D-Day - And The Drone

THOSE FREEDOMS WON BY TREMENDOUS SACRIFICE
Today, June 6th, is the 72nd anniversary of the D-Day invasion of Europe by allied forces that marked the beginning of the end for Hitler and his Nazi regime.  Millions of words have been written about this event and dozens of movies have been produced memorializing the valor shown during the invasion and the months that followed, including Saving Private Ryan and The Longest Day.  Dozens of documentaries are available for viewing on YouTube and vary in length from a couple minutes to a couple of hours.  Here is a three minute clip that will remind us of that date:
IS THIS WHAT THEY FOUGHT FOR?
Today, as I contemplate this day and what D-Day meant to the world and freedom as we know it, I cannot help but think about how things are in my city, Costa Mesa, California.  Today we wrestle with abridgment of many of those hard-won freedoms.  Today residents find themselves chastised and vilified for daring to step up and attempt to address grievances with our elected leaders.  The list is long - too long to present again here now.  However, there is one situation boiling in our community today that simply demands comment.

VIRAL VIDEO
For the past week there has been a YouTube video circulating that has become white-hot locally.  Since it was posted on June 1st more than 442,000 views have been tallied.  By the time I finish this and post it that number will be rapidly approaching the half-million mark.  Of course, that's not unusual in this day and age.  What is unusual is the content and the reaction of local officials and residents to this event.

SOME FACTS
I will not provide a link to that video lest you be distracted from my message today.  It presents a mostly audio recording - taken from a GoPro camera attached to a quadcopter drone machine that was being flown as part of some kind of drone race at Fairview Park.  The subject of the video is a long-time resident, an active volunteer in the community and the mother of two school-age children.  She actually ran for a school board seat not too long ago.

ONLY A FEW FACTS ARE KNOWN
I don't pretend to know all the details of this event, but I've watched the video a couple times.  I will not attempt to sugar-coat the audio record - it's there for all to hear.  The woman in question used some very salty language toward the owner of the drone as she attempted to take it to a police officer that she had called.  I understand that the man wanted his drone back, and I don't know - and the record is not clear - whether the woman was actually in danger from the flight of the drone before it crashed near her and her dog.  It does appear that she feared for her safety as she walked to meet the police officer.  Only she and her husband, who was accompanying her on their walk through the park, know the truth.

SITUATION APPARENTLY RESOLVED PEACEFULLY
The 16 minute video apparently ends with the owner of the drone receiving it back from the woman, who had carried it some distance hidden from view under her sweater - all the while the GoPro camera was recording the audio.  I don't know what kind of editing was subsequently done to that audio/video clip, although that might have been important to know.

NOT THE PURPOSE OF THIS POST
The purpose of this post is NOT to attempt to criticize her, nor excuse her, for the language she used, nor is it to criticize the drone pilots who may have been violating operating rules at Fairview Park.

JACKALS AND HYENAS ON THE ATTACK
The reason for this post is to address the reaction by members of this community to that event, particularly several elected and appointed officials who seem determined to destroy this woman's life - apparently because she's friendly with political opponents.  We've seen a predator mentality take over, with some of the most vile posts on social media I've ever seen locally basically calling for her scalp.  Some of the most vocal are people I've respected in the past, even though I've disagreed with them on specific issues.  Their actions on this issue have changed that...

THE MAYOR FANS THE FLAMES
We've seen one high-ranking elected official actually post her name, address and telephone number on social media!  We've seen our mayor, Steve Mensinger, actually encourage his minions to bring flash drives of segments of the video clip to the City Council meeting tomorrow to be be played during Public Comments.  We've seen another image placed on social media that shows her photo, a photo of her home along with the address and the names and ages of her children!  Those acts are despicable!

MY CONCERNS...
What I AM concerned about is that this appears to be yet another attempt to swat down a member of the community for exercising free speech.  Was she correct in picking up that drone and refusing to give it to the owner until the police officer intervened?  Probably not.  Was her language something one normally expects to hear?  Probably not, but I can tell you that I've heard more than a few of those caterwauling the loudest about it use similar language in much less stressful situations.

WERE HER RIGHTS VIOLATED?  PROBABLY...
The woman's speech was recorded without her knowledge - a violation of law.  It was published on YouTube without her permission - a violation of law.  Does she have legal recourse in this matter?  Probably.  While important points, in my mind it's not the most important point here.

