Wednesday, July 15, 2009

BREAKING NEWS: L.A. City Council Members Walk Out And Lose Quorum Over Man Wearing White Hood

VIDEO: Zuma Dogg "public comment
VIDEO: Council loses quorum over man in hood.

BIG problems for the City of Los Angeles today over First Amendment issues.

Today, Los Angeles City Council lost a quorum after a man wearing a white hood approached the podium for public comment. After the city attorney notified council he did not have to take the hood off his head; some of the councilmembers left the meeting and a quorum was lost.

Unfortunately, the meeting was cancelled and adjourned for lack of a quorum and Zuma Dogg had 9 public comment cards waiting to speak along with most of the other items on the agenda as it was only public comment and most of the items were yet to come.

So to everyone who showed up for business, sorry some of these councilmembers behaved so irresponsibly and cost the city so much money and business and items left unapproved.

Meanwhile, thank you to the member of the public wearing the hood who was able to shut down the corruption factory for the day.

FOLLOW UP:

This was a stunt on council's part. They could have turned backs, or even left room and gone in back area, out of chambers, but would have maintained the quorum. However, by leaving and breaking the quorum, NOW, city council will say it is causing a "disruption" to the meeting, since councilmembers are leaving. However, it is allowed under first amendment as City Attorney stated, except if it is considered a "disruption" (disruptive BEHAVIOR) they can claim to prevent it. However, just because they left does not mean it was disruptive behavior.

THE MAIN PROBLEM, besides handing the power over to the guy in the hood, is that city business was left on the table; a lot of agenda items went without being voted on; and a lot of people who already waited over two and a half hours to speak, didn't get to speak at all.

Yes, it's insidious to do what he did, but council has to represent their constituents FIRST and always and they should have turned backs, not shut down the city.

HOW MUCH DID THE STUNT JUST COST, AND IT IS A STUNT BECAUSE IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SEE IT THEY COULD HAVE TURNED BACKS OR EVEN WALKED OUT OF ROOM. DID NOT HAVE TO CANCEL BUSINESS.

Interesting comments from LATimes.com readers. They seem to be siding against council on this for the most part.

Follow by Email