Monday, April 09, 2012

Is The Special Meeting Legal?(Updated)

Per a note from Bill Lobdell at 3:10 today, the Special Meeting called for today to discuss placing Jim Righeimer's Charter scheme on a ballot in June has been CANCELED without further comment. I posted another new post about it.


Well, loyal readers, as of 2:50 p.m. Tuesday there has been no response from Lobdell, Hatch or Duarte to my question on this post. I suppose there's still time, but... If I do receive word before I head over to City Hall I'll post it.

I just wrote to Tom Hatch, Tom Duarte and Bill Lobdell with the following message:


Regarding the special City Council meeting called for Tuesday, April 10, 2012:

At 4:42 p.m. Monday, April 9, 2012 I received email notification of the Special Council Meeting to be held the next day. Here's what the text looked like when it arrived to me:

There is a new City Council Agenda posted on the following link:

There was more verbiage at the bottom about not replying to the message, etc.

When I clicked on the link I was taken to the City Web Site to a page that looked, in part, like this:

When I clicked on that link to the Special Meeting I was taken to the announcement:

That .pdf file contains two pages. The first one is the agenda for the special meeting and the second is the actual Notice And Call for the special meeting. Here's an image of that notice:

The following is an extract from section 54956 (a) of the California Government Code. I did not include the remainder of the text, only what I feel is relevant to this issue. I have highlighted the section in bold italics the portion in question.

54956.  (a) A special meeting may be called at any time by the
presiding officer of the legislative body of a local agency, or by a
majority of the members of the legislative body, by delivering
written notice to each member of the legislative body and to each
local newspaper of general circulation and radio or television
station requesting notice in writing and posting a notice on the
local agency's Internet Web site, if the local agency has one. The
notice shall be delivered personally or by any other means and shall
be received at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting as
specified in the notice. The call and notice shall specify the time
and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted or
No other business shall be considered at these meetings
by the legislative 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 legislative body a written waiver
of notice. The waiver may be given by telegram. The written notice
may also be dispensed with as to any member who is actually present
at the meeting at the time it convenes.
The call and notice shall be posted at least 24 hours prior to the
special meeting in a location that is freely accessible to members
of the public.

You will note that this section of the government code REQUIRES that the call and notice specify the time and place of any such special meeting.

Nowhere in your published and posted Notice and Call does it specify the time of the meeting. It does say that it will "begin immediately following the Regular Adjourned Meeting/Study Session", but that assumes the reader of the announcement will know the time of THAT meeting. Since this special meeting deals exclusively with The Charter and the Study Session has no segment on that subject, folks who might be interested in the Charter could not be expected to know about the Study Session.

In my view, your Notice And Call has failed to meet the noticing requirements of the California Government Code. If you hold that meeting Tuesday afternoon or evening you will be doing so in violation of state law.

Geoff West
Costa Mesa


I have no idea if they will reply to me or not. Guess we'll see

Labels: , , ,


Anonymous haha said...

good catch! methinks this will stop the vote. yippie missed this one. wake up yippie, the people will NEVER get to vote on this. go find some other mischief to get in to.

4/09/2012 10:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Greg Diamond said...

You may think that you've found a nice technicality, Geoff, but I must remind you that this City Council HAS NEVER LOST A CASE IN COURT!!!

4/09/2012 10:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Tamar said...

I had the same question--how could I not, as I was trying to figure out if I could get to the meeting on time?

Anyway, if two laymen noticed the same problem, it's likely that any of the number of attorneys who are concerned with the propriety of the councilmen's actions will also take note.

Thanks, as always, for sounding the alarm to the community. Could you do me and other working people a favor and post on Bubbling Cauldron whether the meeting will be held or not? It would make our day a lot less hectic.

Thanks from Tamar.

4/09/2012 10:35:00 PM  
Anonymous your other left said...

the time is clearly stated, it will follow the conclusion of the first meeting. When the first meeting concludes is hard to guess since you never know how many "speakers" will show up. To be safe, figure not many and then you won't miss anything. If it runs long get some popcorn from cindy b and robin.

