Audio Idiocy and Bearcat B.S. Update from Santa Cruz

 

NORSE’S NOTES:  Indybay reporter Alex Darocy published an informative and well-illustrated account of the Santa Cruz City Council meeting of January 27th where, for a third time activists gathered to protest the Council’s surrender to SCPD pressure.  On 12-9 Council voted–in spite of overwhelming opposition–to get a turretless tank for Santa Cruz, or–in the words of manufacturer Lemco, a Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck.  Alex’s  story “Activists Say Santa Cruz Police Lied to Secure Armored Vehicle Purchase” is at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/01/28/18767704.php .

I include here a few notes on what happened to me there regarding the right to record as well as the search for my records. I record for these written reports as well as my twice-weekly Free Radio Santa Cruz show Bathrobespierre’s Broadsides at 101.3 FM and freakradio.org Thursdays 6-8 PST and Sundays 9:30 AM to 1 PM.   More info there, and in archived shows at http://radiolibre.org/brb/ .

Nervous Norse in the Front Row

by Robert Norse

Friday Jan 30th, 2015 1:54 PM

Thanks to all the folks who showed up at the rally and Oral Communications session.

City Council audio equipment was, as usual, spotty. Accordingly I sat up front near but not technically “attending” my trusty tape recorder (because not within arms length). I advised Sgt. Bush, the sergeant at arms, that the uncertain nature of the equipment meant I’d be making my own recording, not dependent on the city’s speaker system and decision when to keep it on and when to turn it off.

HISTORY OF HARASSMENT
In the past, Bush has arrested me for leaving a tape recorder there and replacing it when he removed it. That “disrupting a meeting” charge, filed by Mayor Robinson, was never filed by the D.A. Last fall I filed a claim for damages against the City for false arrest, which was denied. I now have until April 1 to take Robinson personally to Small Claims Court, which I’m hoping to do.

For many meetings following, Bush would confiscate my recorders, requiring me to squat next to the tape recorder while it was on in order to comply with Robinson’s (and now Lane’s) “decorum” rules. Lane made squatting next the tape recorder a violation of the new “decorum” rules, so on January 27th I sat in the first row–not quite “attending” the machine, but near enough to it to grab it if some officious cop should attempt to grab it.

SENTRY DUTY AGAINST THE SERGEANT
Which is what Bush several times tried to do. Bush informed me he’d be removing my recorder if I left it there. I did so anyway, and when he moved to take it, I intercepted it and retrieved it. When he resumed his sentry position by the side door, I replaced the machine. He again moved to take it. I again intercepted. This time he advised me that he’d take it from me. I told him that to do so he’d have to arrest me.

For the rest of the meeting, I nervously had to keep one eye on Bush and one eye on the tape recorder. After two assaults on the helpless machine, Bush took no further action Still, I was unable to make notes, move about the room, or speak with others, cause I felt I had to be ready to spring up and seize the machine before it could be confiscated–if that were tried again. I was able to hold up a sign visible on the TV (“Tanks, No Thanks!”) along with many others in the audience.

Still I must admit that having to guard my tape recorder from a cop on pain of exclusion from the meeting and arrest for “disruption” (as provided for under Lane’s new decorum rules– See “Council Armors Up” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/01/09/18766602.php specifically, http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2015/01/09/changes.pdf ).

MORE INFORMATION REQUESTED
The same day I filed this Public Records Act request with the City:

From: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
To: npatino [at] cityofsantacruz.com
CC: kvogel [at] cityofsantacruz.com; citycouncil [at] cityofsantacruz.com
Subject: Public Records Act: re SCPD Contracts with Other Agencies
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:15:09 -0800

Nydia: Please make available for viewing or (preferably) in e-form (as usual) all contracts the SCPD has made with any other agencies since 2010 that involve the delivery or furnishing of goods, services, or money.

Thanks, Robert

The point was to determine whether the SCPD has been getting equipment and money indirectly from federal war enthusaists like Homeland Security, but doing so through third party agencies, It apparently did this in the case of the Bearcat through the City and County of San Francisco (see “Public Records Released by the SPCD on the Bearcat” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/01/18/18767166.php; specifically: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2015/01/18/uasi_grant_funds_2014.pdf ).

I encourage Bearcat opponents and those concerned with militarization and SCPD abuse more generally to parse the documents–both those already posted and those which I may obtain in the coming days. They’re supposed to respond by February 6th or thereabouts, if I understand the 10-day rule correctly.

