At least three good new pieces on the Fitzgerald Distraction™ — the “stunning revelation” that an Anaheim political gadfly not only espouses bigotry but knows his free speech rights — hit the OC political blogosphere yesterday, as did one really frustrating offering. If you want to get up to speed before the Fitzgerald Distraction™ Rally at 4:30 today at Anaheim City Hall — as well as the rumored counter-rally (featuring civil libertarians rather than Jew/Gay-provokers) nearby — here’s what you’ll want to read. You’ll also learn a little about what the Fitzgerald Distraction™ is intended to distract you from: the continuing effort to block oversight of a massive transfer of Anaheim’s wealth into private hands, with promises of boosting the local economy but a guarantee of making the rich even richer.
(1) Straight News from the VOC
The Voice of OC, of course, gives the best coverage the hard news. Adam Elmahrek covers not only the background story, but collects coverage from several prominent Jewish figures in the county, including Rabbi Joel Berman of Anaheim-based Temple Beth Emet, and Democrat Beth Krom and Republican Jeffrey Lalloway of Irvine’s City Council. (All three of them, as well as two other Jewish leaders, are sensitive and sensible — which may be a tremendous disappointment to those like Kris Murray and Pringle Associate Todd Priest who tried to whip the Fitzgerald Distraction™ into an anti-Tait scandal.)
Most importantly, Adam hunted down the story of how the Fitzgerald Distraction™ — a noxious experience but not something as intrinsically important to Anaheim governance as the GIVEAWAY — became a semi-big deal.
The night of the council meeting, Todd Priest of Curt Pringle & Associates, a lobbying firm owned by the former mayor and whose clients include influential business interests the mayor has opposed, sent a text message to Irvine Councilwoman Beth Krom, who is Jewish, notifying her of the incident.
The next day, he contacted the Orange County Human Relations Commission and blamed Tait for allowing hate to be spewed at the council meeting.
Murray, in a debate aired Oct. 4 on Rick Reiff’s SoCal Insider, said Tait should have used his gavel power to stop Fitzgerald’s tirade and referred to Fitzgerald as one of Tait’s supporters.
Tait was flabbergasted by Murray’s accusation, noting that Fitzgerald is hardly a supporter. In fact, Tait has previously sued Fitzgerald for filing misleading ballot statements essentially accusing Tait’s firm, Tait & Associates, of corruption.
Last Wednesday, Murray and Priest both wrote to try to pique the interest of the Orange County Human Relations Commission in the Fitzgerald Distraction™. Murray is quoted as prefacing one line of argument “While I would be the first to defend freedom of speech ….” which is either an outright lie or a sad delusion, given that she then calls for its abridgment with extreme prejudice and abandon. Neither showed much understanding of the pertinent legal issues. While I would be the first to defend Kris Murray and Todd Priest are among the more intelligent in the Pringle Ring, they do seem sort of dull and obviously strained in their calls for Great Retribution against the nettlesome Mayor.
(2) “Readeing” Hypocrisy in the City Council’s Actions from OC Weekly
Gabriel San Roman got right to the heart of the matter regarding the Fitzgerald Distraction™ by noting that if one wanted to condemn William Fitzgerald bigoted rant, one should surely also be exercised over the vicious stylings of James Robert Reade, who (unlike Fitzgerald’s strained relationship with Tait) actually is an accepted hanger-on in the outer reaches of the Pringle Ring.
[I could] compile the vile and vicious greatest hits of James Robert Reade — who is embraced by both the Council Majority and this [Pringle Ring blogger Matt Cunningham’s] own blog. Where’s the rally to ask him to stop taunting bereaved mothers of sons shot to death by Anaheim Police, like Theresa Smith and Donna Acevedo, with his glee that their sons are dead?
(Yes, he really does this — continually and without rebuke from the dais.)
I think that if someone wanted to rally to criticize Reade … they’d be justified. But if they were to call to shut him down, I’d oppose it.
No, wait, sorry — that was me writing in a story from last Friday. But GSR used his extra three days to do the job even better:
James Robert Reade has long launched his racist screeds–and only we have complained. His berating of bereaved Anaheim mothers who lost their sons in fatal officer-involved shootings landed him a spot on the Weekly‘s ‘Scariest People’ issue last year. He remains the only loser ever banned from commenting on our blogs–and you know how damn lenient we are.
