Saturday, November 17, 2007

New City Intimidation Ordinance?

At the last council meeting, on the consent calendar (there is no public discussion on an item unless it is pulled by the public or a council member), there was an ordinance to amend two chapters of the municipal code.

click image for large view

click image for large view

The blocked out passages are from a highlighter pen, sorry about that:
C. The presiding officer and D. of Section 403 of the California Penal Code

D. is the section to be added. The sheriff already has the authority to do this.

Section A. and C. already state that. My take on this is that the stronger wording of Section D is meant to intimidate people.

Local activist Lynn Braun pulled the item so there was council discussion. The vote to approve the amendment was 3-2 (boys against the girls).

I am calling this the Braun Amendment. I believe it is an effort to intimidate and silence Lynn Braun who is a perennial thorn in the side of the Encinitas city council. I have criticized Lynn Braun in the past, encouraging her to take public speaking classes to help her at the podium. But it's the council's job to patiently listen to to public speakers for those precious 3 minutes, no matter how uncomfortable it may make them.

As for the 2nd reading, all new ordinances must be "read" (voted on) twice at an open meeting. My guess is that the 2nd reading will probably be on Dec. 5th or Dec. 12th.

51 comments:

  1. while Lynn is a little whacked, I do fully support all citizens getting involved in City Governance.

    I support Lynn on this one and think the city should nix the revisions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. thanks.

    Teresa Barth has been letting people know there is to be a Council Meeting on December 5 to discuss closed session notification. There is no entry under agenda, yet, just says, "Special Council Meeting," so far. Usually Council Meetings have not been held the first Wednesday of the month, but they are skipping the day before Thanksgiving.

    Every time I leave a Council Meeting there are two or three police, two in uniform, and Captain Fowler, who follow us out to the parking lot. No reason for this foolishness.

    This an ordinance meant to intimidate activists, watchdogs and whistleblowers.

    Power corrupts, and doesn't care to be questioned by the "common" man, or woman.

    We got rid of Alberto Gonzales, and we should be able to get Council to not renew Glenn Sabine's contract.

    Patrick Murphy is suspect, too. Neither he nor the City Manager have unfettered discretion to interpret the law according to political agendas and economic bias.

    The state law supercedes the City Ordinances. The City is routinely violating the Brown Act.

    Teresa Barth is keeping her campaign promises. She has courage, integrity, and welcome brevity, too.

    I am glad Maggie Houlihan saw the light on this issue.

    grateful to you, JP, and Leucadian,
    lynn

    ReplyDelete
  3. God bless you Lynn... just don’t get as stressed as you did with the roundabouts.....

    I agree with most of your points, if not all...

    I have not seen anything beyond pure stupid intelligence that would lead me to believe that Patrick Murphy does not support Encinitas.

    He is in a pretty tough position being pushed by Building Industry of America Pansies Jerome Stocks and Jim Bond. The funny thing is that "Democrat" simple man former sling blade Danny dalagher also supports up-zoning.

    So you have 3 boy council members pushing subdivisions at every corner. why wouldn't Patrick try and save his ASS.

    I think Patrick is OK. He is one of the few Staff members that lives in Encinitas, AND, I think he actually has the ability to listen to Citizens and realize what the future holds.

    I think Patrick has caved on previous decisions on big box style development in Encinitas. But he isnt bad for Encinitas as a whole. Give him some reign and he will follow the citizen and make this town something special.

    Watch the next elections- Anyone with money from the Building Industries of American and the Fire Department Union ARE FULLY TAINTED....It’s bad enough that bought will employ a direct order to support their pansies to the fullest extent possible.

    You want to see humor? Watch the comments to this simple blog comment.

    God bless and good night,

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry for that that second to last paragraph...

    The fire department slough will argue that the next time I am sucking air I will not be so opposed to paying their $100K per year for nine shifts per month.