Continue reading

Merced Mercycrushers Move on Homeless Camp

NOTES BY NORSE:   In Santa Cruz HUFF began turning in damage claim forms demanding $2500 from city sleepbusters.  The first claim forms were presented to the City Clerk’s office during the protest Tuesday night against the SCPD’s  rescue-n-riot Bearcat Armored Personnel Vehicle.   The restitution is demanded for each instance where a ranger or police officer has wakened a homeless person and demanded they leave–invariably without giving them a legal place to go and often with a $157 citation. Bring your sleeping and camping tickets to the Food Not Bombs tables on Saturday and Sunday at 4 PM near the main Post Office in downtown Santa Cruz.
      We don’t know how Small Claims Court “judges” will treat these lawsuits, but at least homeless folks and their advocates will get a chance to face their abusers.
       However, the attacks on homeless survival encampments in Santa Cruz are not likely to stop.  The hyperpolicing of parks and other greenbelt areas continues with no increase in shelter, no warming centers opened, and no acknowledgment of the misery and injustice caused by these sweeps.
       The new “Stay-Away” law in the parks and other large swaths of Santa Cruz goes into effect on February 12th or thereabouts.  Read about these new “Homeless–Disappear or Go to Jail” laws at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/01/09/18766602.php    Specifically, the text of the monstrously expanded Stay-Away law is at https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2015/01/09/final_law.pdf and the older City Hours of Operation and abusive “Disorderly Conduct” laws are at  https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2015/01/09/p_and_r_codes_shorter.pdf.  

Merced Homeless Threatened

by Mike Rhodes ( mikerhodes [at] comcast.net )

Sunday Jan 25th, 2015 4:37 PM

Caltrans says this homeless encampment is on public (State of California) land. If these homeless people can’t live here (on the people’s land), where can they live?

A group of 25 (+ or -) homeless people living in an encampment near highway 140 and Baker street in Merced are being threatened with eviction by Caltrans. Notices were posted on Friday, January 23 for the Monday, January 26 at 8 a.m. eviction. The notice posted by Caltrans says that “all personal property and camp debris is to be removed by the time and date noted below.” The notice continues “any personal property left at this site after this time will be considered abandoned.”

The residents in the encampment, some of whom have lived there for over a year, don’t have any place to go. There are no safe and legal camp sites for the homeless in Merced. Several of the residents are elderly and some are sick and unable to move their property, even if there was some place to take it.

Marilyn showed me inside her shelter today and it is obvious that she is not going to have her property moved by tomorrow morning. The notice does say that “any personal property not disposed of will be stored for ninety (90) days.”

Supporters of the homeless will be at the encampment on Monday morning to video the Caltrans operation and make sure that homeless people’s rights are not violated.

She is unable to move her property to another location.

§Some of the homeless shelters are very well maintained

by Mike Rhodes Sunday Jan 25th, 2015 4:37 PM

§This is a view of a couple of the shelters in the camp

by Mike Rhodes Sunday Jan 25th, 2015 4:37 PM

§Some Shelters had some landscaping

by Mike Rhodes Sunday Jan 25th, 2015 4:37 PM

http://fresnoalliance.com/wordpress/?p=1313

Caltrans clears Merced homeless camp

By Thaddeus Miller
tmiller@mercedsunstar.com

01/26/2015 9:54 AM

01/26/2015 6:16 PM

The California Department of Transportation on Thursday posted notices at an encampment near Kelly Avenue and Highway 140 on the east side of Merced ordering the homeless illegally camping there to leave before crews clear the area Monday.

The notice went up on the same day that volunteers assisted the county’s Continuum of Care in counting the homeless in Merced County, a count required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Though the official numbers from the count aren’t expected to be released until next month, the Continuum of Care member heading the tally said there are more homeless people in the county than last year at the same time.

Those living in encampment near the Bradley Overhead, an overpass maintained by Caltrans, said Thursday they may have been able to find other shelter if they’d been given more notice.

Gail Henslee, a 60-year-old woman who’s lived in the encampment for two months, said a few days is not long enough to move. “We have nowhere to go, and they don’t care,” she said.

The notice says the area will be cleared because of illegal camping and dumping. Homeless advocates estimate that 25 people call the encampment home.

Henslee said she’s called a lawyer to study her options, but in the meantime admits she won’t have any choice but to leave before the camp is cleared out beginning at 8 a.m. Monday. She said she didn’t know about the plans to clear the camp until a Caltrans employee warned her earlier this week.