WHAT IS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED?
What is to be accomplished by members of our city government condoning and encouraging further defamation, ridicule and violation of her rights in a situation that has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE to city government matters?  The encounter was between two private citizens - we don't even know if the drone pilot is a resident of the city or not - and was resolved peacefully by a member of the Costa Mesa Police Department.  This woman is friendly to members of the council that oppose positions taken by the majority, led by Mensinger.  This looks like a vindictive attempt to cast a shadow on those elected officials by destroying the life of a member of the community who agrees with them.

I WILL ATTEND AND WATCH... AND WRITE
Tomorrow evening I will attend the City Council meeting and will watch to see if, in fact, any individual uses the bad judgment to actually attempt to play a segment of that video clip into the official record of the meeting.  Yes, it will be their right to do it, but what's the purpose?  It will only demonstrate to those of us in attendance and watching on television - and recording it for posterity -  the vindictive mean-spiritedness at play in an event that has zero relevance to city matters.  And I wonder what those young men who gave their lives on Utah, Omaha, Sword, Gold and Juno beaches on June 6, 1944 would feel about this situation?

REMEMBER...
I would remind those considering such an act - including the mayor and his minions - of the Bible admonition - "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."  Karma's a bitch!

Solid Landings Sues City and Citizen(s)

YOU'VE READ ZINT'S ARTICLE, RIGHT?
By now you may have read Brad Zint's piece in the Daily Pilot, HERE, in which he discusses the lawsuit filed last Friday by Sober Living operator Solid Landings Behavioral Health, Sure Haven and Rock Solid Recovery against the City of Costa Mesa and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive and Ann Parker plus the grass roots organization "Take Back Our Neighorhoods" - TBON and more than 1,000 "DOES", as in John Doe.  I don't know if that organization, TBON, even exists any longer, nor if there is a membership roster in existence.  I do know it was a loosely-organized grass roots organization of concerned residents who were looking for relief from the influx of sober living establishments in our city.

A GOOD JOB, BUT...
Zint does a good job of providing you with the skeleton of the suit in his article.  I've seen the 61 page complaint and, according to the information contained therein, the folks at Solid Landings, etal (I'm just going to refer to them as "Solid Landings" for ease of typing), want a judgment against the City as follows (my shorthand of the actual text):
1) The City to set aside its denial of the original request;
2) The court to judge that the denial and associated decisions are unconstitutional, invalid and of no force and effect;
3) For declaratory relief;
4) For costs of the suit, including reasonable attorney's fees;
5) For other such equitable or legal relief, or both as the Court deems just and proper.

ANDRANIAN CHANGED HIS MIND
It is my understanding that, when Ann Parker filed her request to overturn the Zoning Administrator's approval of the minor conditional use permit, she had been under the impression that rookie Planning Commissioner Stephan Andranian, a lawyer, was going to "pull it up" - ask for the decision to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.  However, on the last day that such an action could be taken Parker was told by Andranian, for reasons known only to him, that he changed his mind and would NOT be requesting a review.  So, she had no recourse except to dash to City Hall, scratch out her request for review and pay the $690.00 in fees to meet the filing deadline.

BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL AGREED
Subsequently, based on her presentation to the Planning Commission, that body reversed the Zoning Administrators approval.  That decision was then appealed by Solid Landings to the full City Council, which also upheld the denial of the permit. 

INSUFFICIENT TIME TO COMPLY
The lawsuit implies that Solid Landings had insufficient time to comply with the conditions of approval imposed by the original Zoning Administrators decision before the issue was reviewed by the Planning Commission.  I don't know if that's the case...

CHILLING EFFECT ON ACTIVISTS
I don't know how this will shake out.  I DO know the impact it is having on many residents of this city - some of whom have joined Parker over the past couple of years in speaking out against what they perceive to be a infestation of sober living homes throughout our neighborhoods, particularly on the Eastside of our city.  Many of those folks are fearful of being dragged into this lawsuit because they have exercised their right of free speech to tell the Planning Commission and City Council how they felt about these businesses in our town.  I, personally, have no doubt that this will stifle some community activism... and perhaps that's really the purpose of this lawsuit... I don't know.