4/09/2012 11:03:00 PM  
Anonymous mybad said...

can we please get a city clerk to actually perform up to expectations?

4/09/2012 11:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Skirt wearin brick thrower said...

@Greg Diamond

You must be high as a brick thrower if you think the city has never lost a case in court yet. These boneheads have been trying to get the employee association's case thrown out several times and they keep failing.

Are you like Charlie Sheen where you say "WINNING!" when you're really losing? Perhaps you've been drinking their Koolaid and believing everything they say and tell you to believe.

They even have a something pathetic called Costa Mesa in a minute. Yeah, a minute of more LIES and SPUN stories!

4/10/2012 12:15:00 AM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

If I get an answer I'll post it on this entry somewhere.

4/10/2012 12:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Lowered expectations... said...

@ mybad

Are you kidding? This wrecking crew can't even find a $500 per hour lawyer to perform up to their expectations.

What do you expect of an overworked city clerk who continually gets changes thrown at her at the last minute?

4/10/2012 12:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Mike M said...

Don't know if it counts, but they lost last week on their appeal, didn't they?

4/10/2012 06:22:00 AM  
Blogger Angry White Man said...

At what point will we be considered a more corrupt city than Bell ?

4/10/2012 06:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Cynthia Corley said...

This mess reminds me of when my kids were small and didn't understand "no", and kept asking and asking for a cookie. The only problem is, every time my kids asked for the cookie, it didn't cost me thousands of dollars in lawyer fees. To the City Council: Grow up. No means no-the court has made it very clear. Wait until November.

4/10/2012 07:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Riggy is a Piggy said...

"Legal" is a word doesn't seem to mean anything to these numb-nuts on the City Council. The rented City Attorney is a joke and should have been returned to the funny farm a long time ago. How he can sit there and let these idiots do what there doing is beyond me.

4/10/2012 08:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Themosticles said...

Time to suspend acting City Clerk Rick Francis and have the attorneys conduct an investigation.

4/10/2012 08:21:00 AM  
Blogger Joe said...

I think the Greg Diamond post was a goof.

I was pleased to see the Righeimer Gang lose on the deadline issue recently, but we are nowhere near a point where celebration is in order.

The people behind these extremists are very clever, dedicated, and well-financed. With all due respect to our friends in the CMPD, this is a long-term war. Dragging a sign through town or winning one round in court will not be the end of Napoleon Spendboy and his band of idiots.

4/10/2012 08:21:00 AM  
Anonymous yippie! said...

haha! All you little dummies keep debating and arguing with me like master riggy wants you to so I can get his propaganda points and positions out there for everyone to see.

The best way to handle a little pony boy like me is to just ignore me and my brothers instead of engaging us in dialogue.

If I have nothing to do in Geoff's blog I can get back on my knees at jimmie's house.

4/10/2012 08:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Joe said...

Time to give up complaining and start campaigning.

These guys have proven they are smart and relentless.

We still do not have a viable candidate. Yet alone a plan.

And Jay said he would not take union money, so we are going to have to find a way to funnel union money. There will be lots of union money to ne spent.

What do we do?

4/10/2012 08:28:00 AM  
Blogger Joe said...

Riggclones posting as me wrote:

Joe said...
Time to give up complaining and start campaigning.
These guys have proven they are smart and relentless.
We still do not have a viable candidate. Yet alone a plan.
And Jay said he would not take union money, so we are going to have to find a way to funnel union money. There will be lots of union money to ne spent.
What do we do?


Not my post. Nice try. When I post, the name "Joe" comes up in blue. Go back to doing what you do best- bootlicking.

4/10/2012 08:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Joe said...

let's all be "Joe" from now on!

4/10/2012 08:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Judy Lindsay said...

eI have a question about the 24 hour notice requirement. My email notification from the city regarding this special meeting was sent at 7:30 a.m. today!!! I read trhe The Daily with my morning coffee, and went to this blog for follow up. That is not 24 hour notice. If I had not decided to check my facebook before retiring, I would not have seen the information on facebook. However facebook, is not very official now is it?? So was the time by law really met??? ancesper

4/10/2012 09:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Barry said...

