Youth Commission recounts an eventful year, Council approves the Walmart fuel station and a two-year budget; residents push back on light pollution, the packet's size, and Flock cameras
Thank you covering the invocation issue. I have two corrections: First, you state that the YV town council policy "bars the council and the clerk from reviewing an invocation’s content beforehand." It does, but that is because such review is unconstitutional as it steps on the invocators' First Amendment rights. The invocators are advised, "you are free to offer the invocation according to the dictates of your own conscience. To maintain the spirit of respect and ecumenism, the Town Council requests only that the prayer opportunity not be exploited as an effort to convert others to the particular faith of the invocational speaker, nor to disparage any faith or belief different than that of the invocational speaker." The First Amendment protects the free speech of individuals by limiting the government's power to control it. At the same time, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids the government, including local government, from favoring any one religion, so these two factors are at odds when it comes to these invocations. The council is not responsible for the content of an individual invocation, but it is unconstitutional and the town is liable if there is a pattern of exploiting the opportunity to proselytize or denigrate, which there has been. My second correction is that while I did launch a petition asking for non-denominational invocations immediately after the horrendous Nov 4 invocation, I then did more research and learned that sectarian invocations are legal as long as they are implemented without discrimination or exploiting the opportunity to proselytize or denigrate (which is difficult to enforce). I then launched a revised petition asking for inclusive (but not necessarily non-sectarian) invocations. This petition received 210 signatures. (Thank you for including the link in your article.) I presented it to the Town Council during Public Comments at the December 2 meeting. I have repeatedly asked that a discussion of the invocation policy be put on the agenda, but this hasn't happened. I received notice that they reviewed the policy and found it legal, but that is not a public discussion. Everything we do must be legal, but not everything that is legal must be done. YV residents should have a say in this.
Thanks Janice this was super helpful. Based on the information you provided we deleted two paragraphs and updated them with this:
The First Amendment leaves the council and the clerk no room to review an invocation’s content beforehand — censoring a private speaker at the podium would violate the speaker’s free-speech rights — so the town’s 2013 resolution acknowledges this directly and can only ask, not require, that speakers not proselytize or disparage other faiths. Individual invocations aren’t the council’s legal responsibility; a pattern of exploiting the podium to proselytize or denigrate is, under the Establishment Clause — and the November 4 and March 3 invocations together raise that question. In the months since, the council has mostly sidestepped it, with no invocation at all on several nights and Mayor Abel delivering it himself on others.
The November 4 blowback prompted Yucca Valley resident Janice Taitel to launch a petition — initially calling for non-denominational invocations, then revised, after further research, to call for inclusive invocations that aren’t necessarily non-sectarian. The revised petition drew 210 signatures. Taitel presented it to the Council at the December 2, 2025 meeting during public comment and has since repeatedly asked that a policy discussion be placed on the agenda. The town reviewed the policy and found it legal. It has not held a public discussion. “Everything we do must be legal,” Taitel wrote to the Desert Trumpet on Facebook, “but not everything that is legal must be done. YV residents should have a say in this.”
Thank you! And I can't give the date, exact quote or invocator, but a prior invocation, at one of the meetings where the animal shelter was discussed, mentioned the blood of unborn babies. This is definitely a pattern!
Thank you Cindy for this important coverage. That the town provided review of the volume of materials only 4 days before the meeting and passed significant, substantive agenda items using the consent calendar is horrifying. The planning commission will be revisiting the night sky requirements in August. The question is will they actually invite the public to the meeting?
Thank you covering the invocation issue. I have two corrections: First, you state that the YV town council policy "bars the council and the clerk from reviewing an invocation’s content beforehand." It does, but that is because such review is unconstitutional as it steps on the invocators' First Amendment rights. The invocators are advised, "you are free to offer the invocation according to the dictates of your own conscience. To maintain the spirit of respect and ecumenism, the Town Council requests only that the prayer opportunity not be exploited as an effort to convert others to the particular faith of the invocational speaker, nor to disparage any faith or belief different than that of the invocational speaker." The First Amendment protects the free speech of individuals by limiting the government's power to control it. At the same time, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids the government, including local government, from favoring any one religion, so these two factors are at odds when it comes to these invocations. The council is not responsible for the content of an individual invocation, but it is unconstitutional and the town is liable if there is a pattern of exploiting the opportunity to proselytize or denigrate, which there has been. My second correction is that while I did launch a petition asking for non-denominational invocations immediately after the horrendous Nov 4 invocation, I then did more research and learned that sectarian invocations are legal as long as they are implemented without discrimination or exploiting the opportunity to proselytize or denigrate (which is difficult to enforce). I then launched a revised petition asking for inclusive (but not necessarily non-sectarian) invocations. This petition received 210 signatures. (Thank you for including the link in your article.) I presented it to the Town Council during Public Comments at the December 2 meeting. I have repeatedly asked that a discussion of the invocation policy be put on the agenda, but this hasn't happened. I received notice that they reviewed the policy and found it legal, but that is not a public discussion. Everything we do must be legal, but not everything that is legal must be done. YV residents should have a say in this.
Thanks Janice this was super helpful. Based on the information you provided we deleted two paragraphs and updated them with this:
The First Amendment leaves the council and the clerk no room to review an invocation’s content beforehand — censoring a private speaker at the podium would violate the speaker’s free-speech rights — so the town’s 2013 resolution acknowledges this directly and can only ask, not require, that speakers not proselytize or disparage other faiths. Individual invocations aren’t the council’s legal responsibility; a pattern of exploiting the podium to proselytize or denigrate is, under the Establishment Clause — and the November 4 and March 3 invocations together raise that question. In the months since, the council has mostly sidestepped it, with no invocation at all on several nights and Mayor Abel delivering it himself on others.
The November 4 blowback prompted Yucca Valley resident Janice Taitel to launch a petition — initially calling for non-denominational invocations, then revised, after further research, to call for inclusive invocations that aren’t necessarily non-sectarian. The revised petition drew 210 signatures. Taitel presented it to the Council at the December 2, 2025 meeting during public comment and has since repeatedly asked that a policy discussion be placed on the agenda. The town reviewed the policy and found it legal. It has not held a public discussion. “Everything we do must be legal,” Taitel wrote to the Desert Trumpet on Facebook, “but not everything that is legal must be done. YV residents should have a say in this.”
Thank you! And I can't give the date, exact quote or invocator, but a prior invocation, at one of the meetings where the animal shelter was discussed, mentioned the blood of unborn babies. This is definitely a pattern!
Thank you Cindy for this important coverage. That the town provided review of the volume of materials only 4 days before the meeting and passed significant, substantive agenda items using the consent calendar is horrifying. The planning commission will be revisiting the night sky requirements in August. The question is will they actually invite the public to the meeting?