Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version

   1. The latter.

2. When one starts criticizing a position based on incomplete information or 
a mistaken understanding of the facts, then has to back down when things 
are clarified.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version
Terry Francke Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Moderator Group General Counsel, CalAware Joined: 08/July/2006 Posts: 298	Quote Reply Topic: Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors Posted: 28/December/2006 at 4:52am
	1. The latter. 2. When one starts criticizing a position based on incomplete information or a mistaken understanding of the facts, then has to back down when things are clarified. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella

ellenmartin Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Watchdog Joined: 31/October/2006 Location: United States Posts: 9	Quote Reply Posted: 28/December/2006 at 3:07am
	Thank you, Terry. A few more questions: 1. Do you think an argument supporting the position that comments during the general "public comment" period, on an item that is on that meeting's agenda, is best based on the Brown Act-specified right to speak on any subject under the body's jurisdiction during that comment period, or on the Brown Act-specified right you mention to address the body either "before or during" the body's consideration of the subject? 2. What is an "Emily Litella moment?" ellenmartin

Terry Francke Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Moderator Group General Counsel, CalAware Joined: 08/July/2006 Posts: 298	Quote Reply Posted: 28/December/2006 at 2:45am
	I think you're right. The public is entitled to address the body on an item before or during its consideration by the body. The Brown Act is not clear about the timing of comments not on the agenda, or that have been taken up and acted on. But it seems unlikely that the Legislature intended all comment on a body's action to be silenced once action has been taken. On the other hand, a person unwilling or unable to stay until the body takes the item up should recognize that early comments made without benefit of the official presentation, background, staff comments etc. may risk an Emily Litella moment or otherwise lose effectiveness.

ellenmartin Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Watchdog Joined: 31/October/2006 Location: United States Posts: 9	Quote Reply Posted: 28/December/2006 at 12:02am
	The Board of Supervisors ended up scrapping this idea, at least for the moment. But this incident also brings up a related issue that I have wanted clarification on: The "public comment" period at some govt. board/commission meetings has been interpreted to mean that the speaker can only speak on issues that are not on the agenda, and they have forced speakers to stop speaking on subjects that are on that meeting's agenda during "public comment" time. Isn't this a violation of the Brown Act, which says a speaker can speak on any subject under the jurisdiction of the body during "public comment" and contains no such limitations? (Also, a speaker may not be able to stay until late in the meeting when an item may come up on the agenda.) ellenmartin

Terry Francke Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Moderator Group General Counsel, CalAware Joined: 08/July/2006 Posts: 298	Quote Reply Posted: 02/December/2006 at 1:29pm
	Recently the California Court of Appeal dealt with a lawsuit brought by two members of the Santa Monica City Council who sued to force their colleagues to end meetings 11 p.m., I think, so that citizen speakers would not have to wait until after midnight to be heard concerning matters not on the agenda. The court held that the council members had no standing to sue the council, even if, as was unlikely, the Brown Act could be interpreted to require meetings to end at a certain hour. See http://www.metnews.com/articles/2006/holb112206.htm

JackO Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Visit Members Homepage Add to Buddy List Watchdog Joined: 13/July/2006 Location: United States Posts: 134	Quote Reply Posted: 02/December/2006 at 1:14pm
	I have found they do that to make it more difficult for people to attend whose only purpose for attending is to address the body. At least that is my opinion. Our last city council meeting lasted until 11.30 PM and who wants to wait that long to speak 3 minutes to the body. JackO
	always and forever the same, correct in all things, erroneous in none, but humble

Terry Francke Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Moderator Group General Counsel, CalAware Joined: 08/July/2006 Posts: 298	Quote Reply Posted: 21/November/2006 at 10:50am
	Ellen, Moving the "public comment period" refers, I assume, to the period for comments on matters not on the agenda. The public would still be allowed to comment on agenda items as they are taken up, I assume.

Emily Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Visit Members Homepage Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 02/October/2003 Location: United States Posts: 5	Quote Reply Posted: 21/November/2006 at 8:46am
	Ellen, I'm sorry you've been having a problem with posting text. If you would like to email me and describe the problem, I'll see if I can help. In the meantime, I've forwarded your message to Terry to see if he has any thoughts/suggestions. Good luck!

ellenmartin Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Watchdog Joined: 31/October/2006 Location: United States Posts: 9	Quote Reply Posted: 21/November/2006 at 8:40am
	I have been having trouble getting the text in a post to show up after I submit it... Issue: The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors is going to vote tomorrow on whether to move the public comment period to the end of the meetings. This means that the comments would likely be heard after the agenda items were voted on. This would seem to violate GC Sect. 54954.3, which says that the public shall be given an opportunity to speak before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item.

Emily Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Visit Members Homepage Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 02/October/2003 Location: United States Posts: 5	Quote Reply Posted: 21/November/2006 at 5:52am
	Ellen, Was there supposed to be a story attached? All I can see is the newspaper banner. We'd like to help/comment, but we're not sure what the question is. Thanks!

ellenmartin Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Watchdog Joined: 31/October/2006 Location: United States Posts: 9	Quote Reply Posted: 12/November/2006 at 12:44am
	��The Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors is considering putting public comment after the meeting (see article below).� How can they do that, as they will have already voted on the issues�for which�they are supposed to be considering the public comments? Would this be considered a violation of the Brown Act? Supervisors may move public comment period Barney McManigal November 11, 2006 7:43 AM SANTA BARBARA COUNTY -- The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors may revise the way it takes testimony from the general public. At its Tuesday meeting, supervisors will vote on a proposal to move the public comment period from the beginning of the day-long hearing to the end. Supporters said the change would boost the board's efficiency, because the comment period at times runs over its alotted 15 minutes. Others have criticized the board in the past for proposed changes that they said would undermine the public's right to be heard. Edited by Emily - 21/November/2006 at 11:07am