Entering a local shelter, such as the one D Street, is not an option for her, she said, because staff there would not allow her to bring her 11-year-old dog.

Being forced from one place to another is nothing new, said Brent Shirley, who has lived in a makeshift structure near the overpass for about six months. “There’s no closure for all of this – none,” the 52-year-old said. “It’s just a vicious cycle we’re all living in.”

A handful of tents and makeshift shelters make up the encampment, which can be seen by drivers who travel the highway to and from Yosemite National Park.

Caltrans spokeswoman Angela DaPrato said the California Highway Patrol will assist in the removal early next week, when crews will throw out anything left behind. Those in the encampment can identify possessions they plan to come back for, according to the posted notice, and Caltrans will store the items for up to 90 days.

Representatives from the Merced County Human Services Department were on hand Thursday to speak with those living near the overhead after the notices were posted.

Renee Davenport, who headed up the tally for Continuum of Care, said she appreciated that Caltrans held off from destroying the camp until after the count. She said several people in the camp are elderly or suffer from medical conditions that keep them from working.

Davenport said she is doubtful that many of them would get housing relatively soon, because the system does not work quickly.

Moving them from the encampment is not a long-term solution, she said. “They’re just going to go somewhere else in the street.”

The encampment has been there for about two years, Davenport said. It started to receive extra attention after the $41.2 million Bradley Overhead project was completed in November.

There were 768 homeless people in Merced County, including 21 children, based on the 2014 Homeless Count and Survey.
Davenport said this year’s count found more homeless people, but she declined to report the exact numbers. Urban Initiatives, the nonprofit that oversees Continuum, said it expects to be able to report the numbers in February.

Volunteers will continue with a homeless survey Friday. The questionnaire is an attempt to better track the demographics of the homeless, with questions designed to find out how many of them are men, women, children, veterans, HIV positive, mentally ill and so on.

Those leaving the camp will have to find a place to stay other than the warming shelter that’s been used during the past couple of winters. The Merced County Rescue Mission said this month that it was not planning to open the shelter, which is essentially a tarp tent filled with beds and space heaters.

Also this week, during a regular meeting, the Merced City Council instructed city staff members to look at the cost of opening a public building or taking over control of the city’s warming shelter. About $7,200 in Department of Housing and Urban Development money during the past two years has gone toward the purchase of the tent and the equipment inside, as well as paid the utility costs, according to the city’s Housing Department.

City staff members said a report could be ready in the coming weeks.

FOR PHOTOS, VIDEO, AND COMMENTS, GO TO
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/news/local/article8160516.html#/tabPane=tabs-b0710947-1-1

Caltrans clears Merced homeless camp

By Thaddeus Miller
tmiller@mercedsunstar.com

01/26/2015 9:54 AM

01/26/2015 6:16 PM

MERCED

Plans to clear a homeless encampment came to fruition Monday morning, as Caltrans workers used heavy machinery to begin clearing the camp near Highway 140, where an estimated 25 people lived in tents and makeshift buildings.

The work started shortly after 8 a.m. in the mud and grass field near where Kelly Avenue meets the Bradley Overhead. Caltrans posted notices on Friday that ordered the homeless to leave the area by Monday morning.

California Highway Patrol officers, who were on hand to provide security, said the people in the camp peacefully complied with the notice. One man who lived in the camp was taken away by an ambulance after he complained of chest pains.

Many of the residents of the camp were still packing up when the crews arrived. Steve Mentz, 51, hurried to secure his dogs and try to save as much of his structure as possible.

As he left the camp, he said he didn’t know where he would spend the night, as he’s been run off before. “They’re making it where there’s nowhere to go,” he said.

A resident of the camp for about eight months, Mentz said he’s legally blind and hoping to get disability benefits soon. He was aware of the looming destruction of the camp, he said, but didn’t have anywhere else to go because the shelters in town don’t allow pets.

Renee Davenport, a member of the Merced County Continuum of Care, said many of those living in the encampment have stories similar to Mentz’s. She said some have drug problems or suffer from mental illness, but several of those living in the camp are elderly or disabled and can’t work.

She said the breaking up of the camp highlights what she sees as a lack of services for homeless people in Merced and the county. “To do this in the middle of the winter – and there’s no warming shelter – there’s no excuse,” she said.

Davenport was in the camp Monday morning helping people pack up.