During an April 2012 meeting of the Anaheim city council, Reade gave nasty comments comparing Mexicans to apes. “Bonobos in captivity have learned to use human language unlike Latino gang bangers and graffiti vandals who flunk out of Anaheim High School and use gang bang gibberish,” he said. “Bonobo females migrate to other groups when they reach puberty eliminating the chance for incest and this increases genetic diversity whereas incest is prevalent among females and their Latino uncles.”
He capped off the particularly rant that I described then as an “uninterrupted display that would make an early 20th century eugenicist blush,” by likening council candidate John Leos to an “intellectually defunct” Latino.
Where was the chorus of condemnation then? Or ever, as Reade’s screeds continue complete with mocking stereotypical accents? Oh, that’s right. He lambasts Mexis and in OC that will only get you a chorus of crickets.
It’s a good and pungent piece. Nice to see GSR busting people in a good cause. Nice takedown of Murray before then, too!
To celebrate Chris Prevatt’s return to the blogosphere and we hope to glowing health, we commissioned a famous artist to paint a portrait that we call “Prevatt in the Pink.” … No, now I’m told that we just messed around a little with Photoshop. Apologies for the error. Anyway, good to have you back, sir.
(3) Less Straight News from the Liberal OC
The final good piece of note was a double pleasure — not only for its content, but for evidence that The Liberal OC‘s Dr. Jekyll, Chris Prevatt, is now well-enough recovered from surgery to write for our rivals at the golden asterisk. (I suppose that he could have dictated it, but I’m going to go with the theory that pleases me. If it means that Chris is getting better, and will soon be bringing more Liberal into LibOC, huzzah for both!
Chris makes the good point that what was happening at last week’s Special Meeting was really sort of important, and that the Fitzgerald Distraction™ really ought not be allowed to distract from it. He then, I don’t have a better term for it, catches fire:
But the politicization of Mr. Fitzgerald’s outrageous statements has moved beyond Murray and the Anaheim Council majority, making it’s way to the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Orange County. Today, DPOC Chairman Henry Vandermeir piled on, repeating, almost parroting, the language of Councilwoman Murray in condemning not only Mr. Fitzgerald’s comments, but also stating “Mayor Tait, as the presiding officer at the council meeting, has the responsibility to bar Mr. Fitzgerald from speaking at future council meetings.” The problem here is that the Mayor has no authority to do so, and Vandermeir should know that the rights of people to address their elected representatives cannot be abridged. The action that he is demanding is unlawful, and almost as outrageous as Mr. Fitzgerald’s comments were offensive.
Yes, this! When a Democratic leader finds himself or herself parroting the natterings of Curt Pringle’s favorite pet robot, it’s really a hint that that self is on the wrong track. After noting Vandermeir’s policy proposals –you’ll be able to figure them out from the critique — he de-freakin’-molishes them.
First, Tait did take what action he had been advised by the city attorney was within his legal authority at the time of Mr. Fitzgerald’s comments. While one might argue that he could have been more forceful in language and tone, Mayor Tait was the only member of the council to actually make any statement in response to Fitzgerald at the time. Mayor Tait does not owe an apology for the actions of an individual exercising their rights of free speech, no matter how offensive that free speech is. Further, Mayor Tait is barred by the Brown Act, and ironically the actions of the council on Monday, from placing the matter on the agenda for council discussion tomorrow. He also does not have the legal authority to ban anyone from speaking before the council, no matter what their past conduct.
It bears repeating: Fitzgerald knows this. He won a case against the County government, with ACLU backing, over this very topic. So this proposal is not just wrongheaded in theory, it’s handing the man money in practice.
But the best part of the piece was the more personal: this concluding paragraph.
As a gay man, I am disgusted by the hate speech Mr. Fitzgerald engaged in at the Special Meeting last week. But I am also disappointed that the Chair of the Democratic Party of Orange County would make such irrational demands in the name of people offended directly by Fitzgerald’s comments. Mr. Vandermeir’s press release is political theatrics. It is one thing to be outraged and denounce hate speech whenever it occurs. It’s another, to simply pile on without the slightest thought towards the rationality of the actions you demand.
