04/20/05

Council Member, Mary openly admits to violating brown act (on camera) on purpose during CC meeting 4/19/05.

To whom it may concern

Mary openly admits to violating brown act (on camera) on purpose during CC meeting 4/19/05. Grand Jury request was noticed to public to be heard during open public regular session agenda as item number 10.3. of the REGULAR SESSION AGENDA. Mary admitted to purposefully and knowingly circumventing and violating the Brown act by illegally pulling said item from public session and hearing it in secret during un noticed closed session prior to the open session city council meeting.
This deliberate act by Mary is in direct violation of the first amendment rights of all the citizens of DHS and is specifically in direct violation of the Brown Act, section 11125.4(a), 11125.7(a), 11126.3(a), 11126.3(b) Brown act weblink http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/11120-11132.html
See code sections below. See webpage link http://www.friendsofdeserthotsprings.com/Brownactviolations.htm for past pattern of brown act violations by council.
Just another day in our city where the clowns openly violate laws with impunity and boldly declare to the public that they are above the law and can do anything they want.

Gabriel King


Brown Act violations bolded.

11125.4. (a) A special meeting may be called at any time by the presiding officer of the state body or by a majority of the members of the state body. A special meeting may only be called for one of the following purposes where compliance with the 10-day notice provisions of Section 11125 would impose a substantial hardship on the state body or where immediate action is required to protect the public interest:
(1) To consider "pending litigation" as that term is defined in
subdivision (e) of Section 11126.
(2) To consider proposed legislation.
(3) To consider issuance of a legal opinion.
(4) To consider disciplinary action involving a state officer or
employee.
(5) To consider the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real
property.
(6) To consider license examinations and applications.
(7) To consider an action on a loan or grant provided pursuant to
Division 31 (commencing with Section 50000) of the Health and Safety
Code.
(b) When a special meeting is called pursuant to one of the
purposes specified in subdivision (a), the state body shall provide
notice of the special meeting to each member of the state body and to all parties that have requested notice of its meetings as soon as is practicable after the decision to call a special meeting has been
made, but shall be delivered in a manner that allows it to be
received by the members and by newspapers of general circulation and radio or television stations at least 48 hours before the time of the special meeting specified in the notice. Notice shall be made
available to newspapers of general circulation and radio or
television stations by providing that notice to all national press
wire services. Notice shall also be made available on the Internet
within the time periods required by this section. The notice shall
specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted. The written notice shall additionally specify the
address of the Internet site where notices required by this article
are made available. No other business shall be considered at a
special meeting by the state body. The written notice may be
dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the time the
meeting convenes files with the clerk or secretary of the state body
a written waiver of notice. The waiver may be given by telegram,
facsimile transmission, or similar means. The written notice may
also be dispensed with as to any member who is actually present at
the meeting at the time it convenes. Notice shall be required
pursuant to this section regardless of whether any action is taken at
the special meeting.
(c) At the commencement of any special meeting, the state body
must make a finding in open session that the delay necessitated by
providing notice 10 days prior to a meeting as required by Section
11125 would cause a substantial hardship on the body or that
immediate action is required to protect the public interest. The
finding shall set forth the specific facts that constitute the
hardship to the body or the impending harm to the public interest.
The finding shall be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the body, or, if
less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present. The finding shall be made available on the Internet. Failure to adopt the finding terminates the meeting.


11125.7. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the state body shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the state body on each agenda item before or during the state body's discussion or consideration of the item. This
section is not applicable if the agenda item has already been
considered by a committee composed exclusively of members of the state body at a public meeting where interested members of the public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item, before or during the committee's consideration of the item, unless the item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by the state body. Every notice for a special be taken on an item shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the state body concerning that item prior to action on the item. In addition, the notice requirement of Section 11125 shall not preclude the acceptance of testimony at meetings, other than emergency meetings, from members of the public, provided, however, that no action is taken by the state body at the same meeting on matters brought before the body by members of the public.



11126.3. (a) Prior to holding any closed session, the state body shall disclose, in an open meeting, the general nature of the item or items to be discussed in the closed session. The disclosure may take the form of a reference to the item or items as they are listed by number or letter on the agenda. If the session is closed pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11126, the state body shall state the title of, or otherwise specifically identify, the proceeding or disciplinary action contemplated. However, should the body determine that to do so would jeopardize the body's ability to effectuate service of process upon one or more unserved parties if the proceeding or disciplinary action is commenced or that to do so would fail to protect the private economic and business reputation of the person or entity if the proceeding or disciplinary action is not ll be a closed session and describe in general terms the purpose of that session. If the session is closed pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 11126, the state body shall state the title of, or otherwise specifically identify, the litigation to be discussed unless the body states that to do so would jeopardize the body's ability to effectuate service of process upon one or more unserved parties, or that to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage.
(b) In the closed session, the state body may consider only those matters covered in its disclosure.

02/15/05

AB194 specifically does not allow for agency to be exempt from prosecution even if it commences actions to remedy Brown Act Violations  Click here to read text of bill

Post Script; It is no wonder our Council has a difficult time finding qualified volunteers to fill these commissions.  Who wants to have their reputations soiled without an explanation?

