The Carson City Council claimed the district Attorney did not have any basis in case law for alleging that the mayor had violated the state’s open meeting law, the Brown Act, in cutting off critics at council meetings with a mute button. -db
Daily Breeze
December 8, 2010
By Sandy Mazza
Carson City Council members are firing back at allegations by the District Attorney’s Office that the mayor violated free-speech rights by muting critics at council meetings.
Mayor Jim Dear bristled Tuesday night at a letter sent in October that he violated state open meeting laws in the Ralph M. Brown Act by cutting off speakers.
“I’m a very strong supporter of the First Amendment,” Dear said. “The D.A. is making some opinions but they don’t really state any law. They mention the Brown Act but don’t state any case law. Where’s their body of evidence?”
Dear did not move to change his use of the mute button, but he did acknowledge a related issue raised by the Los Angeles County district attorney’s Public Integrity Division.
He made a motion, which was approved unanimously, to change Municipal Code to allow speakers to address individual council members. Previously, Dear has told speakers to make comments only to the entire council rather than singling someone out for praise or criticism.
Jennifer Lentz Snyder, an assistant head deputy of the Public Integrity Division, sent the letter to city officials expressing concern about two instances when Dear used the mute button to stop speakers from talking about something he did not like.
“You have to be reasonable in the way you regulate the time, place and manner of public comments,” Snyder wrote. “It appeared to be the use of the mute button based on content, which is impermissible.”
Snyder’s letter said that five residents complained of being unfairly silenced by Dear during meetings.
In one instance last December, resident Robert Lesley was muted about two minutes into his comment about a 2006 court ruling that said Councilwoman Julie Ruiz-Raber could not claim to be a teacher on election ballots because her part-time work as a belly-dancing teacher did not qualify.
After silencing him, Dear told Lesley: “Mr. Lesley, I’m going to have the city attorney address you because you’re going off-topic.”
Lesley was told he cannot single out a council member, but Snyder disagreed with that.
Ruiz-Raber also dismissed allegations that Dear abused the constitutional rights of residents.
“While urging the council to abolish the use of the muting technology, the D.A. failed to acknowledge that such technology is used by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors,” Ruiz-Raber said. “So you know it’s not a big deal.”
She charged residents who led a recall campaign against Dear in 2008 with drumming up this issue.
“They just want to keep on needling him and I’m here to defend him,” Ruiz-Raber said.
Dear’s council foes, Councilman Mike Gipson and Councilwoman Lula Davis-Holmes, agreed with Snyder’s assessment and complained that Dear also tried to silence them. They both voted against giving Dear the power to use the mute button when it was reinstated by council vote in late 2009.
City Attorney Bill Wynder has said Dear should be allowed to use the mute button to maintain order at meetings, especially if speakers go over their allotted three-minute time limit.
Dear did not move to change the mute button system, but city staff members said an automatic three-minute mute may be imposed when the council chambers electronic system is upgraded early next year.
Dear said that, while he supports free speech at meetings, that opens the door for some problems.
“If you allow someone to come to the podium to say anything they want, they can do an advertisement, or call you names, or say things that aren’t true,” he said.
“And it is true that, when someone comes up here intentionally deceiving the public, I have no problem setting the record straight and telling the truth.”
Copyright 2010 Los Angeles Newspaper group FAC Content Use Policy
Carson council denies District Attorney’s allegations of open meeting violations
The Carson City Council claimed the district Attorney did not have any basis in case law for alleging that the mayor had violated the state’s open meeting law, the Brown Act, in cutting off critics at council meetings with a mute button. -db
Daily Breeze
December 8, 2010
By Sandy Mazza
Carson City Council members are firing back at allegations by the District Attorney’s Office that the mayor violated free-speech rights by muting critics at council meetings.
Mayor Jim Dear bristled Tuesday night at a letter sent in October that he violated state open meeting laws in the Ralph M. Brown Act by cutting off speakers.
“I’m a very strong supporter of the First Amendment,” Dear said. “The D.A. is making some opinions but they don’t really state any law. They mention the Brown Act but don’t state any case law. Where’s their body of evidence?”
Dear did not move to change his use of the mute button, but he did acknowledge a related issue raised by the Los Angeles County district attorney’s Public Integrity Division.
He made a motion, which was approved unanimously, to change Municipal Code to allow speakers to address individual council members. Previously, Dear has told speakers to make comments only to the entire council rather than singling someone out for praise or criticism.
Jennifer Lentz Snyder, an assistant head deputy of the Public Integrity Division, sent the letter to city officials expressing concern about two instances when Dear used the mute button to stop speakers from talking about something he did not like.
“You have to be reasonable in the way you regulate the time, place and manner of public comments,” Snyder wrote. “It appeared to be the use of the mute button based on content, which is impermissible.”
Snyder’s letter said that five residents complained of being unfairly silenced by Dear during meetings.
In one instance last December, resident Robert Lesley was muted about two minutes into his comment about a 2006 court ruling that said Councilwoman Julie Ruiz-Raber could not claim to be a teacher on election ballots because her part-time work as a belly-dancing teacher did not qualify.
After silencing him, Dear told Lesley: “Mr. Lesley, I’m going to have the city attorney address you because you’re going off-topic.”
Lesley was told he cannot single out a council member, but Snyder disagreed with that.
Ruiz-Raber also dismissed allegations that Dear abused the constitutional rights of residents.
“While urging the council to abolish the use of the muting technology, the D.A. failed to acknowledge that such technology is used by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors,” Ruiz-Raber said. “So you know it’s not a big deal.”
She charged residents who led a recall campaign against Dear in 2008 with drumming up this issue.
“They just want to keep on needling him and I’m here to defend him,” Ruiz-Raber said.
Dear’s council foes, Councilman Mike Gipson and Councilwoman Lula Davis-Holmes, agreed with Snyder’s assessment and complained that Dear also tried to silence them. They both voted against giving Dear the power to use the mute button when it was reinstated by council vote in late 2009.
City Attorney Bill Wynder has said Dear should be allowed to use the mute button to maintain order at meetings, especially if speakers go over their allotted three-minute time limit.
Dear did not move to change the mute button system, but city staff members said an automatic three-minute mute may be imposed when the council chambers electronic system is upgraded early next year.
Dear said that, while he supports free speech at meetings, that opens the door for some problems.
“If you allow someone to come to the podium to say anything they want, they can do an advertisement, or call you names, or say things that aren’t true,” he said.
“And it is true that, when someone comes up here intentionally deceiving the public, I have no problem setting the record straight and telling the truth.”
Copyright 2010 Los Angeles Newspaper group FAC Content Use Policy