Late last night, the Costa Mesa City Council voted to give the Mayor unilateral authority to charge disruptive speakers at council meetings with a criminal misdemeanor, as oppose to a non-criminal infraction; and of course, the law could have simply called for the speaker to be removed from the building. It is hard to imagine why this… um… crime… deserves such a draconian punishment. Whether the botched ordinance is the result of blinding incompetence or something more sinister is anyone’s guess. In any event, the city failed to do something incredibly simple and if not fixed it will have costly consequences for the people of Costa Mesa, and not all will suffer alike.
It is important to stress the serious nature of a misdemeanor. By this, I mean the seriousness of the classification itself and not the actual crime. In fact, the city did not even need to provide such a label. The ordinance could have just given the Mayor the discretion to have a speaker removed when said speaker’s conduct becomes “actually disruptive”. That is all the Supreme Court and First Amendment require. Seriously, it is not rocket science.
Misdemeanors are consequential, not just on the individual defendant, but for the criminal justice system. Unlike infractions, misdemeanors imply prison time. It does not matter how slight, the Supreme Court, and most employers, do not consider the length of the sentence, only its existence. Critically, misdemeanors, and not infractions, show-up on one’s criminal record. But even if the case is dismissed, charging information is preserved forever. In other words, even if all charges are dropped, this does not cleanse your record of the notations showing allegations, arrest and prosecution. And here is the sinister bit, the threat of the former does not just chill the right to free-speech but also threatens anyone who challenges its constitutionally with life-long stigma. Chilling indeed…
With respect to the criminal justice system, misdemeanor defendants are guaranteed certain rights under the Constitution because of the seriousness of the charge. These include the right to an attorney and the right to a jury trial, both of which are very costly to taxpayers. Moreover, misdemeanor cases can go on for several months and in some cases, such as those with Constitutional implications, last more than a year.
Misdemeanor charges threaten some groups more than others. For non-citizens, a misdemeanor conviction may: impact one’s visa, immigration status, immigration applications, entry into this county, and can result in deportation. Gun owners can lose their Second Amendment right to bear arms. As such, these groups will risk much more when they speak before the council. As such, the First Amendment rights of these two groups are being curtailed more severely because of the ordinance’s particularly chilling effect on their civic participation.
Beyond a fix, I would really like to know just how and why this seemingly easy task was botched so badly by the city staff. The City Council was assured over and over by the staff that the ACLU had approved the language in the ordinance. Some how… I doubt that very much. Mayor James Righeimer seemed to think, wrongly, that he was voting for an unchanged previous version of the law that was approved by the Courts. This is a troubling state of affairs in any event, but more so when taken in the realms of criminal and constitutional law.
Given the magnitude of the failure and the seriousness of the costs involved, heads should role down at City Hall, figuratively speaking. Moreover, something needs to be done to hold elected officials and city employees accountable for gross negligence in handling basic legal affairs. After all, this could end up costing Costa Mesa hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees; but the real kick-in-the-butt is this: by the time the bill comes due, only taxpayers will be left because the politicians will be long gone and off to higher office.
I appreciate your recap of this. You did leave out one step in this ordinance: the Mayor (or majority of council on a vote) first warn the disrupter. Then, if the disrupter continues they are ordered removed. Then, if they come back in the chambers and continue to disrupt they may be charged with a misdemeanor. So there are a few steps before an actual charge. Anyone who gets to strike three probably needs to be charged. The ACLU was involved in drafting this are fine with the process as passed.
Read it again, I think you are mixing up “or” & “and”. There are no steps in the process. And I do not know where you are getting the bit about a majority of the council, it is just the chair, meaning the Mayor.
” 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”
this, above, is the language and where I got the bit about the “majority of the city council.
Yeah, well go further down and check-out the enforcement provisions. It is tricky and took me all night. This is just bizarre incompetence.