    Shit I have a PhD in physics and I don't get paid that. And I work 23 days per month. What’s up?.... Lets see what society has to say.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Danny was a commie before democrat. Now Danny is in love with W Bush.

    Danny is trying to be a copy cat. Spend big, make dumb decisions, decieve the public, be deluded. Just like W.

    Danny has been for raising taxes. That sets him a part from W Bush. Danny raised taxes illegally, so that makes up for the deviation!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Howard Jarvis is complete right. You get an A for this week

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have to disagree with Jack about Patrick Murphy. I have watched him too many years to believe that he is a decent guy working for the interests of the citizens of Encinitas. There have been way too many interpretations of the building code that defy a common sense reading of the code. When he really gets boxed into a corner, his response is always the same: "This is the way we always do it." The Sheridan/Andrew project in Leucadia is the perfect example. A host of irregularities were brought up by the residents, and then swept under the carpet by Murphy. The sewer slope question alone should have forced a redesign.

    Sure, he's taking orders from the majority on the council, but does the man have any self respect and ethics? It appears not. Right now he is working hand and hand with Phil Cotton and the three men on the council to push development as fast as they can. It seems they want to shove through as much as they can before the 2008 elections. Insiders have complained to me about Planner Kerry Kusiak, but it is his boss Patrick Murphy who is the true problem. It was Murphy that set up the "informational" agenda item for the Browns on Nov. 7. Who else gets this kind of favoritism? There needs to be a house cleaning in the Planning Department.

    I'm with Lynn Braun on the ordinance issue. This is a blatant attempt to intimidate and silence not just Lynn, but many others in the city. I think it is a measure of the success of these courageous individuals that the city is pushing back so hard. What is the city trying to hide? This ordinance change indicates their desperation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Did Patrick Murphy ever work for the Eckes?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Don't tase me, bro!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkMkGOpAF4s

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon definately has good point about Patrick.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Patrick Murphy and Glenn Sabine once threatened me with a lawsuit if I didn't back off a a certain public issue. Too bad it was over the phone, although a friend of mine did hear it. For all of the naysayers about Lynn and Russ, I will say that they bring forth information tht others have not chosen to bring up. They are the ones who have stood before an angry Council and held up the Brown Act in their hands, showing them where Council is wrong.This ordinanace is nothing more than an attempt to intimadate and silence a public that may not agreee with the Council. It gives Glenn the opportunity to spend even more of the CIty's money suing people. He has already made over $100,000 off of us citizens on the Braun case.If passed on the second reading, being an activist in Encinitas could end a little like being on Senator Joe McCarthy's "Communist" list. We cannot let this happen. As soon as it is agendized, please make your thoughts and feelings heard. If you can't make the meeting, then write or call all the Council and Phil Cotton. This ordinance didn't come out of NO where. WHO'S IDEA WAS IT? That would be intersting to know. And, why did Adam Kaye not print it. It seems like news to me, but perhaps I am wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ANYONE EVER HEARD OF THE "CHILLING EFFECT"? ESSENTIALLY AN ORGANIZATION OR GOVERNMENT MAKES IT SO DIFFICULT FOR ANYONE TO DISAGREE, THAT PEOPLE BEGIN TO STOP DISAGREEING. IT HAS WORKED WELL IN MANY COUNTRIES AS A WAY TO KEEP DISSENT DOWN. IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION, PEOPLE WERE SENT TO MENTAL HOSPITALS IF THEY DID NOT GO ALONG WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY. DON'T THINK THAT CAN HAPPEN HERE? LET'S SEE WHO GETS ARRESTED FIRST. THE BEAUTY OF THIS ORDINACE IS THAT IT DOES NOT TELL US WHAT IS CONSIDERED DISORDERLY CONDUCT. THIS GIVE COUNCIL AND SABINE LOTS OF LATITUDE.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cardiffian is right. The Soviet Union had most of their protestors in mental hospitals. The rationale was that they must be "crazy" if they didn't go along with the beliefs of the Communist Party. The Chilling Effect, sometimes known as the "spirial of silence" is often the first step in putting the citizens on notice that they better behave in a certain way, or else there will be serious consequences. It is seen all of the time in this country with the so called "whistle blowers". These people, although supposedly protected, have a difficult time finding work in their same area of expertise if they blow the whistle on a certain company.This ordinace, although it seems somewhat innocuous, is scary. And it could be the first pass in the City's attempt to not allow any public input into City decision making. Don't let it pass.

