3.1) Discussion and direction regarding City Council shared expectations regarding the use of social media, interactions with the community and city staff, compliance with the Brown Act, and City Council Meeting Rules of Procedure.
I am the plaintiff-appellant in “Bezis v. City of Livermore,” a free speech constitutional lawsuit pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals concerning Councilmember Carling’s, City Attorney Alcala’s, and others’ efforts to silence my public comments about downtown planning at the Feb. 13 and Feb. 27, 2017 Council meetings. Councilmember Carling decided his own points of order against me at both meetings, before the Mayor asked for an explanation. When and how will the Council discipline Mr. Carling for his blatant breakings of that Council rule (re-written here as Rule 7.9)? Proposed Rule 11.3.12 is troubling because the Council re-defines “specific item of business” depending upon whomever is at the podium, against disfavored speakers, a central issue in my lawsuit. This revision of the Council Rules of Procedure appears to be a retaliatory action, aimed at further restricting public comment at City meetings. These Rules would solidify the Council’s domination over public debate.
I am the plaintiff-appellant in “Bezis v. City of Livermore,” a free speech constitutional lawsuit pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals concerning Councilmember Carling’s, City Attorney Alcala’s, and others’ efforts to silence my public comments about downtown planning at the Feb. 13 and Feb. 27, 2017 Council meetings. Councilmember Carling decided his own points of order against me at both meetings, before the Mayor asked for an explanation. When and how will the Council discipline Mr. Carling for his blatant breakings of that Council rule (re-written here as Rule 7.9)? Proposed Rule 11.3.12 is troubling because the Council re-defines “specific item of business” depending upon whomever is at the podium, against disfavored speakers, a central issue in my lawsuit. This revision of the Council Rules of Procedure appears to be a retaliatory action, aimed at further restricting public comment at City meetings. These Rules would solidify the Council’s domination over public debate.