and the lack of basic shelter supplies has resulted in the Board considering the 2009/2010 budget. But wait...what about the budget we're in now which is causing the shortages? I guess we'll all just have to show up on Monday and say our peace during the public comment portion of the meeting.
Oh darn. Hoss Fool, Board Secretary, still has that illegal statement on the agenda:
Public Comments: The Brown Act prohibits the Board and staff from responding to the speakers' comments. Some of the matters raised in public comment may appear on a future agenda.
The problem, Hoss, is that it is NOT TRUE.
The Ralph M. Brown Act is that portion of the California Government Code which governs the conduct of legislative bodies (or boards) and which was enacted to ensure "open meetings." The Brown Act is also referred to as "CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY OPEN MEETING LAWS."
Section 54954.2(a) states:
No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any itemnot appearing on the posted agenda, except thatmembers of a legislative body or its staff may brieflyrespond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3. In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.
This "statement" on the agenda is a good trick to gag the Board but is is illegal.
Diligent as ever, our own Jeff de la Rosa has exposed this little problem and made aware the Board, Hoss Fool as well as Councimember Dennis Zine and President Eric Garcetti. No response as of yet.
When did this gag rule go into effect? Here's where it gets interesting.
The first meeting agendawhich bears this unlawful gag order on the Commissiners is June 25, 2007. Of course, no minutes for this meeting are posted at laanimalservices.com/commission. But we seem to remember that, at least Jeff, spoke during the comment period demanding action from the Board. Yep, this is the first meeting which was supposed to address the issue of Jeff de la Rosa's dog Stu and the horrid treatment he was receiving while locked up in the pound for 2 years by this time. Ed Boks had been blocking the discussion item for weeks but it did make it on the very next meeting agenda.
Yes, the gag order was in effect for that meeting and has been ever since. We've found our gagger!
Sorry, Ed. We Gotcha!
For your convenience: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org
S.G. BW staff writer.
What a scum bag that Boks is! I knew they could respond to public comments but always just sat there staring at you like they were mute. Fuckers! They better get that gag rule off the agenda. I'm pissed!
Indeed gag is super outrages. Its just totally like government to do that. Like my grandfathers mothers second uncle once said "yah really can't trust dem government folk". Really this gag is not right. I totally agree with you kind sir above me. For you have the first post.
Please make up a name other than "Anonymous" so we can keep track of who says what.No, we don't need your real name. How to do this? Below, select "Name/Url" and type in a name. That's it. You will still be "anonymous" but we'll know which "anonymous" you are. Thanks.