    ReplyDelete
  14. although the ordinance may be an attempt at intimidation, actually using it would seem to me like career suicide. being an old bezerkly hippie with a wife arrested on the steps of sproul hall with thousands yelling "free speech - shut it down" in the plaza makes me feel confident that people power will usually prevail over bureaucratic stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think the real "CHILLING EFFECT" is when people post in ALL CAPS!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I would guess that this is a Gary Murphy ordinance and not a Lynn Braun ordinance. The council has always been intimidated by Gary because he will yell from the back of the room when the council lies.

    ReplyDelete
  17. People yelling from the back of the room should not be encouraged. If you think that mob rule is the best form of government, then perhaps you are in the wrong country?

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is a long, but I'll post it all at once rather than breaking it down to several postings. Thanks for your patience and understanding, here. First, I think Gary Murphy is great, too, speaking out at Council Meetings.

    This new ordinance was allegedly brought to Council by Captain Fowler of the Sheriff's Dept. At the meeting, he was unclear, why, just stated he answers directly to Phil Cotton. Teresa Barth pointed out that the deputies answer to Council, that the presiding officer is not the City Manager.

    Fowler didn't provide the names of any local cities that have enacted similar ordinances, either. He was not well prepared for this agenda item, obviously.

    But when Russell Marr asked to see the letter or memo requesting the ordinance, he was told by the Clerk that there was only the agendized four page "staff report," no such letter or memo, nothing in writing. Russ was told that Fowler brought it up at a staff meeting. This was probably a meeting with Phil Cotton, Patrick Murphy and Sabine present. There should be minutes from these meetings, or an audio recording if they are making policy decisions that have such a profound effect on the citizens’ perception of our ability to participate.

    James Bond said it was designed to prevent people from interrupting. "We don't interrupt you," he lied. This was right after he interrupted me when I tried to speak about the fact that public speakers should be allowed three minutes each for oral communications, even if more than five speakers sign up to speak. People who go to the trouble to come, to fill out a speaker slip, prepare a presentation, should be allowed three minutes each. A person's time should not be started until he or she states his or her name. No need to rudely interrupt, as is so often done, to throw a usually nervous speaker off track.

    I was interrupted by Bond saying, "get back on the subject," when I was using the time limitation of 15 minutes, total, for oral communications, as something that Council is refusing to address, when Council has unlimited time for its comments and reports at the end of the Council Meetings.

    By this ordinance, Council is now creating a "police state" atmosphere to chill all of our right to free speech. James Bond said the ordinance could be used to prevent protests. This is too broad, and takes away your rights to object, not just mine.

    Yes, our legal case is a can of worms. Patrick Murphy keeps returning our cashier's check and will not allow us to apply for a retroactive permit or a certificate of compliance or allowable use, so that we can put this matter behind us. He just sent back our check again; it arrived here this past Friday, when City Hall was closed, of course.

    Dan Dalager and former Mayor Rick Shea, who has a residence near ours, also, both have garage conversions, eliminating the garages, unlike our studio. We still have a garage, used for off-street parking. Dalager and Shea's properties should be considered legal non-conforming if they pre-existed the incorporation of Encinitas, and so should ours. We are not a nuisance, didn't do a conversion, and are not "illegal," except according to a deceptive lawsuit factory decision manipulated by Glenn Sabine to put us in default, deny us any trial or public hearing before the City about the City's case against us, an overt attempt to shut us down and shut us up on all city matters. It hasn't worked, and never will.

