm sorry
you didn't appreciate my additional perspective and advice. I remember my
days living in
To my mind, the
speaker card practice you question is of little importance. Many agencies
have this same requirement without controversy. While it may allow the
Mayor to manipulate public comment, I've also seen times when a member of
the public waits until the comment on that item begins then turns in a speaker
card or just appears at the podium in order to get in the last word, sometimes
smearing previous speakers. Fairness in public comment or in the open
marketplace of ideas is not guaranteed.
My point was not
to irritate you or to tell you things you may already know. Only to share what
I've learned over the past 16 years. Obviously, I appreciate the Sunshine
efforts you have already made in
Good
luck, Rich
******************************************************************************************************************************
----- Original Message #6 -----
From: halweber@earthlink.net [mailto:halweber@earthlink.net]
Sent:
To: Richard P. McKee
Cc: Francke - Terry; Snyder - Jennifer Lentz
Subject: RE: The Richard P. McKee Perspective
Rich:
Your
perspective is very interesting. However, you covered everything about
54954.3 EXCEPT my complaint.
When Frank
Quintero took over as Mayor of Glendale on
The ONLY
issue that I have is a requirement that does not allow a member of the public
to address the council unless they indicate their desire to do so BEFORE the
presentation of an Agenda Item commences.
At no time
did I:
1.
Object to the fact that not every person in attendance is given an
opportunity to testify prior to action being taken.
2.
Object to a moderator not allowing a back and forth shouting match.
3.
Claim that I have no faith in public officials to ferret out the garbage from
the jewels to find the proper decision for the entire community..
4.
Comment on the appropriateness of the use of Speaker Cards, rather than
the use of some other method such as Standing Up, Raising One's Hand, etc, to
indicate a desire to address the council.
5.
Complain about the length of time (3 minutes, 5 minutes or whatever) that is
allowed for comments to the council.
6.
Indicate that I was not aware that there are other ways to communicate, such as
writing to council members and/or to the local newspaper, or using the phone.
7.
Claim that elected officials do not have a tough job or are not doing their
best
8.
Promote endless meetings.
9.
Claim anyone is corrupt or have their minds made up before I (???) speak to
them.
10.
Claim I am being shafted.
Regarding paying attention to candidates before we put them in
office, one of the features on my "Open Government (???) in
Glendale City Council Election Information
Years ago I
was active in promoting, (1) changing Glendale City Council
meetings from afternoons to evenings at
http://web.archive.org/web/19990423024021/http://www.uwsa-gcc.org/
Hal Weber
******************************************************************************************************************************
-----
Original Message #5 -----
From: Richard P.
McKee
To: Terry Francke;halweber@earthlink.net
Sent:
Subject: RE:
Dear Hal,
A rule of
reason: The object of 54954.3 emanates from the "open
marketplace of ideas." It is meant not to provide every person with
an opportunity to testify prior to an action taken, but rather is meant to
provide our representatives a chance to hear a variety of ideas from their
constituents prior to decision-making. It's not who packs the
audience with the most speakers, but who provides the most common sense
and sensitivity. The fact that you or I don't like what
is said, or find it false, does not guarantee us the opportunity for
retort. Public comment is not a time for a back and forth shouting match;
we find too much incivility in politics as it is. We must have faith in
our public officials to ferret out the garbage from the jewels, to find the
proper decision for the entire community.
Without a rule
of reason to control the debate of contentious issues, the war could be
endless; a back and forth of charges and counter-charges. I agree that
Most of all,
remember these elected officials have a tough job when they're doing the best
they can for us. Endless meetings do no one any good. On the other
hand, if you believe your electeds are corrupt, or
their minds are made up before you come to speak, what difference does it make
whether you fill out a speaker card or not. If you think you're getting
shafted, vote them out. We'd be a lot better off if we paid more
attention to the candidates before we put them into office.
Thanks for listening
to my perspective, and good luck,
- -
Rich (Board member & past-president of CalAware,
and past-president of
******************************************************************************************************************************
----- Original Message #4 -----
From: Terry Francke [mailto:terry@calaware.org]
Sent:
To: halweber@earthlink.net
Cc: JSnyder@da.lacounty.gov; Richard McKee
Subject: Re: Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley Supports
Glendale Mayor Frank Quintero's Suppression of Public Input
Hal,
Now that I have seen Jennifer's conclusion on this matter and upon
her invitation to opine as well, I'm not sure we all have the same
understanding of the facts here. My understanding is that the mayor's
rule prevents anyone, in effect, from spontaneously addressing the council in
reaction to something said either by the presenter of an item or by previous
speakers for, against or otherwise. My understanding is that this rule
operates independent of any time considerations or other practical constraints.
My understanding is that the rule in effect says: Sign up to address the
item before it has been presented, or stay silent.
If I am correct in these understandings, my view is that the
mayor's rule is an arbitrary limitation of speech inconsistent with the Brown
Act. Government Code Section 54953.4 (b) states: "The legislative body of
a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent
of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to,
regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public
testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker."
Referring to this provision the Attorney General has concluded:
"What is a 'reasonable' period of time for public discussion will, in our
view, necessarily vary with the facts and circumstances in each case. The
time allocated for the meeting, the number of agenda items, the complexity of
each item, and the number of persons wishing to
address the legislative body on each item of general public interest would
require consideration." No. 92-212,
The mayor's rule seems to be: "At NO time will speakers be
permitted to address the council in reaction to statements made by presenters
or prior speakers on an item on the agenda unless they have anticipated the
need to do so by submitting a speaker's card prior to the item's
presentation." To me this seems much broader than a rule requiring
speakers to identify themselves or the topic of their comments, or precluding
debate with council members. It means, among other things, that
presenters and advance card submitters may have free reign to address the
council and create a record with misleading or outright distortive
statements with little or no fear of prompt challenge by anyone else in the
audienceno matter how much time might be left for such reactions. That
prospect can hardly be said to serve any public interest.
A body can set X minutes overall or X minutes per item or X
minutes per person, or some combination of these limits, as an utterly
content-neutral and clearly authorized means of husbanding time for public
comment, so long as the limits are "reasonable (given) the facts and
circumstances in each case." A rule that says that irrespective of how much time might be available
otherwise, members of the public cannot address the council on an
item unless they have made an advance reservation to do so has no relationship
to any rational interest of the body consistent with "the intent of
subdivision (a)," which of course states: "Every agenda for regular
meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to
directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the
public, before or during the legislative
body's consideration of the item . . ." (emphasis added).
Terry Francke
******************************************************************************************************************************
-----
Original Message #3 -----
From: Hal
Weber
To: Jennifer Lentz Snyder
On
halweber@earthlink.net wrote:
Jennifer, thank you for the suggestion.
I recently
joined Californians Aware and then sent this information to Terry Francke
on
I remember
Terry Francke from years ago when he was with the California First Amendment
Coalition, but I am unfamiliar with Rich McKee.
I have also
joined the First Amendment Coalition, formerly
Hal Weber
******************************************************************************************************************************
-----
Original Message #2 -----
Sent:
Subject: Re:
Dear Mr.
Weber,
I urge you to present the same facts you sent for our review to Californians
Aware, Terry Francke, Rich McKee or any of the subject matter experts for their
review of the facts and the law.
JENNIFER LENTZ SNYDER
Assistant Head Deputy
Public Integrity Division
(213) 974-6513
******************************************************************************************************************************
-----
Original Message #1 -----
From: Hal
Weber
To: District Attorney Steve Cooley
New
Content:
Home Page of Open
Government (???) in