L.A. City News · @lacitynews
20th Oct 2010 from Twitlonger
HERE ARE COMMENTS from readers of RonKayeLA.com in reference to L.A. Council's FREE SPEECH, FIRST AMENDMENT CRACKDOWN (FEDERAL VIOLATION):
ORIGINAL AGENDA ITEM DOWD/DOGG WERE DISCUSSING AT L.A. COUNCIL MEETING:
ITEM NO. (6)
10-1549
CD 7
MOTION (ALARCON - HAHN) relative to funding for the 2011 Fourth of July Celebration at Hansen Dam in Council District Seven.
Recommendations for Council action:
1. UTILIZE $80,000 in the Lopez Canyon Landfill Community Amenities Trust Fund No. 531/14, Account No. L32, to fund the Fourth of July community celebrations at Hansen Dam, as follows: $50,000 to fund the 2011 Fourth of July community celebrations at Hansen Dam and $30,000 to fund outstanding general operating expenses for previous years of the Fourth of July community celebrations at Hansen Dam.
2. DIRECT the City Clerk to prepare the necessary document(s) and/or agreement(s) with Fourth of July Celebration at Hansen Dam Inc. or any other agency or organization, as appropriate, in the above amount, for the above purpose, subject to the approval of the City Attorney as to form and legality, if needed, and AUTHORIZE the Councilmember of the District or the City Clerk individually to execute such agreement or other document(s) on behalf of the City, if needed.
3. AUTHORIZE the City Clerk to make any technical corrections or clarifications to the above instructions in order to effectuate the intent of this Motion.
COMMENTS: Flag should be raised by using trust fund money to pay for NEXT year's fireworks? What's up with that? So then, you think...hmmm, the CM is under indictment, and will most likely be stepping down. So is this something shady, trying to be pulled off, before leaving? Trying to arrange payment to a contractor or non-profit, before he isn't there to approve it for next year? Not that is is 100% the situation. But is it not a reasonable question that should allowed to be raised.
This part may raise a flag for some: "...or any other agency or organization..."
So when it even says, "subject to the approval of the City Attorney as to form and legality, if needed," -- it should certainly be o.k. to request that the "AS NEEDED" part be enforced, in this case, given that the councilman is under 32 indictments.
By Anonymous on October 19, 2010 3:36 PM
I heard the Zuma Dog and Dowd comments before they became controversial. They were in-your-face, but that's what an arrogant City Council has brought upon itself.
Tom LaBonge's attacking everyone's right to free speech highlights the Council's attitude towards Voters. We are the enemy and they less they see and hear from us, the happier the Council will be.
By Anonymous on October 19, 2010 6:09 PM
If you look at the agenda item, it was to transfer money out of Lopez Canyon Landfill Community Trust Fund to pay for two year's worth of fireworks, including the 2011 fireworks display. The item noted the City Attorney may review for legality. And since it was about transferring trust fund money, for next year's fireworks (and when you consider the other things Alarcon has done with public money, like the Children's Museum that the city lost millions under SEC investigation) -- the fact that the councilmember is under 32 indictments for fraud and lying comes into question, at this time. At least to ask for a discussion of the item in this budget emergency. But you still will chose to not understand how it was on topic
By Bob on October 19, 2010 7:15 PM
This is actually a huge issue. Not only does it go to the heart of Free Speech, it also addresses the public's ability to petition the government.
The irony is that Paul Koretz is going "off topic" when he complains about the speaker going off topic, the very thing he is accusing Matt Dowd or Zuma Dogg of.
Finally we just experienced several destructive measures being rushed through. Speakers are routinely interrupted and directed how to speak. This is very important for any future attempt to raise DWP rates, push through an oversize or corrupt project, or any series of matters that the public needs to address.
Allowing the public to speak can even protect the City Council from making a major mistake that will cost taxpayers dearly.
By Anonymous on October 19, 2010 7:36 PM
One needs to remember that the first amendment protects unpopular speech more than popular speech.
Especially in time for an election, La Bonge has a real conflict of interest to shorten the time that people can speak.
Its bad enough that La Bonge voted to put a term extension on the ballot. He is now a financial beneficiary of that extension.
By James McCuen on October 19, 2010 8:07 PM
Actually Zuma Dogg is right on the money, literally (because it has to do with public funds.
He addressed the topic, the agenda item number was related to Alarcon requesting trust fund money for an event. And it is true that Alarcon is under indictment. And the public has a write to ask - should we have the City Attorney investigate this to make sure it is on the up and up?
By Anonymous on October 19, 2010 8:10 PM
What was Tom La Bonge thinking when he jumped up and suggested cutting public comment down to one minute? He got so caught up in the moment, he forgot he was up for re election and his comments will be something they run over and over next year. And it was a Brown Act violation on council's part to have all of that discussion during public comment. Everyone knows they are limited to a 50 word response. Wouldn't it be ironic and hilarious if a complaint was filed and they ended up violating the Brown Act, during a discussion about the Brown Act?
By Anonymous on October 19, 2010 9:28 PM
My Goodness, Zine acted like a little tyrant. As much as City Councilmembers may not like public comment that is highly critical of their own, THAT IS WHAT THEY GET PAID $178,000 PER YEAR TO DO.
The City Attorney was as slanted as he could be in favor of cutting off the debate but the fact is, asking whether a Councilmember currently under indictment ought to be asking for transfers of money out of the Lopez Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund is a very legitimate and on topic question.
That particular trust fund was set up to pay for things for the neighbors of the Landfill who were negatively impacted and endured a City sanitary landfill in their immediate vicinity for more than 20 years. So why is money being transferred to events and organizations far from the area impacted by the Landfill? Good question.
Why is a Councilmember under indictment taking more and more and more and more trust funds away from the Lopez Canyon neighborhood to grease supporters in unrelated communities?
Council may not like the way the message was delivered but did anyone notice that the City Attorney did not interrupt Zuma Dogg or Mr. Dowd? The City Attorney, who does interrupt when he sees a speaker go out of the realm of relevance, was silent. It was Mr. Zine losing his cool who constantly interrupted the testimony. As long as there is some plausible connection between the agenda item and the testimony, Mr. Zine really has just one task: To keep his big mouth shut and listen for two excruciating minutes. (Or 1 minute if LaBonge gets his way).
By Anonymous on October 19, 2010 9:50 PM
Tom is no stranger to sticking his uninformed nose into the 1st Amendment and Brown Act, as we all know. But I read the transcripts of the lawsuit in Federal Court filed by Matt Dowd, that includes Zuma Dogg, for First Amendment violations during public comment at the L.A. City Council meetings.
When the City Attorney defending the case for the city noted that Mr. Dowd said, "Sit down, La Bonge," during his public comment time (after La Bonge jumped up and interrupted him), conventional council wisdom has been, "City Council always has the floor and can jump up and interrupt you at any time, and you are not allowed to tell a councilmember to sit down."
However, the first words out of the Federal Judge's mouth were, "Who had the floor?"
In other words, contrary to Garcetti's & City Hall's opinion, when a public comment speaker is speaking, they have the floor. So SIT DOWN, LA Bong!
By Mariscal on October 19, 2010 6:17 PM
Although I can see where ranting and carrying on, in some instances, may detract from the overall message, I felt that limiting the talk time to one minute was too suppressive and reactionary, which in turn says quite a bit about our City Council. Be that as it may, nonetheless, there is a place for gadflys and whistle blowers. It if weren't for them; who knows how much more corruption would go on in this City?