NEW ORDINANCES
The City has passed an ordinance governing sober living establishments in R-1 zones and is poised to pass a second ordinance covering all other residential zones throughout the city.  Parker has been a persistent observer of sober living activities - perhaps the most persistent - and has been personally responsible for providing information about the location of sober living homes in our community to the City for their records.  In my opinion, we should be grateful for her tireless efforts to help establish controls over such businesses in our town.

WE NEED RECOVERY FACILITIES, BUT...
Few people will deny the need for recovery services for folks with alcohol and drug addiction problems.  According to some recent proclamations by members of the City Council, the recovery business is a $35 BILLION per year business.  It has been widely reported that Costa Mesa now contains well over one quarter of all sober living facilities in Orange County.  One recent speaker - a long-time operator of a sober living home in Costa Mesa - told the audience at a recent meeting that "this is all about the money."  She said that Obamacare has provided so much money for recovery that homes are popping up all over town.  She said, "I sure wouldn't want to live next door to one!"

CITY SHOULD COVER PARKER'S LEGAL COSTS
 Zint mentioned that Parker chose not to comment for his article on advice of an attorney.  I'm happy if she has legal representation in this matter, but one attorney who has worked for the City in the past has recently opined that the City should be covering whatever legal costs she incurs in this matter.  I agree with that assessment.  All Parker did was attempt to follow the rules as presented to her and was successful in her presentation of facts to not one, but two official City bodies.  Although City officials refused to refund her filing fee, in my view they have a clear obligation to pay for her legal defense in this matter.

WHAT WILL THE IMPACT BE?  WE SHALL SEE...
This will be interesting to watch as it unfolds in the weeks to come.  It will be interesting to see if the sledgehammer of a lawsuit does, in fact, stifle the expression of public opinion on this subject in our city.

Packed City Council Agenda Tonight

PICK AN EVENT TONIGHT
So, if you're not attending the Concerts In The Park at 5:30 nor attending Orange Coast College's "Vision 2020" meeting in it's library at 6:00, then you MUST be joining me and a few dozen of your neighbors at the Costa Mesa City Council meeting beginning at 6:00 in City Council Chambers.  You can read the agenda for this meeting HERE.  By the way, if you want to see a preview of that OCC presentation as delivered by the OCC President Dennis Harkins to the Planning Commission last night, just click HERE for the video and "jump" down to the item.  It's early in the meeting.

PRESENTATIONS
There will be a couple interesting presentations tonight.  One by Kelly Vucinic regarding the National Night Out event coming up and then presentations to youth baseball teams.

LUCK OF THE DRAW
Then comes Public Comments, when the lucky 10 lottery winners will have a chance to address issues not on the agenda, but which speakers may feel are important to be presented to the council.  Any remaining comments will be shoved off to the end of the meeting - discouraging folks who can't stay up until midnight to thank the council for their actions or to complain about potholes, coyotes or other things that might be on their minds.

"MARY JANE", GARY?
Council members comments follow - always a crap-shoot.  Tonight one might expect Gary Monahan to talk about his Medical Marijuana initiative he's had City Attorney Tom Duarte draft for possible placement on the November ballot.  It's not on the agenda and time is running out.

DON'T YOU DARE PULL AN ITEM!
Then the Consent Calendar comes up and it's likely that none of the items will be pulled for separate discussion because Emperor Mayor Jim Righeimer has decreed that any such act will require the discussion of those items at the tail end of the meeting.  He gets around a real discussion of those items by encouraging council members to talk about them during their Council Member Comments - thereby eliminating the nasty requirement for a separate vote.

INTERESTING NUMBERS
However, as a public service, we will, again, present some of the items appearing on Warrant #2519 that caught our eye.  You can read the entire Warrant HERE.  In no particular order, only as they appear on the Warrant:

