This, according to First Amendment Coalition executive director David Snyder, is illegal.
From the Inbox:
Thanks for your email. In responding to inquiries like yours, we can give general information regarding open government and speech issues but cannot provide specific legal advice or representation.It's technologically trivial to allow public speakers to Zoom or phone in. Why is the City Council locking the public out of participation in the public process?
None of the governor's executive orders has waived the requirement that legislative bodies subject to the Brown Act must provide a means by which the public can "directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public." Gov. Code section 54954.3. This means addressing the body live and in person. Although "in person" is not possible now, legislative bodies still must provide a way, to the extent possible, for members of the public to address the body during the meeting. Allowing the submission of written comments only beforehand is not sufficient to meet the Brown Act's requirements.
David Snyder
Nothing stops Mayor Blakespear from getting her way. She has been violating the Brown Act since 2019 with the failure to notify the public about her plans for the Leichtag homeless parking lot. It's full speed ahead, and damn the public.
ReplyDeleteBrown Act!
DeleteDrink!
Pro tip:
The Ralph M. Brown Act, AKA California Government Code 54950, was passed in 1953. In the 67 years since taking effect, there have been exactly zero charged and convicted of violating the Act. In spite of this, the Brown Act has become the single most prolific law cited by blog morons accusing a crime.
It’s also a great drinking game. To date, 347,927,642 drinks have been chugged due to silly and stupid Brown Act references.
Brown Act!
Now chug it.
347,927,643.
EU, you're asking the wrong question. It isn't "Why is the City Council locking the public out of participation in the public process?"
DeleteIt's: "When isn't the City Council locking the public out of participation in the public process?"
9:05's blustering is predictable both in content and source.
The Brown is in place because even politicians knew that our local government needed the public to be participant rather than seen as something to run over.
DeleteI have a violating brown act every morning, sometimes twice!
ReplyDeleteBlakespear's failure to provide transparency to the homeless parking lot pales in comparison to the antics of one of the main people who was against the lot, Crista Curtis, who has proven herself a fool, an attention whore, and possibly racist. She's discredited that group, and perhaps that was intentional as well. Only her hairdresser knows for sure. Thunder, however, has my vote, but she has some explaining to do as she was affiliated with this group as well.
ReplyDeleteSo your claim 3:28 is that a council of elected representatives' years of shenanigans running an entire city like it's their private playground and ATM "pales" next to one extremist?
DeleteCurtis does not represent this group. She has nothing to do with their legit complaint over how the homeless parking lot deal went down behind closed doors.
Not even sure what your point is, that's how ridiculous your logic.
4:05pm. Crista had been the NC3 groups go to talking head in going before the TV camera's a couple of months ago.
ReplyDeleteI would hope that has changed significantly as you imply. That group does not deserve to be associated in any way with the version of Crista.
She represented that group up front whenever there was a camera around.
Thank you for clearing that up. There are many others in that group that deserve better representation than Crista.
4:05pm. To be clear, are you are saying Crista is no longer a member of the NC3 group, or is it that her leadership role has been has been adjusted?
ReplyDeleteI'm not 4:05 and not a member but do know she does not represent their sentiments. look on EV and you'll see posts against her from nc3 members. go look for yourself 7:52 since it's your panties that are bunched up over some point you're not very good at explaining.
DeleteNo idea if she's a member or whether the "role" you claim has been "adjusted." write nc3 to ask and take a poll if that floats your boat. then report back.
10:46am Thanks for taking your time to provide such valuable info.
ReplyDelete10:38pm. Thanks. Your statement definitely clears up any question as to Crista's continued membership in the NC3 groups various activities.
ReplyDeleteWith that now cleared up, it appears the NC3 group is on the same page with her protesting and shouting expletives at our deputies like what happened at Moonlight Beach a couple of weeks ago.
It now appears the NC3 group is on the same page with Crista protesting at Swami's with no one wearing masks and congregating tightly together as if there is no threat to passing on the virus to others.
Good to know.
Our council members are elected officials who are paid and are supposed to act with fiduciary duty towards our citizens. Crista Curtis is a citizen who is expressing her First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Speech. I do not agree with her choice to not use a mask in public, but she is an individual citizen and not an elected official. I support the right of any citizen who wants to express his or her position in peaceful manner. Comparing a citizen advocate with the responsibilities of our council members and mayor doesn't cut it.
ReplyDelete