    Thanks, Jack, Dr. Lorri, Cardiffian, everyone, for your words of support for free speech, encouraging public participation. I don't know how Jerome Stocks thinks he can get elected again when he comes out on the side of development interests and lack of open government. Thank God James Bond is not running again.

    Just because the City has done something wrong for twenty years, Jim, does not make it right. It simply makes it that much more shameful that you participated in going on 16 years of disingenuous, deceptive decision making. Now that it has been pointed out to Council, you are too stubborn and full of false pride to admit it.

    Hey, I used all CAPS on a letter to Code Enforcement, once about the developer who fraudulently developed two properties next door to us; the same company, Signature Series, Inc, Richard Larsen, now bankrupt, who has cheated dozens of unsuspecting people in this community out of millions of dollars. I used CAPS to differentiate between what Cindy Adams had written to me, and my response; I was writing "between her lines." My letter was used as evidence of my "hostility" to the judge, emphasizing the all CAPS, where I said Richard Larsen is a plague on our community. This secret meeting with the judge, where incorrect opinion was offered as "fact," resulted in a raid of our home by six deputy sheriffs, battering ram in hand, and accompanied by Marianne Buscemi, of code enforcement, for our allegedly being a "zoning violation."

    The officers were to inspect the garage area, only. They went beyond that, into habitable portions of our residence. Then they lost the video tape, they took, showing them searching our drawers, closets and cupboards. Never was there a warrant hearing, before or after the raid, or an evidentiary hearing. Accessory units are allowed by right in Encinitas.

    That e-mail of mine used in the City's secret meeting supposedly demonstrated that I am "hostile" to the City, so the officers were allowed to give no notice of the "inspection warrant," and were allowed to arrest us if we denied them entry, and to then break in, anyway. Of course we did allow them in, although Russell's name was not on the warrant. Nor was he ever given a notice of "violation."

    There has been obvious favoritism in our case, and the City, under Guerin and Stocks has used the police to shut people up, and lock them up, if they can find a way. It could happen to you! The new ordinance is overly broad. "Interference" is too open to the unfettered "discretion" of City officers or police officers, and the previous ordinance was sufficient. This ordinance isn't designed for clarity, but for intimidation. Teresa Barth and Maggie Houlihan are right on this issue, pure and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  19. not if you are yelling when the council lies
    go GARY
    I got your back,

    ReplyDelete
  20. The ordinance will bring the california penal code into play. That takes it out of the city's hands and into the court system with the county prosecuting. Once the Sheriff's deputies write up a report of not cooperating, the person faces a plea of guilty or not guilty. This isn't the university, unless you consider Florida where the guy was tasered.

    The ordinance is vindictive and oppressive. Is meant to create a criminal record?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anyone interested might want to refer to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It states:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's time to recall the three Napoleons on the council, Stocks, Dalager, and Bond.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Forget recall. Let's work on getting some new candidates for next November. 3 of the 5 are up for reelection. We ought to be able to take down at least one if not two.Come on folks, some of you citizens need to run. I don't know enough, as I just moved here. But this blog is great.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think new member has a point. By the time we recalled anyone, November will be here. So, who is going to step up to the plate? We have a lot of intelligent, informed, and active citizens in our community. We just need a couple.