(4) Which leads us to you-know-what
Here’s Henry Vandermeir’s letter in full, taken from a publicly available source. The only public criticism I’ll offer for now is marked in red:
DPOC Chair Condems Anti-Semetic and Homophobic Attacks Targeting Anaheim Councilmember
(ANAHEIM, CA- 10/7/13) – Today, Democratic Party of Orange County (DPOC) Chair, Henry Vandermeir, condemned a series of homophobic and anti-Semitic remarks targeting Anaheim City Councilmember Jordan Brandman, the Council’s lone Democrat, which took place at last week’s city council meeting.
During public comments, William D. Fitzgerald, characterized the Jewish community as “greedy”, “scheming”, “malicious and anti-American”. In addition, Fitzgerald also used homophobic slurs targeted at Councilmember Brandman. While this is not the first time Mr. Fitzgerald has used bigoted stereotypes against Council Brandman, it was certainly one of the most vicious.
Click here to access a video of the incident:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P0cUKLrCHE#t=25
Vandermeir stated, “While I agree that the foundation of our democracy lies in the people’s freedom of speech and that Mr. Fitzgerald’s reprehensible remarks are included in those rights, I also believe that we have a responsibility to respond when those rights are maliciously abused and the boundaries of public respect are overstepped.”
Vandermeir continued, “According to Anaheim City Council Rule .0101, each person who addresses the City Council during any meeting of the City Council shall refrain from personal, threatening, abusive, slanderous or profane remarks to any member of the Council, staff or general public which remarks disrupt, disturb or impede the orderly conduct of the Council meeting. Any person who makes such disruptive remarks, or engages in any conduct which disrupts, disturbs or impedes the orderly conduct of any Council meeting, shall, at the discretion of the presiding officer or a majority of the Council, be barred from further addressing the Council during that meeting.”
Mayor Tait, as the presiding officer at the council meeting, has a responsibility to bar Mr. Fitzgerald from speaking at any further council meetings since he has a history of engaging in personal attacks against city council members.
Therefore, the Democratic Party of Orange County is calling on Mayor Tait to address this issue at the next council meeting (scheduled for Tuesday, October 8th at 4:30 PM), apologize to Councilmember Brandman for not stopping Mr. Fitzgerald’s tirade, and announce that Mr. Fitzgerald and any other person who addresses the council in such a manner will be barred from speaking at further council meetings.
Added Vandermeir, “This unfortunately is not the first time an incident like this has happened. Regardless of philosophical differences, we encourage collegial relationships of respect.”
We encourage everyone to attend the next council meeting to speak out against these types of personal attacks:
Tuesday, October 8th
4:30pm
Anaheim City Hall
200 S. Anaheim Blvd
Vandermeir did ask for these steps. I think that he can fairly be said to be speaking for the DPOC regarding the paragraph in green. But where the piece says that “the DPOC” called for Tait to apologize and such, it is incorrect. The DPOC did not. (I’m pretty sure that I would have been asked to the meeting.) Vandermeir, however he came to the conclusion that the rest of these were appropriate Democratic Party sentiments, has sole claim to them. I and my peers on the DPOC’s Executive Board don’t — and I hope that we never will.
See you at the rally — or maybe at the other rally near that Fitzgerald Distraction™ rally, if it comes off. (Look for the signs.)
Great – now I have to go up against Cantor & Chris on Tait’s dereliction of duty. Well, at least Chris is not an a-hole like Cantor.
Chris – glad you are back at it.
Bold skallywag – no logic or reality can touch him.
1) What’s up with the drooling over the Voice Of OCEA, It’s not like theres no agenda with those cats!
2) I don’t read the OC WEEKLY, so I can’t say.
3) The LiberalOC is right, this is a HUGE red Herring, and Henry Vandermeir is a weakling.
Can I answer anymore questions for you?
Yes, he is GAY.
To his credit, I doubt that Jordan would take the accusation of being gay, or even “GAY,” as an insult. But it’s the sort of claim that’s easy to hurl even if you have no actual idea of the truth, so don’t bother. Until I know otherwise, I will continue to believe that he reproduces by generating spores.
You know Jordan that well?
He’s pretty strident about denying his gaiety.
