You must sign in to take advantage of that feature. Enter your user name and password below. No user ID yet? Get one for free.
Forgot your password?
A blog about News.
|
Statement by CARB board member Lies and cover ups tarnish California Air Resources Board Strange encounter ends in arrest PG&E smartmeters WILL be tested Suspcious guy at my door last night Adoption day "magical" Closing courts wrong approach Wars never end for veterans Pet adoption day in Tehachapi Nov. 21 Indian casino OK with me August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Brown Act, learn it
So I heard that Councilman Zack Scrivner was on the Jaz McKay radio show today talking about the immigration resolution at tonight's Bakersfield Council meeting. He wouldn't say what his vote would be claiming to do so would be a violation of the Brown Act. Uh, no. The Brown Act regulates public meetings to make sure they are conducted in public. Under Brown, politicians can't get together outside of public view in numbers that would constitute a quorum, nor are they allowed to communicate with each other in a "daisy chain" such as by phone, to organize their votes outside of public view. But council members can certainly announce their support or opposition to measures as individuals, not to mention it was a very PUBLIC forum. It's ironic and kind of disturbing that Scrivner would use a well-established and highly noted act for public access in order to keep his vote hush hush. Why not just say, he's going to listen to all viewpoints and make up his mind after that? Or just that he doesn't want to talk about it before the meeting? Sheesh! 5 comments from 5 users
1
posted by
creepycat
on Sep 26, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Typical politician. Ask a simple question and get told everything but the answer.
posted by
mattloch
on Sep 27, 2007 at 08:40 AM
So wait, are we supposed to be surprised that a City Councolmember isn't entirely clear how laws governing ethics and disclosure works now? I thought that ethical and legal ignorance was a requirement for the job.
posted by
sagefever
on Sep 27, 2007 at 09:14 AM
So lame~I know what the Brown Act is:how can a City Council man not know? And so much for getting any information from the Radio~if Mckay didn't know either.
posted by
derfmeister
on Sep 27, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Well I guess we are going to be a "santuary city." I feel that Sue Benham is correct when she states that immigration issues are a federal matter. So why wont the Feds do anything? Is it because the the Democrats dont want to lose the vote from those people sympathetic to illegals? How about the Republicans? Do they not want to lose the vote and the contributions from companies who enjoy larger profits by hiring illegals? Why am I afraid to speak up? Probably because I am afraid of being labeled a racist and maybe even subjected to retaliation. Believe me. I am no racists. My most sincere appreciation goes to those people who have come to this country legaly and "pledged their allegience to the United States of America" and have willingly endangered themselves in their efforts to fight the war against terrorism. These people, regardless of their heritage, are the "truist" americans. posted by
hossperry
on Sep 27, 2007 at 03:39 PM
First, with Benham's new proposals she has not said if she would have ever brought it forward if David Couch hadnt submitted his? Big thank you to David Couch, who cares if he is after political gain, if he brings this issue to light!
1
 Loading Stories
Advertisement |