People who left the camp would have to find alternate housing from the warming shelter that Merced County Rescue Mission opted not to open this year. About $7,200 in Department of Housing and Urban Development money during the past two years has gone toward the purchase of the tent and the equipment inside, as well as paid the utility costs, according to Merced’s Housing Department.

Merced City Manager John Bramble said his staff is still looking into the cost and feasibility of opening a public building or taking over control of the warming shelter tent.

That same day, U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro announced groups that work with the homeless throughout the central San Joaquin Valley received about $10 million to help those without shelter. Merced County’s Continuum got seven grants worth $579,193.

Back in Merced, Caltrans crews took down some of the makeshift structures in the camp by hand, folding up tarps and bagging trash. The buildings made with wooden pallets snapped and splintered as they were knocked over by heavy machinery. Some of the homeless got help moving from friends with cars, while others pulled their belongings on a cart behind a bicycle.

A handful of people arrived to the camp with signs saying the homeless there were being “persecuted.”

According to the last year’s homeless count by the Merced County Continuum of Care, there are 476 homeless people in Merced. Continuum conducted the 2015 count this month, but has not reported the numbers yet.

Caltrans agreed to store possessions for up to 90 days for those who lived in the camp. Anything else left behind was destined for the dump.

Angela DaPrato, a spokeswoman for Caltrans, said the department had been planning to clear the camp for a few months but waited until after the holidays and last week’s homeless count to go through with the plans.

She said the cleanup would continue Tuesday and crews were not certain how many more days it would take. “They didn’t anticipate how much work it would be,” she said.

FOR PHOTOS AND COMMENTS, go to http://www.mercedsunstar.com/news/local/article8160516.html#/tabPane=tabs-b0710947-1-1

 

__._,_.___

Continue reading

Striking Back at the Stay-Away in Santa Cruz

 

In a preview of protests scheduled for the next Council meeting and thereafter, “Push-Back” Pat Colby and fellow HUFF activists set up a table with coffee, brownies, petitions, orgami paper cranes and fliers on Pacific Avenue on Martin Luther King Day. This was the first in a series of demonstrations raising awareness of poor people being turned into criminals at night for sleeping, smoking, being in parks, sitting down near a building, recycling, playing a guitar for donation outside the bracketed performance pens on Pacific Ave, gathering in a group along the levee, etc.

Three flyers on the issue

§Moving Beyond Tokenism

by Robert Norse Tuesday Jan 20th, 2015 10:16 PM

 

In other cities, activists continued “Black Lives Matter’ demonstrations blocking freeways and demanding an end to police business as usual. See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/01/18/18767109.php

§Bringing It Home to Santa Cruz

by Robert Norse Tuesday Jan 20th, 2015 10:16 PM

 

The obscene abuse of those without shelter outside continues in the dead of winter. Neither Lane nor Posner have anything on the agenda to address this for next Tuesday. Nor have they agreed to direct the staff to confirm the stats that Raven Davis presented, he declined to do that as well showing no public safety concerns of any substance in the parks and the focus of the attack being against homeless survival behavior.  Instead they intend to “wait until next September” to view alarming figures that are already available and have been carefully analyzed.

Continue reading

Bearcat & Other “Poor People Matter” Protests Resume Next Tuesday

by Robert Norse

Tuesday Jan 20th, 2015 3:37 PM


BEARCAT PROTESTS CONTINUE
The massive response to the City Council and SCPD’s collusion to ignore the wishes of those attending City Council and perhaps the community generally has encouraged activists to resume direct action next week. Since the police chief and the mayor to respond to specific questions like (1) why a 7 month delay in informing the Council and public? and (2) what was the actual cut-off date for a Council vote on the acquisition? some activists feel the protests must resume, intensify, and get more focused.

Protests are resuming next Council meeting against police abuse in Santa Cruz. This focuses on the Bearcat, but, many are also concerned about the traditional and recently escalated denial of basic homeless human rights as well as the local SCPD’s racial and class profiling, cover-up of force actions, and other abuses.

EVEN MORE IMPORTANT NON-BEARCAT POLICE ISSUES
Specific SCPD abuses are documented at http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2014/12/03/grand_jury_protest_updated.pdf
Fundamental changes needed in the SCPD: http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2014/12/13/flyer__for__12-17.pdf

CAFE COLBY RIDES AGAIN
A tip of the hat to Cafe Colby (aka Cafe HUFF) that hit Pacific Avenue yesterday outside the vacant Sway offices linking the facile Martin Luther King Day holiday with real demands for justice for homeless people. She, Sherry, Raven, & other activists broke up the usual lockstep walk-and-shop trances of the downtown with petitioning, coffee, and brownies. Pat Colby reports it’s likely to become a weekly event.

