Once again outstanding reporting. The community and the greater community is very fortunate to have this level of excellence in journalism. Close meetings where the cameras are turned off, the public not allowed input, flies in the face of a democratic form of government. It's authoritarianism on the local municipal level. The city has been hammered In the past for adjudicated violations of the Brown Act.
Normally I do not respond to the articles of a "blog", but the misrepresentation of this writing compelled me to respond.
Yes, according to the Brown Act, the public gets to comment on agenda items, even Study Sessions. However, the Planning Commission (or other governing body) can impose reasonable conditions on time allowed and when those comments are received. In this case, Chairman Walker had comments received in conjunction with the Public Comments portion of the meeting. During which Ms. Susan Peplow’s emailed comments were summarized by Chairman Walker and Mr. Jim Bagley made his comments concerning live entertainment and noise issues. Furthermore, Chairman Walker offered that any resident could email questions or comments concerning the Live Entertainment issue to City Staff and a reasoned response would be provided. This ensured the public’s right to participate while still allowing flexibility on how comments are received. In addition, the Study Session was held in City’s Council Chamber where any member of the public could observe the discussion. The Study Session is where the Planning Commission and City Staff, working together, can have initial discussions on the issue and plan a course of action. Chairman Walker and the Planning Commission met the spirit and letter of the law.
Our reporting is based on our recording of the meeting -- we believe the public has a right to know the nature of discussions held at meetings, study sessions and workshops especially when the City choses to cut off the camera, so we often make our own recordings of meetings.
Chair Walker never announced that he was taking public comment on the agenda item during general public comment. In fact his statement was contradictory - after he announced there would be no public comment on the agenda item, he then read the boilerplate, "other comments on specific agenda items will be deferred until consideration of that agenda item."
The public comment that did take place on the item happened because the Chair was handed a letter to read without seeming to know the content, and because Jim Bagley insisted on speaking and the Chair didn't stop him -- even Jim Bagley pointed out that his right to participate was being curtailed.
Additionally, there was a City official and members of the public in attendance and wanting the opportunity to speak on the agenda item who were denied the right to speak –– a few of them had slips in their hands. One of them made it clear to me after the meeting that they felt they were denied the right to speak.
Emailing comments after a meeting is not the same, under the Brown act, as speaking publicly on an agenda item.
Actually as I pointed out in my email to the City Manager on this topic, I don't believe the Chair was at fault -- he was given bad advice...by someone. Not clear who that was given the confusion of his reply to me during the meeting.
You are entitled to your perceptions of course, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Also it would be useful if the Planning Commission would give notice when a meeting / study session is not going to be live streamed or recorded so the press is able to make sure to be present. I was the only member of the press present at the meeting.
Once again outstanding reporting. The community and the greater community is very fortunate to have this level of excellence in journalism. Close meetings where the cameras are turned off, the public not allowed input, flies in the face of a democratic form of government. It's authoritarianism on the local municipal level. The city has been hammered In the past for adjudicated violations of the Brown Act.
Normally I do not respond to the articles of a "blog", but the misrepresentation of this writing compelled me to respond.
Yes, according to the Brown Act, the public gets to comment on agenda items, even Study Sessions. However, the Planning Commission (or other governing body) can impose reasonable conditions on time allowed and when those comments are received. In this case, Chairman Walker had comments received in conjunction with the Public Comments portion of the meeting. During which Ms. Susan Peplow’s emailed comments were summarized by Chairman Walker and Mr. Jim Bagley made his comments concerning live entertainment and noise issues. Furthermore, Chairman Walker offered that any resident could email questions or comments concerning the Live Entertainment issue to City Staff and a reasoned response would be provided. This ensured the public’s right to participate while still allowing flexibility on how comments are received. In addition, the Study Session was held in City’s Council Chamber where any member of the public could observe the discussion. The Study Session is where the Planning Commission and City Staff, working together, can have initial discussions on the issue and plan a course of action. Chairman Walker and the Planning Commission met the spirit and letter of the law.
Thanks for taking the time to respond!
Our reporting is based on our recording of the meeting -- we believe the public has a right to know the nature of discussions held at meetings, study sessions and workshops especially when the City choses to cut off the camera, so we often make our own recordings of meetings.
Chair Walker never announced that he was taking public comment on the agenda item during general public comment. In fact his statement was contradictory - after he announced there would be no public comment on the agenda item, he then read the boilerplate, "other comments on specific agenda items will be deferred until consideration of that agenda item."
The public comment that did take place on the item happened because the Chair was handed a letter to read without seeming to know the content, and because Jim Bagley insisted on speaking and the Chair didn't stop him -- even Jim Bagley pointed out that his right to participate was being curtailed.
Additionally, there was a City official and members of the public in attendance and wanting the opportunity to speak on the agenda item who were denied the right to speak –– a few of them had slips in their hands. One of them made it clear to me after the meeting that they felt they were denied the right to speak.
Emailing comments after a meeting is not the same, under the Brown act, as speaking publicly on an agenda item.
Actually as I pointed out in my email to the City Manager on this topic, I don't believe the Chair was at fault -- he was given bad advice...by someone. Not clear who that was given the confusion of his reply to me during the meeting.
You are entitled to your perceptions of course, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Also it would be useful if the Planning Commission would give notice when a meeting / study session is not going to be live streamed or recorded so the press is able to make sure to be present. I was the only member of the press present at the meeting.