Tonight's meeting is to clarify the role of the new "Traffic and Public Safety Commission," which replaced the old "Traffic Commission." Some time ago, the Council changed the name of the commission but didn't explain adequately to the commission what new authority or scope it had. So the new and expanded "Traffic and Public Safety Commission" has been doing exactly what the old "Traffic Commission" did.
So we'd expect the Council to explain what the point of the name change was.
So we'd expect the Council to explain what the point of the name change was.
But to make things interesting, Commissioner Al Rodbell is challenging the possibly un-Constitutional city law that allows for the arrest and prosecution of anyone who doesn't obey orders to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance (which also contains the uttering of "under God" that some argue is un-Constitutional).
Enc.
Feel free to print this, or put it in your own words. Meeting is in a few hours.
-----------------------
The Joint meeting of the City Council and the Traffic and Public Safety Commission tonight at the Balour Senior/Community center could turn out to be interesting. If they ignore responding to this essay that I sent to the city official earlier, then I have to decide whether to support the man in Florida who was threatened by a police officer for expressing his rejection of the Pledge of Allegiance, or cravenly succumb to local authority.
I really don't know how this will unfold, but if you have the time to read the essay carefully, you will see this is no trivial matter for me. You will see my objection to having the Pledge as official government business is based on a Supreme Court decision that predates "Under God" This "joint" meeting structure of two government bodies is not described or defined in any city ordinance or Brown Act compendium that I could locate - so anything could happen. I did send in a specific suggestion for this agenda that they refused to include in the 87 page agenda packet, so I'll give the link to it here.
It would be good to have supporters in the audience, yet I feel I will be accompanied by Justice Robert Jackson and his eight colleagues on that 1943 Supreme court, although I'm not sure the language of their decision and dissent is still intelligible in today's world.
I guess we will find out.
Al Rodbell

