Hal
As I've just viewed the video and read the interpretation of Rich McKee here is
one of his comments:
"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."
Though there may have been times when Mr. Rich may have
experienced speakers getting the last word or smearing a council member, that
has not been the case in
The current practice of letting speakers speak
first on the agenda item, followed by the staff, has one significant problem.
It allows the staff or council members to take a comment by a speaker out of
context and proceed with beating a straw horse. This practice is almost
commonplace by the city council members. Other members of the public who
recognize a misstatement or a falsehood could then submit a card to speak while
the subject is still being introduced and before the vote. We shouldn't allow
someone to ask a pertinent question based on the statements made by staff? Really?
Often, staff would present a false or
misleading statement that would make it appear that an issue has been
considered or of, they willfully misinterpret the speaker or leave out relevant
data. For example: In the case of a lawsuit I filed against the city
challenging the EIR for downtown. Councilmember Weaver stated that the city was
going to file a claim against me for legal costs the city incurred and that the
city would seek an amount of $600,000 against me. The city attorney knows
that the city could only file a claim for the cost of the maintaining the legal
record. But my attorney had provided the staff to do so. That statement was
used by Weaver several times, as if intended to warn or threaten anyone with
the high legal fees the city might incur if anyone dared challenge the city on
a program EIR. The real cost to me would be only a few thousand if the judged
agreed to award any damages.
I was prevented from correcting that gross
misinterpretation of the facts. Mr. Weaver statements were both willful and
negligent. This event and many others are a common practice by the councilmen.
The violation of the intent of the Brown Act is one-sided, generally by council
and staff. Not by the public.
When Weaver was the mayor and the city was conducting the budget
study session, often I've been the only speaker. The sessions would be
scheduled from about
Think about it. The city has doubled the city
budget from 400 million to over 800 million in ten years while the population
increased by only 5% and inflation by less than 25%. I've been challenging
pay increases, project cost overruns, and subsidies in the tens of millions of
dollars to developers. I've been pointing out huge salary increases, huge
pension increases, and high charges for electricity to residents (One of the
three highest fees in
So here is the crux of the opinion by Mr. Mckee given
By almost any standard, we have been
unsuccessful in stopping the fiscal irresponsibility. Yet Mr. Mckee feels that it is the public who must then acquiesce?
What is this man thinking? These councilmen ran for office with the people's
objective in mind. They gave promises to support the voice of the voters. But
once they get into office they are then too delicate to bear the brunt of an
angry outburst by a constituent? My responses have not been outbursts, and this
video, if Mr. Mckee was paying attention, shows Mr.
Quintero also trying to invalidate my request to speak card because I did not
put an address on it. Quintero has known me for over eight years. I supported
his second run for office, I've been to his home and
his place of business. and I've served on boards with
him.
To try to invalidate my request to speak on
grounds that I failed to put my address on a card is not only illegal, it is
preposterous. Quintero's intent is to suppress
my opportunity to speak. The evidence is incontrovertible.
Hal feel free to forward this to Mr. Mckee or the state attorney general if you feel it is
pertinent.
Thank you for all you are doing for the public.
Herbert Molano
From: halweber@earthlink.net
To: Rich@calaware.org
CC: terry@calaware.org; JSnyder@da.lacounty.gov
Subject: RE: The Richard P. McKee Perspective
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:00:33 -0700
Reference:
California Attorney General Opinion No. 92-212, May 7, 1992
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 -----
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-----
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 -----
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