“The proposed ordinance provides that continuing to engage in disorderly behavior after receiving a warning, refusing to leave a meeting after being ordered to do so, or returning to the same council meeting after being barred or removed, constitute misdemeanor offenses.”
I see the “OR” there, why does deadwhitemale pretend not to?
The above translates:
Continuing to engage in disorderly behavior after receiving a warning constitutes a misdemeanor offense.
AND
Refusing to leave a meeting after being ordered to do so constitutes a misdemeanor offense.
AND
Returning to a council meeting after being barred or removed constitutes a misdemeanor offense.
I highly doubt the ACLU vetted the version we’re discussing. And the lawyers Daniel is calling “wrong” are probably all on the city’s payroll, buncha yes-men.
I’m sure the Riggy council doesn’t care about the CM taxpayer money they’re gonna blow vainly defending this; Goat Hill has become a lawyer’s Golden Goose. Costa Mesans are still paying off all the money they lost trying to suppress Benito Acosta’s free speech, and that’s not to mention all the money they’ve blown trying to defend their draconian anti-labor and outsourcing schemes.
a warning, a removal, and then a return to the chambers= strike 3. seems fair at that point you have a nut on your hands.
Even if that were the case, it is still absurd; but it is not. Try one more time, and next time, please come back with a reference.
http://www.costamesaca.gov/ftp/council/agenda/2014/2014-07-01/NB-5.pdf
you are the lawyer arguing all the other lawyers are wrong. I am just an observer who thinks that if a nutcase keeps disrupting a public meeting, gets thrown out, and returns, he/she should be cited. Period.
You are talking about a different law man. I posted the text above, read it, and let me know what you think. Have a good one.
I read it a week ago, watched the council discussion, heard from the attorneys. I think I am pretty well versed on what went down.
You can’t really lay this on Costa Mesa’s staff any more than the godforsaken and pointless COIN ordinance. This was a policy driven by the Council’s Gang of Three to muzzle the critics who have the gall to question their autocratic decisions. Hatch either didn’t have the guts (as he should have) or the ability to get them to abandon this bad idea. And do you think its just a coincidence they decided to do this four months before an election where there is a real possibility the Gang of Three will lose their majority? They need to stifle dissent.
While I do agree repetitive and often bizarre comments distract Councils and other attendees from the real business of the city in several towns, alternatives like this are not the answer. Reasonable rules on conduct and comments are fine (the classic example of shouting fire in a theatre), but this goes too far.
‘deadwhitemale’ sounds like one of the CM City Council majority supporters, especially one in particular. His username is grotesque- a big tipoff on who this is.
I have yet to see any proof that the ACLU “vetted” and “signed off” on this.
There are many claims but no proof whatsoever.
This is full of ambiguities making it ripe for lawsuits.
It was required by the courts as a result of the Acosta lawsuit.
This is no improvement. It goes from bad to worse.
Nothing was learned from the Acosta lawsuit and it shows.
I guess I better not attend any council meetings… I never know when my colostomy bag will “sound off”… wouldn’t want to scare the mayor. Is this the same mayor who decided who and what was considered free speech when it came to getting signatures to put a measure on the ballot? Specifically the medical marijuana one a couple years ago?
proper behavior in public should come naturally to people. however, some wait anxiously for two weeks for the next council meeting to get on TV and put on their circus. it gets old after a few years, their families must be embarrassed, and they get to be known all over town as loose cannons with uncontrollable urges. yes, they are free to embarrass themselves, use vile language, expletives, and sing songs about the Mayor needing a lobotomy. They have three minutes each per item plus public comments for their routines. But to many residents who tune in to the meetings to watch the public’s business be handled, this circus, while once an amusing show with a wide array of characters, usually a core of around 8 people, seems to be a planned hijacking of a public meeting. a sort of occupy city hall type thing. They used to bring popcorn to the meetings, lol. Most comments focus on a core of three past grudges that are over a year old and have gained no traction with the community. With things seemingly heating up since the Christmas truce at least four of the council members saw the need to correct the past policy concerning public disruptions and clarify that you get your three minutes to insult all you want then it is time to actually conduct the business of the day without undue disruption. This seems fair to all, council agreed on a 4-1 vote.
