From: xxxxx [xxxx@savebarec.org]
Sent: Sunday, July
30, 2006 1:07 PM
To: 'Clerk@ci.santa-clara.ca.us';
'CityAttorney@ci.santa-clara.ca.us'
Cc: (xxxx@kpix.cbs.com); (xxxx@metronews.com); (xxxx@mercurynews.com); (xxxx@ix.netcom.com);
(xxxx@abc.com); (xxxx@mercurynews.com);
'legal@savebarec.org'
Subject: City Council Meeting - July 18, 2006,
public request
Importance: High
To Whom It May
Concern (please forward appropriately):
On July 18, 2006, a
number of people submitted Speaker Cards on Agenda Item 8B, either mentioning
the Agenda Item by name or by referencing the Agricultural content to be
discussed in Agenda Item 8B.
I am formally
requesting the following public information and request answers to the
following. Also, please confirm you have received this message and when
you will respond:
1. What were the
names of the people on the speaker cards? They were never read or
identified.
2. What law or code
gives the Mayor the right to not allow public comment on an agenda
item?
3. What law or code
gives the Mayor the right to censor words used in public comment (i.e., not
allow the use of specific words)? In this case, she specifically said
BAREC was not to be mentioned.
4. Why was public
comment not allowed under an agenda item? Has this ever been done
before? If so, when and why?
5. The public did
not get an opportunity to speak to the council on an agenda item and many left
after that item. How do you receive comments from
them?
6. Agenda item 11 is
for public comment. Specifically, it states, and I
quote:
"PUBLIC
PRESENTATIONS
This portion of the
meeting is reserved for persons desiring the address the Council on any matter
not on the agenda."
Since Educational
Urban Farms was an agenda item, one is not allowed to speak on that matter as a
matter of policy/practice. Yet, when I spoke with Mayor Mahan after the
meeting, she said everyone knows they can speak during the public section (Item
11) of the agenda. She said this is where the public was supposed to
speak, yet she did not read any of the speaker cards submitted under
item 8B. Please explain as her comments to me are in direct conflict
with the published agenda. Both the City Attorney and the City Clerk were
present in this discussion.
I was very happy to
see that the presentation took place, but I was equally unhappy that the Mayor
did not let the public speak. Just because members of SaveBAREC created
the presentation does not mean this is a SaveBAREC only effort. The SJ
Mercury News published the meeting in the Government Watch report on
Monday, July 17th on the front page of The Valley section. People
from all over knew about the meeting and the presentation. Most left the
council chambers after the Mayor wanted to move to the next agenda item and the
recess took place. The fact that we have over 4,500 signatures on our
petitions should show that agricultural preservation in Santa Clara is important
to everyone in the area, not just Santa Clarans. It's a state resource
that many weigh-in on. The petition does not say anything about urban
farms, it simply states:
"I support keeping
BAREC in Santa Clara (formerly the UC Agricultural Research Extension Center at
90 North Winchester Blvd., Santa Clara, CA) in 100% (one hundred percent)
agricultural open space and kept zoned as agriculture, keeping its historical
buildings in the same location."
Please help me
understand why the City Council is keeping the public from expressing themselves
and being heard. I do not see the public being served and seriously
question what took place as being allowed.
Thank
you,
xxxx