DECONSTRUCTING STAY-AWAY STUPIDITY
High up on Colby’s priorities is the Stay-Away law passed at City Council in the evening and as yet undocumented in detail on indybay. Read the law at http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2015/01/09/final_law.pdf and http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2015/01/09/p_and_r_codes_shorter.pdf . The expanded Stay-Away sections of the law go into effect on February 12th or thereabouts (30 days after final passage at the 1-13 Council meeting). The other sections, including a 1-day police-initiated Stay-Away are already in effect.

According to Davis’s analysis, in the last year, the majority of infractions and Stay-Aways are for sleeping, “camping”, being in a closed area or smoking. The majority of those given the additional punishment of stay-aways are homeless people. These facts were ignored by City Council, which instead voted for Councilmember Terrazas’s “gather more stats for next September” direction to the staff.

No estimate was made of the cost of this increased level of criminalization of the homeless.

No analysis was made of the effectiveness or consequences of over 1000 1-day Stay-Away orders already given out since July 2013 by police and rangers. though that date was provided by Davis.

A long-threatened lawsuit by attorney Judi Bari and Homeless Persons Legal Assistance Project loner Steve Pleich is due to hit the courts this week to freeze the Stay-Away law in its tracks.

For More Commentary Go to: https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/01/19/18767225.php?show_comments=1#18767278 Continue reading

Rush HUFF Reminder: Still meeting to pick up the pieces 11 AM Sub Rosa Today

Sorry this message didn’t get out sooner, but it’s a rare Wednesday morning that HUFF won’t be pulling up a chair to chatter and chow down with whatever coffee and crunchables are available.   Main item is what to do around the galloping criminalization of homeless folks here as evidenced by last night’s Council Shameful Spectacle.  Specifics:  Fightback Training, Latest Public Records Act Info (Officer Bill Azua’s Stats), Bearcat B.S., and more…

Trying to Reason With Mayor Don Lane on His Restrict-the-Media Rules

 

Mayor Refuses to Postpone Repression with Quick and Dirty Decorum Rule Changes
by Robert Norse
Tuesday Jan 13th, 2015 12:59 PM

The “decorum rule” changes proposed at City Council today are part of a long ongoing process of marginalizing, discouraging, and discrediting actiivsts. When the community got righteously angry at the SCPD last-minute hurry-through of its armored personnel “rescue” vehicle and some members turned their back on the Council (quite legally and legitimately), Mayor Lane went into crisis mode. As a strong media critic of his and his Council around their homeless abuses, I’ve been punished for the last year with an absurd “unattended recording device” rule which required me to sit next to my machine or risk having it confiscated. Lane needs to abolish this rule and restore the prior “leave it where you want but don’t disrupt” process. But he won’t. In the following correspondence, I outline and Lane ignores my concerns and suggestions.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH DON LANE

On January 8th, Lane did advise me he was putting new decorum restrictions on the agenda.

On January 10th, after reading them, I wrote back:
Don:
I suggest you withdraw your proposed decorum amendments and simply remove the “unattended audio devices” ‘rule’ entirely. It has never prompted any disruption at City Council other than that evoked by the Mayor.

I also suggest withdrawing the stuff about “obstructing aisles” and “furniture” since those issues would be gone once you remove the “unattended audio devices”. It’s pretty clear that this is a direct attempt to maintain a rule without good reason.

Or perhaps you have a reason for making it a potential crime to leave an “unattended audio device”? I’d be interested in knowing your reasoning.

I also recommend withdrawing your new definition of “disruption” as being “when a mayor insists on imposing a rule and has to stop the meeting to do so”. It flies in the face of the 9th Circuit’s opinion in my case that “disruption” means disruption, not imagined disruption, or the violation of some rule.

Responding to legitimate protest with harsher restrictions is in my view unwise and will ultimately cost the city administration as well as the rest of us.

Please postpone Council consideration of these changes until you sit down with some of the activists to discuss your specific concerns and how they can be equitably met.

I would hope we could discuss this matter and come up with a solution that meets everyone’s concerns. I think that would save all of us lots of time and trouble.

Robert

P.S. In the meantime please make available any documents that involve complaints, concerns, or documents regarding the new decorum rule changes you’re proposing. This would include any documents referencing obstructing city council aisles, furniture, recording devices in the chamber, and/or concerns about Council “disruption”.