    ReplyDelete
  25. We need two to make a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ms. Braun I have seen you speak on several occasions and I have observed that you often have time donated to you so that you may speak for 9 minutes instead of the standard 3. I have observed that you do not manage this time wisely. May I make the suggestion that you do not need to use the entire time alloted to you if you have already made your points? There is no need to start looping in order to finish off 2 superfluous minutes. Thank you and God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  27. In the meantime, Stocks, Dalager, and Bond need to told they won't be allowed to take away citizens rights.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I have a question. Why now? This ordnance has been on the books for many years. Why the sudden change? Is this really about Lynn Braun's case, or is it a way for the Council to stiffle even more citizens?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Possible answers to why now:

    The state has replied to Patrick Murphy and the city on the draft housing element. It will greatly increase the density of Encinitas, create "affordable (low income) housing overlay zones, and take away citizens rights to protest these projects if the council majority approves the plan. All these changes to our current housing element are a developer's dream. Intimidating or arresting anyone who's very vocal in their No on this draft could create that chilling effect.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I was talking about oral communications public speakers being allowed to speak for at least 3 minutes each.

    As far as time donations, everyone has the right to get them, and use them, for agenda items. For instance in discussing the Sands Trailer Park conversion, one older gentleman took nine minutes, then James Bond summarily granted him an extra two minutes, and then he talked over that for about another minute. He was not escorted out. The City is inconsistent in the enforcement of its ordinances. When it allowed to capriciously pick and choose, those who speak out against City policies will be targetted; unfortuantely that has been the "human nature" of the majority of our current Council.

    The City also again violated the Brown Act at the last Council Meeting by giving NO NOTICE whatsover to a new item introduced on the consent calendar, Item #9A, "holding some entity (SDWD?) harmless." This was passed by a unanimous vote. No vote or action is to be taken without 72 hr. notice for all agenda items, including closed session agenda items discussed before regular council meetings.

    Thanks everyone for caring about free speech. One "remark" from the back of the room, or someone in the audience making an oral "Point of Order," in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order, is not interfering with or disrupting a meeting. We don't need a room full of police officers, either. One should be sufficient, or two, max. These officers would be better off checking into the Freida St. and related residential situations that about six members of the public came to the Nov. 7 Council Meeting to protest, with a couple signing up to speak during oral communications. One changed her mind about speaking, perhaps feeling intimidated that the dominating police presence (watching every move) would be critical of her for suggesting they were not doing their job?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Oh, thanks for your comments, previous poster, but out of all the times I have spoken, I have only used two time donations, for a total of nine minutes on two occasions.

    The second time, I didn't use all of my nine minutes.

    When one is speaking on agenda items, particularly on the Consent Calendar, one has to do a lot of speaking trying to explain.

    This confusion happens when staff, such as the Clerk or the Sheriff, offer no staff report when the item is pulled, but are only available to answer Council's, not the citizens', questions.

    My questions are routinely unanswered on consent calendar items, which I have pulled.

    Most of the time when I have spoken, and always, about my case (unless it's mentioned in the minutes, as recently, of improperly noticed and improperly reported closed sessions), I am generally speaking during oral communications. On several occasions I and others have only been allowed two minutes for oral communications.

    At the Nov. 14th Council Meeting I spoke three minutes during oral communications, three minutes (with no time donation) on the Minutes, and three minutes on the Police Intimidation Ordinance.

    Thanks for reading and commenting, whatever your opinion is. The more people that participate, who pay attention, care, and take action, the better for all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Who, What, Where, When and Why? All good journalistic questions regarding this issue. Unfortunately, all have not been answered. Let's ask Council at the next meeting. I e-mailed Adam Kaye to see if he would also check into it. Perhas others might want to do the same thing? This change in ordinance is NOT (sorry for the capital letters) about the Braun case, IMHO. It is about something else. The Braun case has been going on much too long for this to be about that. Free speech is hard to get back oonce you lose it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. what's next? A "Dress Code"?

    ReplyDelete
  34. We woman will all have to wear black and cover our heads. The men, of course, will be able to wear anything.

    I have an idea on how to get rid of Jerome. Let's find him a job with a local congressman as his campaign manager or something. Jerome wants to get ahead in politics so this would be good for him and good for the citizens of Encinitas. See, we are thinking of you Jerome.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I was at the meeting and found it puzzling that the question wasn't asked (or asked enough), why is this an issue if there was only one incident in 7 years that was resolved without incident?

