Tulelake, CA— Outside body’s jurisdiction
Back on February 18, 2014 the mayor, Randy Darrow at that time allowed an agenda item to be discussed and presented to the council. “Community Concerns” which was approved by the present city attorney and was put on the agenda by the present City Administrative Clerk.
In 78 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 224, 230 (1995), this office opined that the body could prohibit a speaker from making comments that were outside the body’s jurisdiction.
Which if people were to take the time to listen to this meeting they would discover that it was a trial being put on to try and take away the rights of reporting on the news.
A legislative body may not prohibit any person attending an open meeting from video recording, audio recording or broadcasting the proceedings, absent a reasonable finding that such activity would constitute a disruption of the proceedings. (§§ 54953.5, 54953.6; Nevens v. City of Chino (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 775, 779; see also § 6091.)
Anyone is allowed to get copies of the agenda and have them either emailed or sent by regular mail.
In addition, members of the public may request in writing that the agenda or all of the documents comprising the meeting packet be mailed to them for a cost not to exceed the actual cost of providing the service. (§ 54954.1.) Upon receipt of such a written request, the agency shall mail the requested documents, provided that they are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 6254, to the requester at the time the agenda is posted or when the documents are provided to a majority of the members of the legislative body, whichever occurs first. The request must be renewed annually and failure of the requester to receive such documents does not invalidate any action which was the subject of the records.
The city has also failed to notify in writing the result of the complaint made against the Chief of Police for misconduct and the public hearing that was held without proper notification to the complainant on March 17, 2014.
Whereby yet another agenda item was placed on the agenda on July 21, 2014 "Concerns with council member" and which was approved by the present city attorney and was put on the agenda by the present City Administrative Clerk.
A description of each item generally need not exceed 20 words, although the description must be sufficient to provide interested persons with an understanding of the subject matter which will be considered. (Carlson v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, 200.)
Now an administrate claim has been filed and denied where the same attorney who represented the present Chief of Police is now representing the city in this cause of action. Where she should recluse herself in order for their not to be a conflict of interest.
http://ag.ca.gov/publications/2003_Main_BrownAct.pdf
Chan v Ellis: What if a Wikipedia page was Created to Scare, Harass, and Intimidate Someone?
Chan v Ellis: Classic Prior Restraint, You Can't Touch Protected Speech
Chan v Ellis: Is it Stalking to Expose Information That May Embarass or Damage Reputation?
Written by James Garland of Tulelake News
PO Box 772
Tulelake, CA 96134-0772
Home Phone (530) 667-4744
Cell # (530) 708-7852
NOTE: Before posting comments click on link below
Comments
Post a Comment