Re: Mr Vandermeir’s quote from ‘City Council rule 0101″, there is ALSO this from the Council Policy posted online, (an unrelated change to which, was the meeting’s subject)-
Pg 4 Council policy 1.0 pg 1 of 1 , last paragraph-
“the policies set forth in this policy Manual shall be deemed directory. Failure to comply with the provisions or terms of any such policy shall not be deemed a violation of any law, nor be the basis of any legal action against the City, any City officer of Employee, or any other person or entity.”
The actions of the Board of Supervisors, at Fitzgerald’s previous “free speech exercise”, which Vandermeir presumably expected Tait to repeat, put them on the LOSING end of a subsequent ACLU lawsuit, backed by court decisions and case law.
Seems like a clear choice to me, as it was for Tait, if not for Mr. Vandermeir.
Correcting the fourth entry above, the County actually prevailed in the suit. Anaheim’s Council Policy still stands without the force of law, per the original comment. Those planning on making defamatory remarks in during Council Comments, should check with their attorney first for current legal status. Individual legal advice is not dispensed here
Come to think of it, Tait shut down Reade too. Remember JRR was heckling from his seat and intimidating little girls at the podium who were trying to exercise THEIR right to free speech, and Tait had Reade removed from the room. Again, where were the talking heads objecting to frightening little Latino children? What scum Reade is, and he is permitted to post his objectionable rants over at the MODERATED and privately owned (but quasi-publicly funded thanks to the Chamber of Commerce funneling tax dollars to Cunningham) AnaheimBlog, where “Hate Has A Home” seems to be the new motto.
It’s funny that the guy with the massive readership [Gustavo – referring to a comment I deleted – Vern] constantly has to come here to our humble little blog and call me a name. I’d think that the ability to put me in the “Scariest People” issue — oooh, scary! — would be enough.
The thing is — AND PARDON THE PRAISE, GUSTAVO — that he’s a smart enough guy and a good enough writer that if DID throw himself in to covering this story — which is completely up his “fighting government waste and perfidy” alley — then with the greater resources the Weekly has they’d have another Mike Carona-level achievement in their trophy case.
But why should be believe me about that? I’ve just been attending lots of the meetings and analyzing the hell out of them, pre-chewing what ought to be the Weekly’s food. If we were in Seattle, the Stranger would have swallowed this story whole by now and be spitting out red-hot nails to the delight of readers three times a day.
This sounds Cunningham-esque …except for the Disney’s roads…
“No lapse of sanity here Cynthia. I’m on your side against the efforts by Disney to use tax dollars to improve the roads to the theme parks but sorry, as far as the Angels go, you don’t know what Arte Moreno’s plans are. Instead of waiting to hear what his plans are, we’re getting completely bent out of shape. While I admire your dedication to Tait, you’re the sane one in the bunch that consists of two convicted felons, an underemployed lawyer who does puppet shows, a blogger who if he doesn’t like comments sends email threats, an fired anti-government politico seeking to blackmail the county into a six figure job or million dollar settlement, and a noted and known hate speech advocate (he was included on Diamond’s emails). All love Tait. Doesn’t speak well of your Mayor by the fans he has.”
We have really snappy uniforms, though.
Back to ” When you can’t criticize the message, criticize the messenger” for whoever it is, huh?
Where’d that come from, Ricardo? Sounds like a friend of Matt, it’s a lot of Matt’s lines. Apart from the Disney streetcar thing of course. Fitzgerald is not exactly a Tait supporter, but he hates seeing his town get ripped off like the rest of us. Who’s this threatening blogger? Ryan? And if this is supposed to be a comprehensive list of outspoken tait supporters, this guy should have gone to last Monday’s meeting, where there were about 30, most of them hard to discredit in a throwaway line, and also should have taken into account the countless people like YOU who just couldn’t be there at 8 on a Monday morning.
No, Vern — those are the prose stylings of Mr. Dan Chmielewski, in a comment to Chris’s piece.
http://www.theliberaloc.com/2013/10/07/piling-on-anaheim-mayor-tait-for-fitzgeralds-outrageous-rant-is-unwarranted-and-disingenuous/comment-page-1/
It’s a sad sign of the decay of certain (FAR FROM ALL) parts of the local Democratic Party that they’d rather side with an agent of Curt Pringle than with an ally (on this issue) of Lorri Galloway.