Enterprise Counsel Group - $28,324.77 - Successor Agency legal
Golden Star Technology, Inc. - $38,127.00 for PC Installation
Lilley Planning Group - $25,580.00 - Planning Consultant Services
Onward Engineering (2) - $38,720.50 and $28,545.67 - Construction Inspection and Design
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore  - $8,940.00 - Labor Negotiations
Melad & Associates - $14,709.40 - Bldg. Permit/Plan Check Services
Meyers Nave - $1,341.44 - Fairview Park Legal Services
Apple One Employment Services - $7,348.08 - Various Temp. Svcs.
Civil Source - $123,515.00 - Various Design, Project Support and Inspection Services
Civil Works Engineers - $25,710.75 - Engineering Support
Costa Mesa Conference and Visitors Bureau - $173,354.30 -  BIA Receipts for April
Accounting Principals Inc. - $2,889.36 - Temp Svcs.
CSG Consultants, Inc. - $6,107.10 - Bldg. Plan Review/Inspection Svcs.
FTOG Inc. - $2,745.00 - Interim Buyer
Government Staffing Services, Inc. - $4,372.50 - Temp Proj. Mgr
IntelliBridge Partners, LLC - $11,649.75 - RFP Purchasing Assistance
Kabbara Engineering - $10,447.50 - On-Call Trffc Svcs
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. - $4,945.00 - Housing Consulting
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore - $12,645.67 - Several legal, incl. 60th Anniv. Investigation

As you can see, we continue to rack up large numbers for temporary help - accounting, engineering, inspection, planning, etc.

GETTING THOSE DOLLARS
There are five (5) Public Hearings on the agenda tonight.  The first, HERE, is to approve certification of special assessments for delinquent civil fines for municipal code violations.  The total for those violations is $36,325.00 and you can read the list of the violators and the amounts HERE.

GIVING A DEVELOPER THE STREET
Public Hearing #2, HERE, involves the vacation of a portion of Superior Avenue at 1677 coincident with the development of a new housing development.  You can see the site plan for that strip of Superior Avenue to be deeded to a developer HERE.

CORRECTING AN ISSUE
Public Hearing #3, HERE, is the General Plan Amendment for a lot line adjustment at 320 East 18th Street.

TO BE CONTINUED?  WONDER WHY, MAYOR?
Public Hearing #4, HERE, is the second reading of the Pre-Zoning and Property Tax Exchange Agreement for the Santa Ana/Colleen Island Annexation and would normally be a BIGGIE, but Mayor Righeimer apparently wants this item continued to give the developer of the vacant chunk in the middle of this area to meet with residents to "discuss zoning".  It's our understanding that the owner in question is Facilities Management West - one of the outfits that tried to buy the Fairgrounds and the principals of which have, in the past, been campaign contributors to - guess who?  Yep... you got it.

ELIMINATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Public Hearing #5, HERE,  it the Municipal Code amendment regarding the governance of Motels.  For details, read the attachment to the staff report, HERE.  This is a big deal because it potentially decimates current affordable housing stock in the form of motels.  I suspect this will provide lively discussion tonight.


TAXPAYER REWARDS FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY VANDALISM?
Old Business #1, HERE, is the second reading of an ordinance repealing and replacing a section of the Municipal Code relating to rewards for information leading to the arrest and conviction of persons vandalizing PRIVATE PROPERTY.  It's an interesting issue.  Do you want your tax dollars to go to providing a reward for the capture of those who vandalize private property?  Should we, the community, pay a reward, or should the property owner? 

DICTATORSHIP IN ACTION
The last item on the agenda, except for trailed Public comments and/or Consent Calendar items, is Old Business #2, HERE, which is the second reading of what I now refer to as Jim Righeimer's "Shut Your Mouth, Go Away" ordinance.  You can read the ordinance as proposed by the City Attorney HERE.  You will see that it still contains the provision for citation of a misdemeanor offense by folks who are disorderly in more than one meeting.  Also, there's an interesting phrase at the preamble of the section that lists "disorderly behavior", section 2-61, (b).  It says "Disorderly behavior under subdivision (a) may include, but is not limited to, the following:"  That emphasis is mine.  "Not limited to" means anything the mayor decides is disorderly behavior IS disorderly behavior.  This ordinance is just the perpetuation and codification of the mayor's move to quash critical comment by members of the public.  This is dictatorship, pure and simple!

Freedom Of Speech, The Charter And More

 ANOTHER LONG, LONG NIGHT
The Costa Mesa City Council had a long, busy night Tuesday/Wednesday as the meeting stretched until 12:30 a.m.  Not much happened that wasn't anticipated, but it took a long time to get there.  You can read the agenda for the meeting HERE.  I'll give you the shortest version I can.

