Pepper_Letitia E (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

STATE BAR No. 105277 ASSISTANCE TO THE BAR: APPEALS, LAW & MOTION, APPEARANCES, MOOT COURTS, CONSULTING Letitia E. Pepper, Esq. P. O. Box 55560, RIVERSIDE, CA 92517 telephone (951) 781-8883 message (951) 275-9480 LEPI05277@cs.com ADMITTED TO STATE COURTS OF CALIFORNIA, CENTRAL & SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURTS OF CALIFORNIA, NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS City Council, Mayor and City Attorney City of Riverside, City Hall 3900 Main Street Riverside, CA 92522 cc: Mayor / City Council t/" City Manager V City Attorney V February 21,2007 Re: Violation of California Constitution, the Ralph M. Brown Act, and Rules of Parliamentary Procedure; Eminent Domain and Making Riverside Citizens Landless Serfs, Peasants, Peons and Displaced Persons Honorable Mayor and Council Members, Mr. Priamos: At last night's City Council meeting, the Mayor and Council violated the California Constitution, article 1, section 2; the Ralph M. Brown Act, and the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure. I demand that you cure these violations by (1) revising your Rules of Order and Decorum to comply with Riverside residents' California constitutional rights, (2) conforming your behavior at all future meetings to the Ralph M. Brown Act (which means you must stop taking "recesses" during the meeting when anything flusters you, so you can have private discussions during the break), and (3) following the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure at all future meetings. ( I've been informed by Ellen McPeters that Mayor Loveridge says that Mr. Priamos, the City Attorney, not he, is the group's parliamentarian. Being an attorney does not necessarily qualify one as a parliamentary expert, so perhaps the Council and Mayor should return to the standard practice by which the presiding officer, the Mayor, acts in that capacity.) A discussion of each of these violations follows. The California Constitution The Council has been in violation of the California Constitution ever since it adopted Rules of Order and Decorum that it purported to apply to members of the public -- people who did not waive any constitutional rights because they did not choose to become elected officials. Elected officials, like judges and attorneys, are held to higher standards of conduct than the general public, and the Council was free to adopt rules of conduct for itself. It was not free to adopt rules that, when applied to the public, are unconstitutional. This letter will not purport to be an exhaustive list of the problems with the Rules of Order and Decorum. It will discuss only one, the one that caused such a problem last night. The Council cannot order the public speakers not to make personal, or i~p~rtinent: or sland~rous c?mments during oral communicati~ns. I h'Y"i ~eJl4y~ised thIS Issue WIth Mr. Pnamos III a February 5, 2007 letter, to whIch I havn<bt!ieWE D a reply. FEB 2 3 2007 1 Gity of Riverside CitY Clerk's Office