As far as Fitzgerald being in the “reply all” e-mail I sent — at that point we were trying to round up everyone possible on short notice to come out and talk to the Anaheim Council in public comments so they couldn’t get to another viciously self-serving “sneak attack” agenda item. Calls for help went out to all quarters — including the homeless community, which we didn’t bring in when it became clear that their presence wouldn’t be decisive.
If we’re talking political alliances, I wonder if Dan feels any scruples about snuggling up to Curt Pringle?
Curt Pringle? Poll guard Curt?
You need to come out from that maryjane haze Lucas.
“What’s wrong with you? You’re on a downward spiral ..”
And it is fun as heck to watch!
Those “guys” should be loving you Greg. Sixteen posts there have fewer than five replies/comments (that’s what happens when you oppress comments), yet your infused thread there has Fifty.
This must be killing Dan.
For such a self highly-regarded PR guy, he certainly isn’t very good at attracting blog traffic!
I think it’s the great videos we post – Thanks, Vern!
There were many good comments in the 10/8 meeting I guess that means more transcripting!
0:46:25 TT Very good, I’m glad you mentioned that- we’ll ..normally, we just have Council Comments at the end, but we’re going to change that, and have Council Comments, after Public Comments portion, and again at the end. Before we start public comments tonight, in light of what happened Monday morning, an individual, William Fitzgerald, said some very disturbing and disgusting things, there’s been questions about what we can and can’t do about that, and I’d like to… Mr. City Attorney, can you give us a little…advice on that?
0:47:05 CA: Yes, MR mayor, members of the Council, community, I can do that, I have some remarks- Statements made Monday, raised Anti-Semitic, and Homophobic themes, that have no place in respectful discourse, however those comments, based on the factual circumstances in which they were made, were protected by the First Amendment . The statements also did not violate the City’s existing Decorum policy, found in Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 1.12.017, given that an actual disruption did not occur. I’m sure I speak for all staff when I reflect that the language used last Monday,by one speaker, who chose to lace his comments with Anti-Semitic and Homophobic themes, cannot be condoned,and demonstrated both poor judgement, and insensitivity to Jewish, GLBT individuals. The fact that a speaker uses hateful language, however, in and of itself, does not warrant censorship, indeed, what distinguishes our City and our Country from so many places on Earth, is we are required to allow such speech to occur, but we are NOT required to condone it. We hope that by allowing such speech, as unintelligent and offensive as it may be, listeners can then judge for themselves the credibility and quality of a speakers ideas and judgement. The Brown Act allows speakers to comment on any matters within the City’s jurisdiction, and persons who avail themselves of this right, without causing an actual disturbance,of a public meeting, are afforded protection by the First Amendment. The First Amendment’s protections frown on censorship of speech merely because it is profane, homophobic, Anti-Semitic, racist, consists of personal attacks, or is otherwise unpopular, when such statements are used to make points critical of, challenge positions of, the City’s government, City Staff, elected officials, or any of the matters within the City’s jurisdiction. One exception to this protection, however, involves fighting words, which are, as defined by the Supreme Court, words, that by their very utterance, tend to inflict injury or incite breach of peace. In such cases, words alone are not protected. In simple terms, this means the City cannot censor profane, offensive, or disrespectful speech, merely due to the content of the comments, unless they are within a very narrow universe, and the line between such words is difficult to draw, making it prudent in most instances for public agencies to err in favor of free speech, rather than censorship. It is very important to note, that the City and its elected Officers and Staff, as well as the citizens in attendance at such meetings have the same First Amendment rights, and are empowered by those very same considerations, to be able to refute, condemn, or criticize statements made by someone who uses profanity, or uses racist, homophobic, or anti-Semitic themes. In instances where a commentator chooses to step down from that respectful discourse, into the sewer of profanity, anti-Semitism, or homophobic statements, then the Courts have stated a very clear remedy, and I quote, it’s called ‘counterbalancing speech’, as the 9th Circuit stated in ‘Garthwright v. City of Portland’ it is clear “that the way to oppose offensive speech, is more speech, not censorship, enforced silence, or eviction. The City Council, and its presiding Officer, the Mayor, are limited in how they can deal with speakers using profanity, homophobic, Anti-Semitic, personal attacks, or other unpopular language. Relevant case law is clear – the ability to stop such a commentator cannot be based on the content of speech, but whether the speaker , or his speech, actually disrupts a public meeting. As quoted by a recent federal district court, in ‘Dow v. Los Angeles”, ” a disruption must, in fact, have occurred” – ‘actual disruption’ means just that, actual disruption, it does not mean technical disruption, virtual disruption, or imaginary disruption. As you can see, based on this standard, it is not appropriate for the Mayor, as presiding officer, or the Council as the Body ultimately in control of the meetings,to take action to terminate a speakers right, or eject a speaker, unless actual disruption is reasonably occurring. Courts have recognized, that a presiding officer must not allow the content of a speech, to motivate a decision to terminate a speakers rights. This in no way means that such statements need go without response. The Council, or the Mayor may counter with their own speech, upon obtaining the floor. Speech can also be curtailed if it is unlawful, or irrelevant , or unrelated to City business, but determining what is irrelevant , or unrelated to City business, can be tough, and places the Mayor and Legal Council, in the position of trying to guess the speakers language and intent on the fly. In most cases, where statements are related to City business, even if tangentially. the wiser course is to allow speech to continue. I would be happy to answer any questions if you have them, this concludes my remarks.