02/09/05

and the

BROWN ACT VIOLATIONS CONTINUE to this day...

About Wednesday, September 01, 2004

Subject: new improved letter regarding brown act violations

Letter to media regarding the recall of the planning commissioners and others.

Another violation of the brown act occurred when the Desert Hot Springs city council interview the 7 PC "candidates".
7 New Planning Commission Candidates were selected to replace the removed commissioners without a public meeting and is a clear violation of the brown act.
Emails were sent to Rossie under the freedom of information act asking how the selection of candidates was performed, who selected the last 7 for interview and how it did not violate the brown act.

here's a link http://www.vanguardnews.com/brownact.htm
Definition of a meeting
54952.2. (a) As used in this chapter, "meeting" includes any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency to which it pertains.
also
54952.6. As used in this chapter, "action taken" means a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance.

Therefore Planning staff action taken to cancel the 8/10/04 scheduled planning commission meeting even though a item of major importance needed to be discussed and the prior selection of PC candidates for verbal interview in secret is a action taken therefore is a meeting required to be conducted with a majority in public and noticed. No meeting occurred, therefore there was no notice of a meeting and the cancellation of the 8/10.04 meeting was done in secret using personal intermediaries. see Brown Act quotes below
Brown act does not allow city council to appoint staff to make recommendations regarding candidates or cancellation of meetings unless done in public.  See Brown Act quotes below.

b) Except as authorized pursuant to Section 54953, any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devices that is employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on an item by the members of the legislative body is prohibited.

If the selection of candidates was done in a closed session, the closed session had to be noticed and fall under very specific criteria and be noticed of said exemption prior to the meeting. Both never happened.

54954.5. For purposes of describing closed session items pursuant to Section 54954.2, the agenda may describe closed sessions as provided below. No legislative body or elected official shall be in violation of Section 54954.2 or 54956 if the closed session items were described in substantial compliance with this section. Substantial compliance is satisfied by including the information provided below, irrespective of its format. (a) With respect to a closed session held pursuant to Section 54956.7: License/Permit Determination Applicant(s): (Specify number of applicants),Conference With Real Property Negotiator ,Conference With Legal Counsel--Existing Litigation (Specify whether disclosure would jeopardize service of process or existing settlement negotiations), Conference With Legal Counsel--Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: (Specify number of potential cases), Litigation Of Litigation Pursuant To Subdivision (C) of Section 54956.9: (Specify number of potential cases, Liability Claims Claimant: (Specify name), Threat To Public Services Or Facilities (Specify name of law enforcement agency and title of officer), Public Employee Appointment Title: (Specify description of position to be filled), Public Employment Title: (Specify description of position to be filled) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Title: (Specify position title of employee being reviewed),Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release

(No additional information is required in connection with a closed session to consider discipline, dismissal, or release of a public employee. Discipline includes potential reduction of compensation.) http://www.vanguardnews.com/brownact.htm#

It seems that staffs arbitrary decision to take action taken to cancel the PC meeting that would have otherwise be ordinarily scheduled to deal with normal planning issues seems to not fall within these exemptions.

Here's the penalty if you want to file a Police Report or go to the DA

54959. Each member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter, and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Council members making arbitrary decisions to tell us privately who can and can not apply to the PC board comes to mind here.

And then there is the slam dunk item of no public notice of the termination of the Planning Commission.
54954. (a) Each legislative body of a local agency, except for advisory committees or standing committees, shall provide, by ordinance, resolution, bylaws, or by whatever other rule is required for the conduct of business by that body, the time and place for holding regular meetings. Meetings of advisory committees or standing committees, for which an agenda is posted at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section54954.2, shall be considered for purposes of this chapter as regular meetings of the legislative body.

Click here for the Press Enterprise Story on the Illegal firing of Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission.  To this day the City Council member who fired the planning commission have refused to give an explanation why!

(The only exception was our always honorable Mayor Matt Weyuker who was against this action).

Don't the Citizens and the Commissioners who served honorably deserve at least an explanation for their termination? Our planning commission was fired just a few days prior to the General Plan update process. Hum.....  Good portion of Present Planning Commissioners are well connected cronies.

Will we ever know their motive?

Gabriel King was appointed to said commission only one meeting prior to the wholesale firing of all members.  What type of a message are they sending to the volunteers who honorable serve?

Below is a copy of media articles were our city council backtracked their Illegal actions after Gabriel King and others were forced to report to the media Council's flagrant violation of the law.  Still, Council later re-executed the vote and fired Planning Commissioners after the required public notice.  Still, the arrogant CC has never given any reason for their actions. (Again, our honorable mayor was against these cronies actions)

Don't we deserve as citizens deserve an explanation? I guess they don't thing so!

City Council to revisit fate of planners

DESERT HOT SPRINGS: An earlier decision to disband the commission raises questions.

12:18 AM PDT on Friday, September 3, 2004

By WES WOODS II / The Press-Enterprise

DESERT HOT SPRINGS - The City Council on Wednesday will reconsider its decision to remove the members of the Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission.