Don responded the same day with this:

Thanks Robert
I look forward to hearing your comments at the council meeting.

I have forwarded your PRA request on to Nydia for formal processing– and I can tell you that I have no documents along the lines you requested. I have this information filed in my own memory: that when you and your proxies have been sitting adjacent to the lectern I have seen many community speakers show very visible concern about people sitting in that spot and on several occasions I have seen people flinch or recoil as you move toward or handle your recording device near the lectern. I know how committed you are to community participation at council meetings so I hope you will support eliminating one impediment to that participation.

Thanks for considering.
Don

I responded on the same day with this e-mail:

Don:

I’m still trying to understand why you support the “unattended audio devices” rule at all. That was the first question I asked you.

What purpose does it serve? Can you cite any disruptions caused by my regular recording over the last dozen years?

As you know, the rule was unenforced for 13 years until a singularly repressive and anti-homeless Mayor took power. I have been a homeless advocate and strong Council critique for nearly three decades, and I think it’s pretty clear this “rule” targets my radio work. Do you deny this?

You note some find it uncomfortable to have me sitting near the podium. I did too. It’s awkward to have to guard my recorder throughout the meeting. And should be unnecessary, as well. I wouldn’t have been up there at all, except an armed police officer kept shutting off my “unattended” recorder and outrageously confiscating it. That was after I was falsely arrested on April 1st.

I found it sad that you neither objected to the arrest or the subsequent confiscations, nor took action to stop it when you had the power as acting Mayor. This kind of behavior by the Council is petty and unnecessary.

It’s also unprecedented. Can you cite any other local legislative body that requires you to “sit next to your recorder or risk having it confiscated” or requires it to be placed in a special zone?

It seems to me a rather arrogant and pointless assertion of authority for its own sake.

Your proposed “permission zone” for recording devices runs afoul of the basic First Amendment right of any member of the public, and particularly a reporter, to record–even if they step away from their machine to read an agenda, chat with a friend, use the restroom, or take a break outside.

How does the placement of a small inconspicuous device actually disrupt the meeting?

As I mentioned before, I’d be happy to make any reasonable accommodation. How about it?

As I advised Mayor Robinson, I’d be happy to be careful not to interfere with others at the podium–as I have been throughout the years–in recording. Wouldn’t this satisfy your concerns? In this case no furniture, signs, additional recorder “attendants” would be necessary.

I know how committed you are to community participation and media access at Council meetings, so I hope you will restore what has been a problem-free arrangement for the last decade or more.

Let me know. While there are far more important matters we are both concerned about, the issue of media access is an important one to me.

Robert

P.S. I’m also concerned with your new definition of “disruption” which seems to ignore the court case which the City lost when the 9th Circuit clarified that “disruption” means real disruption not simply a rule violation. Has there been some more recent court decision changing this?

Don responded on Sunday January 11th:

I guess I’m still wondering what the problem is with you and everyone having a place to leave a recorder unattended that is a bit of distance away from the area where other people are speaking. You still seem unable to explain why this arrangement will keep you from recording the proceedings– which you are entitled to do and which I intend to support your doing.

Prior to enforcement of the “unattended” rule, you were regularly stepping up to the lectern to move or remove or replace your recorder. This may not noisily disrupt the meeting– it was simply a persistent and annoying interruption for many. My experience is that you are not a particularly perceptive judge of which activities cause small disruptions in our council meetings since you are regularly doing those activities even as you say you are concerned about avoiding disruptions.

Sorry this situation has made you so sad. I believe this new arrangement will spare us both some future sadness.

Don

I replied the same day:

Don:

I think I’ve clarified why I find the “unattended recorder” rule so ridiculous. You haven’t stated why you support it and what you found wrong with the usual process I’ve used over the last decade or more. But I’ll try again…

Why should members of the public and media be compelled under threat of exclusion to place their recorders in a particular spot? It is simply a massive unprecedented restriction which seems to be a masking justification for an untenable rule. Your observation of me in a position I was forced to be in by the previous mayor to “attend” my recorder does not outline any problem with the pre-Robinson approach.

I haven’t placed my machine on the lectern for years. I have been careful to place at least 2′ away from speakers on the railing–which is the optimum place for me to record with the equipment I have. The City Clerk’s office noted no correspondence indicating any phone, e-mailed, or written complaints.