Paragraph breaks, reactionary.
grew up using telegraph. stop.
*We could define Facism….but what good would that do? Those enticed, coerced and enabled to become City Fathers and Moms……better catch on – Freedom of speech means that being called by the citizen folks any names in the book, for as long as the three minutes lasts….is all part of our American Dream! If that is too tough to handle, step down and let the next one try it out. Good grief, we abhor misuse of power!
*but can you spell it?
this new policy spells out it ok to to call any names you want. the namecallers are the ones who should be ashamed. rolls right off the councilmembers backs. they don’t care at all. they just don’t want disruptions or riots.
*”Define?” probably not……Commies, Boats and Planes..? Not so much…Adolph, Benito and Hirahito? Probably. Fascism? But what does it matter on July 4th? Everyone knows the concept has caused a few deaths along the way…..the mall.
The mayor needs a lobotomy song ? Sounds like the British House of Commons antics. (Me Lord)
For the record, this is what I said about hizzonner’s delicate mental state, self-proclaimed in the lawsuit he filed against the CMPOA: I quote:
Mr. Righeimer:
Some months back, when I quoted what I thought was Albert Einstein saying that insanity is performing the same experiment over and expecting different results, I did not realize, even after Mr. Mensinger’s annotation, the seriousness of your situation. However, this weekend I read your lawsuit against our police force, and your own assertion therein that you require psychiatric care after the trauma of the event described. I’m uncertain how Officer Bao’s administration of a field sobriety test could have unhinged you, having experienced the same test myself; your state must indeed have been delicate. But who am I to question your own admission? And I apologize for having urged you to drop the lawsuit. I misspoke.
While I have little regard and empathy for the practices and philosophy of psychiatry, I agree that some care there would be of benefit to you, Mr. Righeimer. In fact, there is a specific procedure that I think in your case would be most beneficial. It is called prefrontal lobotomy. I feel you should investigate this procedure, as it is known to vastly reduce anxiety and stress. Nor would it interfere with your ability to add two and two and get five – in fact, it might enhance it. As a person who must remove his shoes to count to eleven, I am sure you understand this. Though one side effect of the procedure is that you may begin to drool in your shoe, none of us out here in realo-trulo land would mind – we’d far rather have a mayor who drools in his shoe than one who is a nut case.
And the benefits to you and the city!! The joy you might experience! Let me quote a bit of Stephen Foster,
Long live the merry, merry heart,
That laughs both night and day,
Like the king of mirth,
No matter what some folks say.
–end of quote.
I didn’t claim Jim needed psychiatric care; HE did, in the lawsuit. I was merely sympathizing with the poor man’s plight, and suggesting an available therapy that could possibly alleviate his anxiety.
Readers of this post can find much more material in _The Costa Mesa Song Book_, copies of which can be obtained from Costa Mesans for Responsible Government, for a nominal contribution in support of that organization.
or go to utube and watch Art Vandelay’s hilarious expose on the nuts at CM4RG. the homeless guy is shown singing.
Hey, fitzy,
Thanks for the plug. Curious that neither you nor Kent Mora had enough testicular fortitude to use your real names — nor did Kent have enough bananas to permit comment on his nice piece. You’d look good under your real name.
Everyone likes to try to guess who deadwhitemale is. I think John Earl has it figured out. It’s not fitzy. In any case the guy IS obviously a big Riggy fan.
HAHA!!! Righeimer has cried about the name calling repeatedly! Hell, he may even have threw a press conference about it.
Got news for you Mr. Water District, the brand is FAR from strong.
“the namecallers are the ones who should be ashamed. rolls right off the councilmembers backs. they don’t care at all.”