Who watches the watchdogs?
September 18th, 2007, 12:58 pm · 3 Comments · posted by Scott Shackford
It looks like I owe Manuel “Gil” Gurule an apology.
He called me at the end of last week about the casino happenings (and lack thereof) in Sacramento. His intention was to point out to me that the meetings between the governor’s staff and four City Council members may have been a Brown Act violation. The Brown Act is California’s public meeting law, which is intended to make sure that local governmental meetings and decisions (with some exceptions) happen in a public forum, with the community appropriately notified.
I blame casino outrage fatigue for not listening, though it’s really a lousy excuse. City Council members aren’t supposed to gather in large enough numbers to define a quorum — three or more in this case — without public notification of the meeting. Their meeting in Sacramento is most likely a Brown Act violation, though they amended the situation by reporting out the content of the meeting at the subsequent City Council meeting Monday.
I was dismissive of Mr. Gurule’s call, because I’ve grown tired of folks on both sides finding ways to pick pick pick at their opponents and trying to get the newspaper involved. I’ve also been made increasingly aware by our readership that most folks out there don’t care about the squabbling, just the results.
But while this particular Brown Act violation was fairly mild — they were just there to receive information, it appears, not to plan anything — there are potential serious repercussions when this happens. What other meetings could have taken place in Sacramento without our knowledge? Could there have been strategy sessions to deal with opposition to one project? Could they have discussed dumping the city’s agreement with one tribe or the other? These are all potential discussion subjects that are obligated to happen in public.
So I apologize for letting my frustration with the nature of this debate cloud my perception about what is happening in Sacramento. Gurule was absolutely right to be concerned and I appreciate his call, in retrospect.
September 19th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Although I do understand the reasoning behind the Brown Act, the fact that members of the council as well as the city manager and economic development manager met to talk with that woman should not be construed as a corrupt meeting. Why do we as people as a first response cry out corruption! Maybe they were there for information, not plotting their strategy and etc… Obviously they have not been plotting very well or the casinos would have moved closer to completion. It looks like they were minding themsleves and not meddling or aiding in the hearings of the compacts. Barstow lost beacuse it was not resorting to corrupt tactics or deals.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
What anyone failed to discover was what was said by Mayor Dale or others at the meeting. Did they all just sit their with their mouths closed and their ears wide open? Did they state an “official position” of the City? did they advocate for one thing or another? Did they compel Ms. Bryant to fight for the Barwest compacts?
The report which was generated and accompanied the 9/17/07 Council Agenda packet “misconstrued” what Bryant said so it is clear the six that attended the meeting didn’t have their ears wide-opened — or at least those who wrote and approved the report didn’t hear things quite right.
In fact, the report that was generated following the meeting was awfully one-sided and meant to not only cure a Brown Act violation but also to suggest that the Governor would not negotiate with the Chemehuevi. Ms. Bryant’s follow-up letter (which the Mayor was required to read at the meeting to set the record straight) clearly indicated the Governor would negotiated with the Chemehuevi or any other tribes that meet certain criteria. The Los Coyotes tribe does not meet the criteria that Ms. Bryant laid out in her letter.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
I think it unfortunate that Barstow thinks they need a casino to boost revenue. Do people look at long term affects that a casino would bring to the area. It is obvious that a casino brings out the worst in people. From a Biblical perspective, God would not honor anything that is an obvious sin. Is gambling trusting in God? Beside the Biblical perspective, how about the peoples whose lives it effects. Ask the father or mother whose father or mother spend money that they don’t have pay their debts. We minimalize these things. This has nothing to do with Indian Casino, but any Casino. It’s unfortunate that our town and society as a whole want to take the short cut to success. What happened to ethics? Or is ethics different from one person to another? There is a right and a wrong. Perhaps the casino will be built in Barstow, I just know the church, my Lord and savior Jesus, will be there to pick up the pieces of broken lives. Just becuase the town gets what it wants does not make it good.