0:52:06 TT: Thank you (audience applause) Thank you Mr City Attorney. (pause)
2 B continued!
Tait did not agendize what me and Greg both suggested he should, did he – which came from a discussion between me and you – to make it so that anyone on the council can agendize an item up to 72 hours before a meeting, but it had to be publicized on website and TV WHO is was that requested City Manager to do that? No?
I hope to have time to combine your previous posts of the special meeting into one dolled-up and nicely formatted story. What would you like the illustration to be? I can find a pony, a maple tree, an sea cucumber — almost anything you want.
Although the grasp for humor is tenuous and oblique, is there any biblical art depicting St Patrick driving the snakes out of Anaheim? I’m presuming – with a nod to Fitzgerald’s presumed heritage(?), that the Tuesday Kum-bay-ya parade with the Council and half the City, was the furthest thing from Fitzgerald’s mind when he made his Monday remarks, also finding a Wikipedia revelation (great entry!) that the ‘snakes out of Ireland’ achievement was a MYTH! Like I said, tenuous and oblique, maybe that’s why I don’t do this for a living! Nah, OK, maybe a pony!
St. Denis driving the ponies out of Ireland it is! Unless I get lazy, in which case something simpler.
Ponies? No, the first idea of snakes is as obscure a reference as it needs to be, plus completely appropriate.
Thanks for your patience! (next installment follows)
0:52:06 TT: Thank you (audience applause) Thank you Mr City Attorney. (pause)
(pause)
One of the best things about our country, is our First Amendment right, free speech, the ability,for us, to voice our opinion, especially at Council meetings. Having said that, I believe now is a good time to address a form of speech that is intentionally carried out, with hate and disrespect, with a goal to personally and emotionally harm someone. This past Monday, a Special Meeting of the Anaheim City Council was held, and an Anaheim resident who regularly attends Anahiem City Council meetings, and makes offensive comments, came forward and provided malicious, homophobic, and Anti-Semitic comments. Like many of you, my colleagues and I sat at this dias, and had to witness this spiteful attack on my Council colleague, Jordan Brandman. I want everyone here tonight, our community to know, that this Council does not condone such behavior. Although it may be legal, it is not right, nor moral. Anti-Semitic, homophobic, and any other types of mean-spirited, racist attacks are despicable, and I am disgusted that individual continues to say such things. So what can we do? Understanding that we are restricted in our abilities to limit such speech, I would request the Council to join me in asking our City Attorney to look into what this Council can do, or adopt as a body to condemn these types of comments. I would also like our City Clerk to draft language that can be announced prior to the start of Public Comments, at each meeting, that will remind our speakers of the decorum policy. Thank you, and I believe Council member Brandman would like to make a statement also.