QUICK WORK OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Nobody pulled anything from the Consent Calendar, so it was passed on a 5-0 vote. (Mayor Jim Righeimer and Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger abstained from voting on Item #4, the Salary Resolutions for the Costa Mesa Police Association and the Costa Mesa Police Management Association.

COYOTES, KUDOS, DEVELOPMENT AND MORE
Nine residents spoke during Public Comments.  Among those were RoyEllen Duffield, who told us of a harrowing experience with coyotes in her neighborhood recently, and the fact that the police couldn't help her.  Al Melone spoke, again, on the Small Dog Park and coyotes, too.  Beth Refakes congratulated CMTV's Dane Bora and Brad Long for a recent award and complained about the duration of fireworks.  Dominic DeBona (sp?) complained about current developments and the traffic it will bring, plus the Banning Ranch project and its traffic.  Teresa Drain told us about an unpleasant event that occurred during the 60th Anniversary Celebration and suggested that an independent financial audit is necessary.

COUNCIL COMMENTS
During Council Member comments Gary Monahan also addressed the fireworks issue and coyotes, too, citing the fact that they are all over the city and the PD can't do anything about them.  Mensinger expressed gratitude for the fireworks indicating that it generated about $400,000 for youth groups.  Sandra Genis spoke on the Bark Park, then acknowledged the anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (today) and read from President Lynden Johnson's speech about it.  Wendy Leece praised Bora and Long and upcoming events.  She expressed concern for the mounting legal fees and mentioned that Monahan had the City Attorney prepare an ordinance for Medical Marijuana dispensaries in the city without any discussion by the council.  Monahan told us he did that because there are two pending petitions to place Medical Marijuana on the November ballot and he wanted an ordinance in place should either qualify and pass.

HATCH AND SHELTON
During his segment CEO Tom Hatch told us that the old Print Shop on the first floor of City Hall will be evaluated for possible use as a community meeting room and that the architect being used for other work at City Hall will be retained to do that work, too.  He said the Public Safety staff is geared up for July 4th and told folks with coyote issues to call the non-emergency number at the CMPD.  As part of his segment Kelly Shelton, his Executive Assistant, gave us an rundown on the changes at the Fairgrounds this year.  The Fair begins in a little over a week.

HARBOR SOARING SOCIETY RENEWAL
New Business #1, the renewal of the agreement with the Harbor Soaring Society went smoothly.  After some conversation that might have required the members of the HSS to police non-member fliers, that idea was abandoned.  The staff proposal was for a 5-year renewal, but Mensinger moved for a 1-year renewal and re-assess it at that time.  Righeimer suggested the 5-years and a look at the loose ends of the process after a year.  That passed, 5-0.

FIELD USE AND MATT LEINART
Next up was New Business #2, the new Field Use and Allocation program.  After a short conversation and no public comments it was passed as recommended with the exception that the Matt Leinart Flag Football program - which had officially requested to be given Group 3 status - was given a "special circumstances" designation for a year to see if the program grows with Costa Mesa residents.

SECURITY CAMERAS
The discussion of New Business #3, the proposed security cameras at various venues generated lots of conversation.  Nine residents spoke on the issue.  Most of them felt the control and review of the images captured by the cameras should fall under the Police Department, not the Information Technology Department.  Among those, Robin Leffler said she understood the need in some of the areas, but for them to be used 24/7 in places like Fairview Park and the Joann Street Bike Path "creeped her out" and it smacked of "Big Brotherism".  Greg Ridge was 100% against the cameras, described them as "Orwellian" and it would make things like racial profiling probable.

NEED A POLICY BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION
During the discussion among the council members, concern was expressed by Genis that there was no policy for the management of this kind of a system and Leece was reluctant to support it because there was no data presented that showed the cameras would be a deterrent to crime.

MENSINGER - REDUCES THE NEED FOR SAFETY STAFF
Perhaps the most telling comment made during the discussion was by Mensinger, when he said, "The use of security cameras reduces the need for public safety staff."  Uh, huh!  Another admission of the attack on the Costa Mesa Police Department by a man who is in the middle of suing the men and women of the department.  The item passed, 4-1 - Leece voted NO.

REWARDS PROGRAM
New Business #4, the modified rewards program that includes a proviso to pay a reward for damage to PRIVATE PROPERTY had virtually no discussion by the council.  Tim Lewis spoke, stating it was "mercenary" and it sent the wrong message.  People should do the right thing - report vandalism and other crimes - because it's the right thing to do.  Cindy Black wondered if this program would apply to vandalism directed by council members - obliquely referring to the decomposed trail in Fairview Park.  It passed on a 5-0 vote.

