Tulelake, CA— No written agenda policies
The city of Tulelake is responsible for allowing agenda items placed on the agenda that had no business being placed there in the first place on two different meetings. The city allowed discussion to take place that amounted to slander and libel.
“Speech Content Statements by a member of the public shall be related to the agenda item at hand, except during Public Forum. Derogatory and discriminatory remarks relating to gender, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity, creed, religion, national origin, disability, and personal physical characteristics or conditions, slander, obscenities, and knowing falsehoods are irrelevant per se.”
“Disruptive Conduct, including applauding and booing, which substantially disrupts or disturbs the peace and order of a City Council meeting is prohibited and is cause for removal at the request of the Mayor.”
The above was allowed to take place on two separate occasions at a city council meeting. On record and recorded at a Tulelake City Council Meeting for the February 18, 2014 with “Community Concerns” agenda item and July 21, 2014 with “Concerns with council member” agenda item.
Where the city of Tulelake is now liable for allowing such meetings to take place as well as having no policy to prevent it from happening.
As well as the city of Tulelake holding a hearing on March 17, 2014, where due process was denied by not informing the complainant of the hearing-taking place.
In the landmark case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), the United States Supreme Court stated the following with regard to the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech:
“The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, ‘was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.’ Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498. ‘The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.’ Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369, 51 S.Ct. 532, 75 L.Ed. 1117. ‘[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions,’ Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192, and this opportunity is to be afforded for ‘vigorous advocacy’ no less than ‘abstract discussion.’ N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429, 83 S.Ct. 328, 9 L.Ed.2d 405. The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, ‘presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all.’ United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (S.D.N.Y.1943)..”
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