Return to Freinds Of Desert Hot Springs Home Page 

We ask the Important questions others are too afraid to ask!

" POLITICIANS WILL ONLY START SEEING THE LIGHT WHEN THEY BEGIN TO FEEL THE HEAT"

Return to Friends Of Desert Hot Springs Home Page

Free Speech Page

09/25/06
After The Fact
Contrary to Standing City Ordinance

Violations of the Brown Act abound at city hall. Few places has it be so blatantly on display as when Councilperson Yvonne Parks announced that the city council was not going to appoint anyone to fill a vacant seat. Then shortly thereafter the council sent letters to those that had applied formalizing the Council's decision.

There is a slight problem in all of this. The council has never at any open council meeting discussed and/or voted on this issue. For the council to have reached this decision, for the letters to have been sent out, the decision could have only been made at a closed council session or at some other meeting of the majority on the council.

Both of which constitute illegal governance.

A standing city ordinance states quite clearly that any vacant seat shall be filled by the council. The council has begun the process to change that ordinance, substituting the word "shall " with "may" and thereby giving the council the option to appoint or not to appoint. 

But as of this writing, at the time the council decided it would not appoint and at the time it sent out letters to the applicants informing them of their decision, that standing city ordinance had not been changed.

Now, after the fact, the council has placed this item on the agenda, to make the decision they made outside the public view official and public. But that's not official. That's after the fact. It's a decision that has already been made and made without public comment. That in our view is a violation of the Brown Act.

09/20/06 
Wrong Meeting Cancelled
Council closes open meeting
for sake of secret closed discussions

From the Desert Sun: "Deliberations over naming a new city attorney caused the city manager to cancel Tuesday's regular open City Council meeting. Ann Marie Gallant said she called off the meeting so the council could focus exclusively on choosing a new city attorney."

Translation: The open council meeting has been cancelled over discussions being held in closed session, discussions that rightfully should be held in open session. In other words, it's not the open council sessions that should have been cancelled. It is the closed sessions that should have been cancelled.

Let us be more blunt. With the shenanigans taking place between council members and legal firms wanting to represent this city, the process to hire and/or secure a new legal team needs to be out in the open.

06/01/06 Updated
They're At It Again!
City Removing Campaign Signs Again.
The City of Desert Hot Springs
has once again decided to pull the first amendment
and throw it into the back of their code enforcement pick-up trucks. This time its the campaign signs of State Assembly candidate Ron Oden, County Supervisor Marion Ashley and others that the city is removing from public streets.

At question is whether the city has the constitutional right to remove such signs when they are on public property.

See Sticks on Political Signs in DHS Code Enforcement Trucks See Additional Updated New Picture Below of DHS Code Enforcement Officers Removing Political Signs

So you may be allowed to place a sign in front of a home only if you get written approval from the owner and the sign is not any closer that 10 or more feet from the street. Technically, a survey of your property will be the only way to exactly determine where the signs may or may not be allowed.

Those people who hold signs or wave signs (political and commercial) are exempt from arrest as long as the signs they are holding or waving do not touch or are no fastened to the ground. 

Ron Oden And City Council Members React
We heard from Ron Oden's office. Their comment, "Interesting, when did this happen." They asked if Friendsofdeserthotsprings.com was accepting responsibility for the action. We told them, no, the City of Desert Hot Springs is. We are just reporting it.

Also, not just one but two city councilpersons (we can't call them councilmen) to explain the new ordinance.  The new DHS city ordinance forbids any sign including all political or commercial signs to be displayed in any public area including street right of ways.  Street right of ways not only include the center median but usually 10 or more feet past the curb. 

And Now Our View! Should Desert Hot Spring's new sign Ordinance be renamed "The Incumbent Protection Act" or the "Well Financed Council Member Protection Act"? The price of running for political office just got more expensive with a new city passed ordinance against political campaign signs in the public right-of-way. It is an ordinance FODHS is against. One of the most effective ways for a candidate without big-bucks financing to get their name before the public and their message out is the use of campaign signs along the roadways and on street corners. Campaigns signs are a campaign equalizer. They give lesser-funded candidates the means to make a respectable showing on a low budget. The alternative - now that campaigns signs in public places are not allowed in Desert Hot Springs - is expensive mailings, billboards, radio, television and newspaper advertising. Something most private candidates can not afford. The situation is now this. Those candidates with big contributions can wage an effective campaign. Others can not and are at a distinct disadvantage. It is a trampling of free speech rights that started in Desert Hot Springs when the city selectively pulled recall initiative signs but left other campaign signs standing. Recall organizers took them to task on this one. This ordinance is a gift to those candidates with big bank accounts. And we have to think it is an outgrowth of the very intensive - yet very low budget - recall campaign. That campaign nearly succeeded on less than $900 total spending. That $900 cost is will now be $9,000 just for starters. And that's exactly the way the big money contributors want it. We will have more on this in upcoming editions - Story developing. .

03/27/06
Federal Election Commission Won't Regulate
(FODHS) Internet Politics

Legal stuff here!

Any statements from these letters should be verified prior to being relied upon as being factual. We believe that the information is true when we post it within these letters. Even so, the reader should question and investigate the information provided as to its truth fullness.   Even though we feel that the information is true, no one should rely on any information provided until it is verified as correct.   The views represented within these letters are not necessarily our opinion.

Please Note: We will attempt to correct any information we find to be false. We will not publish any information about a public figure that we "believe" to be "False" or have "actual knowledge of being false". (See Sullivan vs New York Times) Please let us know if you find any additional information regarding any posted statements herein.  The information posted here has had a very high probability of being factually correct.  We have tried to be diligent in our postings as to avoid any "reckless disregard" for the information presented (expanded Sullivan Rule). The letters are provided a "Matter of Public Concern" therefore are "Common Law Privilege" (See Sullivan vs New York Times).  These letters are posted as citizen opinions under the First Amendment Right. In 1974, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 418 U.S. 323 there is no such thing as a false idea.  Even obvious sarcasm is not liable per 1988 ruling in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell 485 U.S. 46. This forum of letters is a constitutional privilege of "neutral reporting" per Edwards v. National Audubon Society.