CONTROLLING COMMENTS

Next up was the the BIGGIE - the proposal to replace unconstitutional Municipal Code section 2-61 with a whole new version as a result of the Benito Acosta event more than 8 years ago.  Attorney Elena Gerli was the lead staffer on this one.  There were still more than 60 people in the auditorium as this debate commenced.  you will recall there were eleven (11) behaviors that might justify a person being sanctioned by the presiding officer and punishment could include arrest for a misdemeanor.  Here's the text of the proposed new section that I provided to you in an earlier post:

HERE'S THE TEXT OF THE PROPOSED NEW SECTION: 

2-61 Conduct while addressing the council. 

(a) Any person who engages in disorderly behavior that actually disrupts, 
disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of any city council 
 meeting shall, upon an order by the presiding officer or a majority of the 
city council, be barred from further audience before the city council during 
that meeting, pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (c), below. 

(b) Disorderly behavior under subdivision (a) may include, but is not limited to, 
the following: 

(1) Speaking without being recognized by the presiding officer. 

(2) Yelling, or using a loud, disturbing voice. 

(3) Using profanity or obscene gestures. 

(4) Continuing to speak after the allotted time has expired. 

(5) Speaking on an item at a time not designated for discussion by the 
public of that item. 

(6) Throwing objects. 

(7) Speaking on an issue that is not within the jurisdiction of the city 
council. 

(8) Continuing to speak after being informed by the presiding officer 
that the comments are unduly repetitive of either prior comments 
from that speaker or comments by other speakers. 

(9) Attempting to engage the audience rather than the City Council. 

(10) Disobeying any lawful order of the presiding officer or a majority of 
the city council. 

(11) Refusing to modify conduct after being advised by the presiding 
officer that the conduct is disrupting the meeting. 

(c) Enforcement. The rules of conduct while addressing the city council set 
forth above shall be enforced in the following manner: 

(1) Call to order and warning to desist. Whenever practicable, the 
presiding officer or a majority of the city council shall give a warning 
to the person who is breaching the rules of conduct to be orderly 
and to comply with the rules of conduct hereunder. Such a warning 
 shall articulate the rule of conduct being violated and the manner in 
which the person must comply. 

A warning shall not be necessary when it would not be effective 
under the circumstances, including when, but not limited to, the 
disturbance is such that the warning cannot be heard above the 
noise, or the conduct of the person or persons constitutes an 
immediate threat to public safety, such as the throwing of objects or 
specific threats of harm and the apparent, present ability to carry 
out such threats. A warning shall also not be necessary when an 
individual violates the rules of conduct more than once during a 
council meeting, or continuously violates the rules of conduct 
council meeting after council meeting. 

(2) Order barring person from meeting. A person who engages in 
disorderly behavior shall be barred from the remainder of that 
council meeting by the presiding officer or a majority of the city 
council when that person: (i) continues the disorderly behavior after 
receiving a warning pursuant to subdivision (c)(1); (ii) ceases the 
disorderly behavior upon receiving a warning pursuant to 
subdivision (c)(1), but later in the same council meeting resumes 
such disorderly behavior; or (iii) engages in disorderly behavior and 
no warning is practicable under the circumstances, pursuant to 
subdivision (c)(1). 

The continuation of disorderly behavior after receiving a warning, 
repeated disorderly behavior during a council meeting, disorderly 
behavior at council meeting after council meeting, or disorderly 
behavior that is so significant that a warning cannot be given, 
constitutes the type of behavior that actually disrupts, disturbs or 
otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of a city council meeting. 
  
(3) Removal. If the person barred from the meeting does not voluntarily 
remove him/herself upon being instructed to do so by the presiding 
officer or a majority of the city council, the presiding officer or the 
majority of the city council may direct the sergeant-at-arms to 
remove that person from the council chambers. 

(d) The following conduct shall be unlawful and shall be punishable as a 
misdemeanor:

(1) Continuing to engage in disorderly conduct, which disrupts, disturbs 
or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of any city council 
meeting, after receiving a warning pursuant to subdivision (c)(1) of 
this section. 