    I am new to Encinitas politics, but it is clear that this police intimidation approach is happening all over the country and more violently than here. It has been the steadfast standard of the Bush Administration for 7 years, so it isn't surprising. This is a direct parallel to DoJ's disregard for constitutional rights.

    BTW, I thought I heard the police person say that South LA was where similar ammendements were added. Nobody followed up, despite lots and lots of obfuscation.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Don't tase me bro!!!

    Free speech?

    Not in our politics.

    Throw the bums out at the next election.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "People who go to the trouble to come, to fill out a speaker slip, prepare a presentation, should be allowed three minutes each. "

    What is magic about three minutes? The agenda clearly states that 15minutes is the max time 4 oral communications. Maybe 2 minutes would be better, because many people use way too much time to get their message across and end up loosing everyone. Some citizens repeatedly don't prepare what they are going to say and totally ramble. It ends up making it easier for the council to blow off the speaker and the speaker's ideas. In the worst cases the council will vote against them and not speak to the issue just simply because certain citizens did exercise their right to speak. The council clearly is trying to avoid rewarding the annoyance.

    For some citizen speakers it would be better to write out their speech and have SOMEONE ELSE read it. The impact will be 5,000,000 times stronger.

    "No need to rudely interrupt, as is so often done, to throw a usually nervous speaker off track."

    I wish the Mayor would interrupt more often and get both the council and citizens back to the subject on hands. There are several citizens and one elected who go on and on and don't add information to the conversation. They make the whole thing unpleasant to watch. It is UNNECESSARILY and makes it less desirable for other citizens to participate. It even makes some people sympathetic of the COUNCIL! That is a colossal backfire.

    Sure it is everyone's right repeatedly to go up to the podium and ramble on, but it is not the wise thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  38. anon 8:20 has a bizarre notion of freedom of speech. Don't get up in front of the council unless you're a polished political speaker. If you're just an ordinary citizen, you are an annoyance, so that's why the council will vote against your request. Why should the mayor interrupt a speaker more often? Quid pro quo for annoyance?

    ReplyDelete
  39. anon 11:34,

    I don't think the comment was about freedom of speech. It was about thinking clearly about your actions.

    ReplyDelete
  40. In an ideal world we would all be polished speakers. However, how many of you have ever stood up in front of the Council and attempted to make your point in 3 minutes? I have done it on a number of occasions and each time I feel like the village idiot. I have spoken to large orgnizations and felt more comfortable than speaking to this Council. I get glares from Glenn and Jerome, a big ole smile from Danny , a dazed loook from Jim, and Maggie and Teresa do pay attention, but without one of the other 3 men their vote will be useless. In an ideal world we would all be great spekers, and in an ideal world we wouldn't have them jamming down an Ordinance that doesn't do anything but intiidate citiens. If someone is unruly, the City and Sheriff already have the authority to remove said individual. So again why now? we had better find out before it is too late.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Speaking in front of the council is never easy for the novice. I have often seen both James Bond and Jerome Stocks interrupt speakers. It's revealing how much leeway they give the "friendly" speakers and how little to the unfriendly. How about a little fairness to all?

    There is no reason the council can't give 3 full minutes to each speaker under Oral Communications when there are more than five. Bond can ramble on endlessly, committee reports are often unnecessarily long, and there are silly awards and presentations that often go an hour or more. This is where time could be saved and nothing lost.

    It has only been recently that more people have wanted to speak under Oral Communications. I think that says a lot about the state of our city.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "...spekers; intiidate citiens..."
    Is Dr Lorri using telepathy instead of the english lnguage again? Poor Dr. Lorri... As the ad once said... Without chemistry, life itself would be impossible...