This blog is so pathetic. Any little angle to prevent the voters from voting on something. The haters have become so disgustingly poison in this City. You are beyond the fringe element here.

Let the people vote!

4/10/2012 09:57:00 AM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

Barry, while we always enjoy your posts here because they give us a clear view into the minds of the bootlickers, if you find this blog "pathetic", please stop reading. I don't want to be the cause of your mental meltdown, for goodness sake!

4/10/2012 10:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Troll Patrol said...

Barry said...
"This blog is so pathetic. Any little angle to prevent the voters from voting on something. The haters have become so disgustingly poison in this City. You are beyond the fringe element here.
Let the people vote!"

If it's so pathetic, you should stick to your own blog. What's up? Is it a slow day in the white supremacy community?

4/10/2012 10:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Level the playing field said...

"Is The Special Meeting Legal"
Geoff you forget, the words Legal and CouncilMEN cannot be used in the same sentence; Legal requirements are not applicable to CouncilMEN. Please consider that requirement in all future columns. (Sarcasm noted).
Great job in getting the word out.
I think a public records request should be sent to the City of Costa Mesa requiring the savings to date be posted by City Spinner Lodbell. Will be a quick response - How long does it take to draw a "0" on a piece of paper?
What a group of pathetic losers.

4/10/2012 10:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Lets get along! said...

No matter what side of the political fence your on can we all just agree due to the new hires w/ pensions at city hall and the unlimited funds being spent by council...THIS CITY IS NOT BROKE and it does not seem we are going broke anytime soon.

If that were the case, you would think we would buckle down and save money.

At least we should all agree on that!

4/10/2012 11:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Joe said...

did Geoff just call them bootlickers? After putting down the term haters earlier? double standards here. must realize the sad truth of overwhelming voter approval of charter is only two months away.

4/10/2012 11:48:00 AM  
Anonymous joe said...

Judy, they don't have to notify you individually. (think about it and the time to notify everyone in cm. they just have to post it, it is up to you to stay informed) it was a courtesy follow up from the councilmen.

4/10/2012 11:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Judy Lindsay said...

Joe, I did not mean to infer that personally expected notice. You clearly misunderstand that I meant the citizens of CM. How can they stay "informed" as u say when blindsighted at last minute and little if any place to find out this happening. Even with say the Daily Pilot, if you were lucky enough to be computer savey u might have read the new article when it was first posted. If you happen too subscribe to the LA Times you would have a copy included. What if you can not afford or chose not to subscribe to a newspaper. By staying informed of the councilmen's shenanigans citizens would need to be in earshot 24/7. I am a concerned citizens, this has been my city, place of employment and where I raised my children but I do have another life, and need my nites sleep.

4/10/2012 01:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Ethan said...

Vote for me, I'm the biggest bootlicker!

4/10/2012 01:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Colon said...

No, boyfriend, I'm the biggest bootlicker!

4/10/2012 01:33:00 PM  
Blogger zennymoon said...

I smell more attorneys fees, more intervention by OC Superior Court and another butt kicking for the council. ANd obviously Greg D was making a big funny, when he said the city council has not last in court....LOL A good one Greg

4/10/2012 02:11:00 PM  
Blogger Mike H. said...

John Canalis and the Daily Pilot just tweeted that the meeting is cancelled. No explanation.


4/10/2012 03:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Greg Diamond said...

brick thrower: up here in the North County we have this thing called "sarcasm," though some call it "snark" or "facetiousness." Ask Joe or zennymoon about it.


But, seriously, I vote that Cynthia Corley wins the thread for comparing Rigthevoteheimer to a kid who just BADLY wants a cookie and will never stop trying getting around the word "no." Just imagine what such a kid could do if he could spend someone else's money on a lawyer!

Actually, I guess one does not have to strain to imagine it....

4/10/2012 05:23:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home