(2) Refusing to leave a city council meeting after being directed to do 
so pursuant to subdivision (c)(2) of this section. 

(3) Returning to a council meeting after being barred, removed or 
directed to leave such meeting pursuant to subdivisions (c)(2) and 
(c)(3) of this section. 
 

DIFFUSING THE ARGUMENTS EARLY
Early-on during the discussion Righeimer - apparently aware of the firestorm that was caused by this item - acknowledged right off the bat that item 3, profanity, should not be included and that item 8 also should be deleted.  That one dealt with the "unduly repetitive" question.  That defused many of the commentors who followed later, but not all.

LOTS OF DISCUSSION
Two hours and 22 speakers later, and following a spirited discussion by the council, the item passed on a 4-1 vote, with Leece voting NO.  Much of the discussion revolved around specific items on that list above.  At one point it was suggested to just eliminate the entire list.  Individual items were fleshed out.  The choices of "disruptive" and "disorderly" were discussed at length and it was eventually decided to leave that verbiage intact.    Eventually, when the vote was taken it was decided to eliminate numbers 2,3 and 8 and combine numbers 10 and 11.

LOTS OF GOOD INPUT
There were many amusing and prescient comments made by members of the public.  Among those was John Stephens' lawyerly dissection of "disruptive" and "disorderly", which launched that discussion.  Greg Ridge expressed the view that the holiday we celebrate on Friday represents a long tradition of being "insolent" - the word in the current code section that started this whole thing.  Mary Spadoni read the entire First Amendment of the United States Constitution, then read a parody of it as it might apply to Costa Mesa.

BUDDIES SPEAK
Long time resident Chuck Perry - a good pal of Mensingers - said "The thing that disgusts me the most - I just hate it - is when people make disgusting comments about the council."  Another Mensinger buddy - "Costa Mayberry" walking companion, Estancia High School football coach Mike Bargas - told us that "three minutes was way too much time for some people to speak."  He then used the word "turd" in a peculiar context, then - violating the policy about speaking to the audience, not the council -  referred to folks who oppose the council majority as "a few squeaks".  It's so "comforting" to hear those condescending words - obviously echoes of phrases he hears on his walks - coming from the mouth of a leader of our youth.

THE CHARTER
After a short, necessary, break the meeting reconvened at 11:20 p.m. to tackle the final item on the agenda - The Charter.  Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, who had been a member of the Charter team, led the discussion of the staff report, HERE.  Fourteen (14) people spoke to this issue - seven (7)) for it and eight (8) against.  Of those seven supporting the Charter, three - Ron Amburgey, Gene Hutchins and Tom Pollitt - had been members of the Charter Committee.  Among the opposed was Harold Weitzberg, also a member of the committee.

THE OPPOSITION
Weitzberg, the first speaker, correctly pointed out that this Charter was unnecessary because it, for the most part, just followed General Law.  Sheila Pafflin, who is 100% against the Charter, said it gives too much power to the council.  Charles Mooney, who attended every Charter Committee meeting, said that the Prevailing Wage segment - which formed the cornerstone of the argument for the Charter, actually represents a very insignificant financial savings and that Senate Bill 7 may cause us to actually lose state funding.  He also indicated that the Charter addresses NONE of the current pension liability issues - only those well off into the future.  Tamar Goldmann chided the council for putting this idea forward again after Jim Righeimer's Charter was so soundly defeated less than 2 years ago.  Jay Humhrey looked forward to the enumeration of changes on the ballot statement.  Robin Leffler threw back in Righeimer's face his claim that the Committee was NOT stacked, but fairly selected, when she described the actual process that was followed - which stacked the deck right off the bat.  Terry Koken, in a rare VERY serious moment, described Righeimer's more than 16 year quest to weaken unions and sang the last few words.

AMBURGEY FLUMMOXED
Supporters also had their say.  Amburgey, apparently practicing his stump speech for his run for a Mesa Water District Board seat in November, complained about the "big union" influence in the election and bemoaned that there were two groups opposing the Charter - unions and "Robin Leffler's group"... he undoubtedly has a hard time remembering Costa Mesans For Responsible Government (CM4RG).  He was aghast that Leffler and her group would fight against progress.

