Every Beaumont Council Meeting begins with Mayor Brenda Knight’s threaten use of Police force to intimidate and silence the Public.
By: Libi Uremovic | Original Article at patch.com
Beaumont City Council Special Meeting October 28, 2015
5:20 Beaumont Mayor Brenda Knight: That brings us to the Public Comment period. Chief Thuilliez is here tonight. I see Officer Devlin and Sergeant Walter, correct? Thank you all. I want to make it clear that we are going to have a respectful Meeting and outbursts won’t be tolerated. And so when your three minutes is up don’t be upset with me if i gavel you down because that’s what each of us has; three minutes to speak.
For the record: there were only two members of the Public in the room last night – John Dyson and Judy Bingham. The Police Force outnumbered the Public.
Both Dyson and Bingham are Senior Citizens that pose no physical threat yet they are threatened with police force at every Beaumont Council Meeting. Beaumont is infamous for their police brutality in general and police brutality specifically targeting Judy Bingham. Ms. Bingham has been repeated criminalized and falsely arrested three times. Brenda Knight herself falsified a police report claiming assault by Bingham last year in an attempt to silence her when the $42 Million WRCOG Judgment was disclosed.
Council Transcripts prove that while Citizens are demonized and silenced the Developers and Profiteers can speak as long as they desire.
‘Respect’ starts with the Dais.
The Right of the Public to speak is written in the Brown Act.
California Government Code 54954.3.
(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision
(b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable
regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried
out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total
amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues
and for each individual speaker.
(c) The legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit
public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services
of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body.
Nothing in this subdivision shall confer any privilege or protection
for expression beyond that otherwise provided by law.
Fitzgerald v. County of Orange
The ACLU of Southern California sued Orange County and its Board of Supervisors for violating disabled Vietnam Veteran William D. Fitzgerald’s right of freedom of speech for expressing his views and criticizing the Board and the way it conducts county business.
At two separate open and public meetings of the Orange County Board of Supervisors (OCBOS), the Board silenced Fitzgerald and had him removed from the meeting because some of the Supervisors disagreed with the content of Fitzgerald’s statements which he made during the public participation portions of the meetings. At one meeting, during his allotted three minutes, Fitzgerald spoke on behalf of Anaheim HOME, a group that works to protect homeowners’ rights, a majority of whom are elderly. He expressed his deep frustration over the property tax decisions of the County Appeals Board, believing their actions resulted in unjust taxes to homeowners. When he compared the Clerk of the Board, who runs the appeals board, to a commander of a concentration camp for following the orders of her bosses, he was silenced and instructed to leave the podium by a sheriff’s deputy.
Supervisors John Moorlach and Janet Nguyen scolded Fitzgerald for being impolite, expressed their opinion that he lacked credibility, and told him they were in a position of authority over him. During the public hearing on redistricting, the Board similarly silenced Fitzgerald before his allotted three minutes were up because they disagreed with what he said.
The OCBOS’s rules and speaker guidelines prohibit speech in open and public board meetings. It discriminates against speech on the basis of content or viewpoints and penalizes speech the board deems inappropriate.
Regulating speech in this way is unconstitutional because it runs the risk of permitting official censorship. The lawsuit seeks that the OCBOS rules and speaker guidelines be declared unconstitutional and prohibit the OCBOS from undertaking other acts to discourage free speech, and allow Fitzgerald to participate in the public meetings without fear of retaliation.