    ReplyDelete
  43. Glenn and Jerome:
    So nice to see you read the blog. I am not sure what you are talking about re: chemistry, but I am pretty sure it is not supposed to be flattering to me. If I were telepathic, I would share with you the exact date and time your services will no longer be needed by the City and Citizens of Encinitas.So for now, I will correct my typographical error and say intimidate instead of my typo. So sorry my typing skills don't meet your high expectations.However, at least I post under my own name, something I have not yet seen either one of you do.Why don't you surprise me?

    ReplyDelete
  44. *sigh*... Dr. lorri isn't the first person to lay down a few typos. Gentle Blogger...may I point out a few of YOUR faux pas?

    1. You didn't use a period after "Dr"

    2. "lnguage" is spelled "language"

    3. English, as in the phrase, "English language" is always spelled with a capital "E".

    ReplyDelete
  45. Its a fricken blog- Not and english exam. The freaks who focus on typos are anal retentive wusses. And I could give a shit how you think I should have spelled wussie!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dr. Lorri asked who put this ordinance on the calendar. Answer, according to a local reporter- The Sheriff. Now, how is it that the sheriff can put something on the calendar without at least one of the council members knowing about it? Seems a bit strange to me, but I am a NEWBY to politics so I will leave that to others to qustion. Was my spelling OK?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Right on Dr. Lorri! The spelling police only come out when they don't like what someone says and don't have a decent argument for a response.

    Now we will gettng the public speaking police. They will react when they don't like what someone says and find themselves defenseless.

    There is no way that the Sheriff was solely responsible for this agenda item. It's the mayor who sets the agenda with help from the assistant mayor. This means James Bond and Jerome Stocks are the guilty ones, along with Dan Dalager. They wouldn't bring this up without a majority of three. The Sheriff was prodded by these three. This also explains why they jumped over Maggie Houlihan and voted for Stocks as assistant mayor. He will automatically become Mayor next year unless we vote him out of office.

    What is the city afraid of and what are they trying to hide?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Good questions.

    When a member of the public wants to speak during oral communications, he or she has the right to do so for three minutes. The limit of 15 minutes, total, for oral communications is not fair or reasonable if more than five people want to speak during this part of the Council Meeting. The unreasonable limit discourages dissent and public participation.

    As another poster points out, Council Members have no limit to their comments. No limits are set for the duration of the "special presentations," that are often PR moments for the sitting Council. This is obvious, as they increase, dramatically right before an election.

    If the time limitations set by Council are not fair and reasonable, then they are also a violation of the Brown Act. James Bond wants to be able to "pick and choose" whom he will allow to go over their two minutes, and whom Phil Cotton will tell the deputies to arrest.

    No provision is made in the wording of the law to just escort someone out of the room, as has been done once in the past seven years. And that was for someone (me) who tried to raise a point of order from the audience. Jerome Stocks, then Mayor suddenly announced that the Council was in recess. I went back up and spoke, from the podium, for about one minute, with the microphone off, to those who had not left the room. Captain Nares, at the time, came in and asked me to leave. I did, without any problem. That solved the "problem," and no new law is necessary. Rather this law is designed to squelch free speech, pure and simple. Come to the December 4th Council Meeting!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Sorry, I mean come to the December 5th Council Meeting, starting at 6 P.M., you know where, at City Hall.

    Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Lynn,

    If you are not disruptive yet the police are called to escort you out and you follow the orders and leave, do you have recourse after the fact? Can you sue the city for ejecting you unjustly?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Jerome will become mayor in January-What a joke!

    Almost guarantees his relection. The common folks of Encinitas are not in tune to the BS that Jerome is about and will think that they like Encinitas- Hence vote for the Incumbent. The majority three new what they were doing when putting Jerome in as Mayor for this year.

    Guaranteed- Jerome BS Stocks will endorse Plummer and life long lap dog of Danny Slingblade Dalager.

    the message to every citizen has to be- anyone but Jerome Stocks and Doug Long. The two are nightmares for Encinitas!

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed, after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.