It seems you are not serious about any kind of reasonable discussion or accommodation. The process you use is similar to the one you used in creating the “performance pens” on the Pacific Avenue sidewalk or approving the BEARCAT: no meaningful prior discussion with concerned and impacted people, just the wham/bam/slam City Council approach that rubberstamps Staff recommendations.

While I appreciate the courtesy of your last-minute correspondence, it doesn’t take the place of all important real preliminary discussions. These are the substance rather than the shell of a democratic process–which is what we see at City Council.

For the reasons mentioned before, I again encourage you to withdraw these proposed constricting rules. At until do so until you’ve actually talked to the people impacted–and done so with notice and not at the last minute in the face of a done deal.

You also have not answered most of the questions I’ve raised. Perhaps because there are no reasonable answers. Of course, those in power often feel they don’t have to.

Robert

Don concluded:

Robert
And I have clarified why the rule makes sense. I guess we disagree about this.

You seem oblivious to how your own behavior in council meetings is disruptive. Because your legitimate free speech activity is protected does not mean that everything you do is appropriate or protected.

I will protect your free speech rights as I will protect the rights of everyone that comes to speak– but I will not give you license in council meetings to do whatever you feel like doing without regard to how effects others.

Your handling of your tape recorder at and adjacent to the lectern pre-dates the previous mayor. That annoying and interruptive activity is something I am trying to bring to an end.

If you know of others that seem to be impacted by this proposed rule please let me know. I contacted and corresponded multiple times with the one person I know that is likely to be immediately impacted– that would be you.

That correspondence is now ending.

I answer many questions you ask… and am always treated with a “not good enough” or “I have some more questions” You could pretend that this represents me being unresponsive or you could consider how I see it from my end: badgering and attention-seeking behavior from someone who can never be satisfied.

Don Lane, Mayor City of Santa Cruz

My final e-mail the same day:

Don: Until you actually address the basic question, naturally you will find me unsatisfied.

To repeat, that question is simple:

What was wrong with the previous arrangement that a dozen previous mayors and Council’s used?

For me, your failure to address this issue (and to actually bring the issue up for meaningful discussion before you send a done-deal package to City Council) is telling point here.

Sorry you choose to take this road.

Robert

Continue reading

Today: Protest New Anti-Homeless Law and Urban Assault Vehicle

 

PROTEST CITY HALL TODAY TO DEMAND:
No Worsened Banishment Law for the Homeless in Santa Cruz!
Repeal Approval of the Cop’s New Urban Assault Vehicle!
Repeal All Anti-Homeless Laws!

January 13th, 2015
Meet at the Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center Street, Santa Cruz CA

Today’s Protest Schedule

Some people will be gathering at city hall at 2 PM and there will probably be food present.

Around 2:30 people will go into city hall to speak out against new decorum rules being set up by the city council to curtail free speech.

SPEAK OUT:  At 5 PM people are encouraged to enter city council chambers to speak out against the city council’s approval of the new heavily armored BEARCAT urban assault vehicle and against police brutality and anti-homeless laws.
Around 7:30 PM or thereabouts (come earlier to be sure) the city council is scheduled to approve its new banishment law against the homeless.  People are encouraged to get up a speak out against the law in city council chambers.

For a description of issues at stake, see:

Protest Shuts Down City Council, Urban Assault Vehicle Approved, Anti-Homeless Law Delayed
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/10/18765377.php

To sign up for the event on Facebook, go to:
https://www.facebook.com/events/377910239000830/

Also see:

Murderous Cops, Liberal Snake Oil, & Revolutionary Solutions
http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/222482/index.php

A Day and Night of Protest at City Hall: January 23rd in Santa Cruz

 

Title: Protests Galore on Another Terrible Tuesday
START DATE: Tuesday January 13
TIME: 2:00 PM – 2:00 AM
Location Details:
809 Center St.
Santa Cruz City Hall
Event Type: Protest
A series of protests is slated for this Tuesday.

2 PM Before City Council opens, folks will gather in front of the chambers to conduct their own speak-out linking up the various issues: militarization of the police, crackdown at City Council, and exponentially heightened harassment of the homeless.

2:45 PM Approximate time for the Dreadful Decorum Dictates to come up on City Council. These are described at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/01/09/18766602.php (“Council Armors Up”). The anti-BEARCAT protest will also begin around 3 PM (See “PROTEST NEW ANTI-HOMELESS LAW AND URBAN ASSAULT VEHICLE” at http://www.facebook.com/events/377910239000830/ & “Free Santa Cruz” at http://www.facebook.com/events/327222137463931/).