By a 4-0 vote, the council disbanded the commission Aug. 3, leading to questions of whether the city had violated the state's Brown Act requiring public notice and action. The council agenda had listed only possible action to "make appropriate appointments to the Planning Commission."

"I didn't see it as a Brown Act violation," city attorney Patricia "Corky" Larson said Thursday in a telephone interview. "I do see if there is a feeling in public that it wasn't properly agendized. It's just right to do it again so there's not a misunderstanding."

Mayor Matt Weyuker, who was ill and did not attend the Aug. 3 meeting, said he would have voted against the action and asked City Manager Jerry Hanson on Tuesday to put the item on the next council agenda.

"I still oppose it because these people have done a great job and a great service to the city and residents and I think we've treated them terribly," Weyuker said Thursday afternoon in a telephone interview.

Former Planning Commission alternate members Gabriel King and Yvonne Parks said they were "confused" about why they were released and plan to attend Wednesday's meeting.

Parks was at the earlier meeting and expected to be appointed as a regular commission member that night.

"I thought 'wow ... what's going on?' " Parks said in a telephone interview Thursday.

"Maybe they feel the city's growing and new people are coming in town. Maybe they want to reach out to people in being part of that process...,"she added.

Wes Woods II can be reached at (760) 837-4405 or wwoods@pe.com

Commission's breakup may violate law

DESERT HOT SPRINGS: The planning board's removal may have been a misleading agenda item.

12:53 AM PDT on Wednesday, September 1, 2004

The Desert Hot Springs City Council may have violated state law when it voted to disband the city's Planning Commission early last month, according to an expert in open meetings laws.

The council voted 4-0 on Aug. 3 to disband the commission without receiving comments from the public. The council agenda listed a Planning Commission item to "Request that Council make appropriate appointments to the Planning Commission."

The Brown Act, the law that governs actions of public agencies, states that public-body meetings must be open and public, with no secret actions. All actions must be posted on agendas before they can be approved. Any action that violates the law can be voided.

One legal expert questioned whether the city correctly followed the law.

"There's a legal issue if the notice was adequate. On the face of it, it looks like it's not. It does not describe the action they took," said Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition based in San Rafael.

City Attorney Patricia "Corky" Larson said the council followed city ordinance on dismissal procedure. The ordinance states: "Any member or alternate of a board or commission of the city may be removed from office at any time, with or without cause, by a majority vote of the City Council."

"Now, you can always word something better," Larson said. "I didn't see it as being out of line with what the agenda item said."

Scheer agreed, to a point.

"They have had the authority to take action as far as the Planning Commission," he said. "It's a separate question whether they followed proper procedures in doing it at a meeting where the notice didn't say that's what they were

going to do."

The Council's action potentially could lead to litigation, he said.

"Somebody could sue or force a void of the action they took," Scheer said.

City Council members said this week they were not aware of the possible violation.

"I never thought about that. I never saw that as an option," said Councilman Hank Hohenstein, who said he started the discussion about disbanding the council. "We have city managers and city clerks and city attorneys ... We look to them for advice and there was nobody that said wait."

The reasons for the action are still unclear. Steve Sobotta, who was Planning Commission chairman, said he believes "political reasons" were behind the vote. Sobotta said the council was trying to stop the political aspirations of commission members, in preparation for the 2005 city elections. "We have a multitude of reasons. We shouldn't have to defend them," Vice Mayor Mary K. Stephens said. She added she couldn't get into the specifics without legal problems, but "It's to protect the city. It involves individuals."

Nonetheless, planning commissioners said they were surprised and upset they weren't notified about the council's action.

"I have never been fired from a job. To be fired, somebody should notify you before you get fired," said Teddy Kovach, a commissioner.

Mayor Matt Weyuker, who was ill Aug. 3 and did not attend the meeting, said he does not support the vote.

Below is a copy of an e-mail letter sent to the council members and copied to media from Gabriel King after the firing of the planning commission members without public notice  With the exception of Matt (who was against the council's actions), no council members responded to this day.

Dear; Mary, Council and interested other parties

A possible healing solution to this Planning Commission mess could be;

1) Reinstate the PC. Save face by using the possible brown act violations as the justification.

2) Let existing PC members finish out their normal term then appoint new or existing PC members "at the pleasure" of the City Council at the normal time.

Everybody understands that the Planning Commissioner members "serve at the pleasure of the Council".

One of the main issues here is that the firing of the existing PC members during mid term is equivalent to the recall of existing council members.  Both actions imply that the persons serving did not serve with honor.

To serve a full term on the City Council or to serve a full term on the Planning Commission then not be invited back is completely OK and honorable.  There is no dishonor in serving well for only one full complete term.  To be fired (planning commission) or recalled (city council) is a
public sign of dishonor.   WE SERVED HONORABLY,  therefore we deserve the honor of the Council to serve out our full appointed term. We deserve nothing more and nothing less.

Honor is important.

Reputation is important for not only us, but for the City as well

Sincerely;

Gabriel