MORE TRUE BELIEVERS
Gene Hutchins - to the surprise of absolutely nobody who has been watching - took only about ten words before he said the Charter would resolve our unfunded pension liability problems.  Of course, that's not true, but he says it every time he opens his mouth.  The Charter will have NO AFFECT on the current pension liabilities.  Tea Party Tom Pollitt - also a member of the Charter Committee - was almost tongue-tied as he griped about people using the City of Bell as an example of what can happen with an abused Charter - stating that it could "NEVER HAPPEN" in Costa Mesa.  He then launched into a little riff about "we're going to save millions of dollars for pensions and the Police Department and Fire Department."  It doesn't surprise me at all that he lost his Orange County School Board challenge in June.  I'm sorry, but the guy's just not very smart.

CHANGES
The council discussed the various changes that had been suggested for The Charter based on the last hearing.  They are listed on page 2 of the staff report.  I've copied and pasted them below:

Proposed Changes to Draft Charter

The proposed changes include:

A. Section 700 – Public Contracting – Clarify the City’s discretion to follow the Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Act.

B. Section 304 – Compensation - Include “shall continue to be limited” as in general law.

C. Section 306 – Include commissioners and committee members as well as council members.

D. Add Provision re: Elected Officer Qualifications – Follow general law.

E. Add Procedure for Adopting Ordinances – Follow general law.

F. Add Section 602 proposed by Pension Oversight Committee– Pensions – Financial Impact
Analysis.

G. Section 104 – Powers – Impose limitations on power.

H. Add Code of Ethics.

STOPPED SHORT OF "G" AND "H"
As they rushed to vote on this issue they just went down the list, one-by-one, and agreed to include each of the recommendations by the staff... through letter F.  They completely ignored G and H!

THE ACCEPTED VERSION OF SECTION 104
Now, this comes as no surprise to me.  In the case of G. - Section 104 of the proposed Charter reads as follows:
Section 104. Powers.

The City shall have the power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to
municipal affairs, subject only to such restrictions and limitations as may be provided in
this Charter or in the Constitution of the State of California. In the event of any conflict,
this Charter shall control over the general laws of the State of California as to municipal
affairs.

The ballot explanation would read as follows:
Section 104 as it reads gives the City full authority over municipal affairs regardless of whether the charter addresses that particular issue.

THE REJECTED VERSION
The following is the proposed modification - the one that was rejected by the council.

Section 104. Powers.
Except as enumerated in this charter, the general laws of the State of California shall
apply.

 Ballot Description Pertaining to Section 104.
Section 104 would limit the City’s powers to those areas expressly addressed in the charter.

THE PLAN IS CLEAR
As you can see, this is a HUGE difference and, in my opinion, the fact that the council chose to reject the modification speaks volumes to their actual intent with this Charter.  The Charter will go on the ballot with the language above and will provide the framework to do whatever they want once the Charter is in force.  This is the stake in the heart of this latest Charter scheme.

BLANK CHECKBOOK
Couple that with the outright rejection - again - of  item H., a Code of Ethics, and it's clear that the council majority is going to be planning some very BIG changes - ones not codified in the Charter language, but that will be possible/probable with the language in Section 104 intact.

"SON OF V" ON THE BALLOT, BUT NOT UNANIMOUS
The council passed the resolution to place the Charter on the ballot on a 3-2 vote - Genis and Leece voted no.  The two other companion issues - procedural matters - passed on 4-1 votes - Leece voted NO.

 WATCH YOUR MAILBOX THIS FALL
And, in an interesting procedural twist, the council somehow decided - without a vote - to distribute four mailers in the run-up to the election at a cost of $8,400 each - $33,600.  I guess that falls within CEO Hatch's authority.  Here's the proposed distribution schedule:

• Mailer No. 1 (General Law vs. Charter City chart) – Sept. 25
• Mailer No. 2 (Charter FAQs): Oct. 6
• Mailer No. 3 (Reprint of the proposed charter): Oct. 20
• Optional - Mailer No. 4 (reprint of the proposed charter with margin notes): Oct. 27

IT'S GOING TO BE AN INTERESTING SUMMER
So, we're off and running.  It's going to be VERY interesting to see what kind of marketing strategy is used to peddle this Charter to the public.  Personally, I don't think it's appropriate for the City to distribute pro-charter propaganda, so I'm going to be watching what comes out of City Hall on this issue.