4:45 PM Rally before 5 PM Oral Communications where each will be allowed 2-3 minutes, likely to be heavily filled with community members outraged at the Council’s December 9th rubberstamping of the BEARCAT armored personnel ‘rescue’ vehicle.

7:30 PM or thereabouts (come earlier to be sure). The latest terror tactics designed to frighten away homeless people with the threat of jail if they return to park areas after being given infraction tickets for life-sustaining behavior such as sleeping.
See “Stay Away Stupidity…” at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/11/24/18764553.php

The new wording of the ordinance is at http://scsire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/cache/2/e5y2okfjeqxksdpkhmfsya0i/396073312092014110820380.PDF . Or go to http://scsire.cityofsantacruz.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=574&doctype=AGENDA and click on item #18.

10 PM (or whenever the Council meeting ends into the evening) Speak out and possible Sleep-out at City Hall. City hall grounds unconstitutionally close to the public at night, so the assembly may happen on the sidewalk.

Bring video, warm blankets and sleeping bags, thermos of coffee, vehicles to stay warm in, tents, and friends and whatever else occurs to you.

The protest will last as long as folks choose to stay.

The homeless right to sleep, rest, stand, sit, and otherwise engage in standard human behaviors in public spaces is under serious assault–both with the Stay-Away orders and the escalation of Sleeping Ban and other harassment citations.

As winter continues, there are no reliable regular warming centers. All we can see is massive increase in abusive policing–even as the nationwide anger against police violence grows.

Silence kills.

Continuing Correspondence With Don Lane on the “Decorum” Rules

 

Thanks Robert
I look forward to hearing your comments at the council meeting.
I have forwarded your PRA request on to Nydia for formal processing– and I can tell you that I have no documents along the lines you requested.  I have this information filed in my own memory: that when you and your proxies have been sitting adjacent to the lectern I have seen many community speakers show very visible concern about people sitting in that spot and on several occasions I have seen people flinch or recoil as you move toward or handle your recording device near the lectern.  I know how committed you are to community participation at council meetings so I hope you will support eliminating one impediment to that participation.
Thanks for considering.
Don

Don Lane
Mayor

City of Santa Cruz

 

Don:

I’m still trying to understand why you support the “unattended audio devices” rule at all.   That was the first question I asked you.

What purpose does it serve?  Can you cite any disruptions caused by my regular recording over the last dozen years?

As you know,  the rule was unenforced for 13 years until a singularly repressive and anti-homeless Mayor took power.  I have been a homeless advocate and strong Council critique for nearly three decades, and I think it’s pretty clear this “rule” targets my radio work.  Do you deny this?

You note some find it uncomfortable to have me sitting near the podium.  I did too. It’s awkward to have to guard my recorder throughout the meeting.  And should be unnecessary, as well.   I wouldn’t have been up there at all, except an armed police officer kept shutting off my “unattended” recorder and outrageously confiscating it. That was after I was falsely arrested on April 1st.

I found it sad that you neither objected to the arrest or the subsequent confiscations, nor took action to stop it when you had the power as acting Mayor.  This kind of behavior by the Council is petty and unnecessary.

It’s also unprecedented.  Can you cite any other local legislative body that requires you to “sit next to your recorder or risk having it confiscated” or requires it to be placed in a special zone?

It seems to me a rather arrogant and pointless assertion of authority for its own sake.

Your proposed “permission zone” for recording devices runs afoul of  the basic First Amendment right of any member of the public, and particularly a reporter, to record–even if they step away from their machine to read an agenda, chat with a friend, use the restroom, or take a break outside.

How does the placement of a small inconspicuous device actually disrupt the meeting?

As I mentioned before, I’d be happy to make any reasonable accommodation.  How about it?

As I advised Mayor Robinson, I’d be happy to be careful not to interfere with others at the podium–as I have been throughout the years–in recording.  Wouldn’t this satisfy your concerns?   In this case no furniture, signs, additional  recorder “attendants” would be necessary.

I know how committed you are to community participation and media access at Council meetings, so I hope you will restore what has been a problem-free arrangement for the last decade or more.

Let me know.   While there are far more important matters we are both concerned about, the issue of media access is an important one to me.

Robert

P.S.  I’m also concerned with your new definition of “disruption” which seems to ignore the court case which the City lost when the 9th Circuit clarified that “disruption” means real disruption not  simply a rule violation.  Has there been some more recent court decision changing this?