00:54:03 JB: Thank you all for being here tonight. Free speech is all our right, as Americans. However during last Monday’s Council meeting, a resident broke our treasured norm of civility in public discourse, when he chose to express his feelings using hateful, and inflammatory rhetoric, intended to incite irrational vitriol, which we as a society have worked to subdue. Such expressions of hate speech, against any race, ethnicity, religion,or sexual orientation, have no place whatsoever, in our Council Chambers. Bigotry not only tarnishes a hallowed place of reasoned discussion, in search of the common good, but is an affront to all of us, as individuals,and as a community. We must stand together in upholding the values of inclusion, and mutual respect our great Nation and City are built on, and for which the members of this Council are sworn to defend. All residents have the right to feel safe in their own community, and we must condemn utterances of hatred, that threaten this most basic right. Thank you (audience applause)
0:55:50 TT: Thank you, Councilman Brandman. Any other Council Members (who) would like to speak at this time? Council member Murray-
0:55:58 KM: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank you for your efforts to lead our City away from what occurred, here in Council Chambers. I know, Mr. Mayor, that you truly have the best interests of our City and residents at heart, We as a Council may disagree, from time to time on policy issues, and that can be very difficult. But I know that each of us, abhor hate speech, and comments that are hurtful to groups or individuals. I like the suggestion you have made tonight, and would like to support and participate, in an effort to bring back the suggestion you have made, and perhaps even a Resolution, if that’s what you’re intending, I would like to work with you to do that. It is the sacred right of every resident of the City of Anaheim and beyond, to come before this body, and share their thoughts and feelings and their political philosophies. At times that freedom of speech can be racist, derogatory, hateful, and slanderous, and abusive, and while the Council led by our Mayor, has….is looking out for the rights and freedoms of our Citizens, they are allowed to use such language. We denounce and condemn in the strongest possible terms, speech and conduct which includes ugly stereotypes, racial hatred, misogynistic slurs, impugns the character of the Mayor or Council, Staff, other residents, and guests within these chambers. Statements such as these, whether arbitrary or deliberate, lower the civility of our governing body and our ability to work together for the greater good, and I would like to work with you, Mr. Mayor, to address these issues, and would hope that we never let hate speech divide us as human beings, as a Council body, or as a community, and thank you again for leading the effort.(audience applause)
00:57:50 TT: very good, Thank you. Council member Kring-
LK: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I’d also like to join you in moving this decorum of this valued and hallowed Chamber, in moving forward. And I notice that the speaker is not here tonight, so, maybe, people have gotten through with, to him, because last week, after he mentioned those horrible words, and directed his comments at one of our colleagues, several people did get up, and did decry, and did tell him that he was completely off base, and as I have mentioned before, I have known this man for almost 20 years, and I always knew him as a very gentle man, a big guy, as we all know, he’s rather large, he always had , he could always disagree with you, but he did it in a gentlemanly way, he was never mean, he was never mean spirited, he never called people names. So I am not quite sure what has happened to this man over the years , he has attacked each and every one of us on the dias, he has attacked many of our staff members, all with no cause, all with misinformation, no truth behind his words, so maybe the tide is changing, and maybe he will not show up at another Council meeting. So I just think, when you have a speaker like that, it really puts the fear of God in other speakers, who want to come and express THEIR opinions about what this body is doing, because I know many people have said to me, “I don’t like what is happening in the Chamber, I do not feel comfortable being around those types of people” So, maybe this, as I said is a turning point, and the good people of Anaheim will come back, and discuss what is important to them. Thank you very much. I look forward, again, to working with you.
00:59:42 TT: Mayor Pro-Tem-
GE: Thank you Mr. Mayor, I, too want to add my ‘thank you’ to you, for the statement that you read, for the action that you suggested we take as a body, I am totally supported of the crafting of the (narrow,less ?) yet most inclusive statement of decorum, that would just remind people when they come into our Chambers, that this is a place for business, and although we want to hear peoples opinions, there’s not a single person serving on this dias that deserves to be personally attacked, or have their family ridiculed or personally attacked up here. We’ve each one of us been elected by the electorate to serve all of you, and I think that even though we may disagree at times on policy issues, we continue to strive to work together for the betterment of all of Anaheim, not any one particular person, so I am just absolutely happy and overjoyed to be working on putting a decorum policy in place, that will.. has parameters, that we can remind people of on a regular basis, Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for bringing that forward.
1:01:03 TT Thank you-
(Pause) – MORE to follow!
This sounds about right:
Did you see this?
http://finance.yahoo.com/video/2-wal-mart-stores-ransacked-233000419.html
Every day things just get better and better!
Even ‘Funnier’ I believe it mentioned that the IT contractor involved was XEROX. Isn’t that the SAME contractor @ center of OC IT contracting-out controversy?