Grievance

To All Concerned Parties: 

The submission of this Grievance to the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment is in relation to a recent Motion passed by the Palms Neighborhood Council on August 3, 2016, which discriminates against, and disenfranchises, the public by depriving them of their rights provided by the Brown Act.  

On August 3, 2016, the Palms Neighborhood Council violated The Brown Act by passing motions during their general assembly meeting that prevent the public from effectively video/audio recording the public meetings.  The right to record these public meetings under The Brown Act is to protect and insure transparency, while this Motion by the Palms Neighborhood Council is designed to hamper and obscure that transparency, while discriminating against and disenfranchising the public.  

The Brown Act states:
“54953.5.  (a) Any person attending an open and public meeting of a legislative body of a local agency shall have the right to record the proceedings with an audio or video recorder or a still or picture camera in the absence of a reasonable finding by the legislative body of the local agency that the recording cannot continue without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that constitutes, or would constitute, a persistent disruption of the proceedings.”

“54953.6.  No legislative body of a local agency shall prohibit or otherwise restrict the broadcast of its open and public meetings in the absence of a reasonable finding that the broadcast cannot be accomplished without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that would constitute a persistent disruption of the proceedings.”
As someone who has been attending and recording The Palms Neighborhood Council for years, they have never had a disruption of their proceedings, in any regard related to The Brown Act or otherwise, due to the actual process by the public, or Council board member recording the meeting. The Motion passed by the Palms Neighborhood Council on August 3, 2016, by design, has obstructed and has eliminated the public’s right to full transparency and their ability to effectively record these public meetings, in full transparency. 




The Palms Neighborhood Council Motion (as written and publicly presented)
The Motion, that was passed during the August 3, 2016, meeting is as follows:
“Agenda Item: GAAgenda7-6-16ItemIX.h Date: July 7, 2016 

Background On the advice of the City Attorney, Carmen Hawkins, who oversees NCs, Neighborhood Councils like ours, which have received concerns regarding filming disruptions at public meetings, “should adopt a Standing Rule designating a place for everyone, Public and Board Members to set up their recording equipment in an area that would not be disruptive to the conducting of the meeting.” 

Proposed Motion 
Motion to amend the PNC Ground Rules Section A to add subsection 4 to read: 

4. Video Recordings - Pursuant to Brown Act Section 54953.5, filming of Palms Neighborhood Council meetings may be conducted by stakeholders. To ensure the smooth running of meetings and the comfort of stakeholders, filming shall be conducted pursuant to the following rules: 

a. General Assembly Meetings – At Palms NC General Assembly Board meetings, recording devices may be placed as follows: 

i. IMAN Center (Main Assembly Room) – Along the westernmost wall of the facility, bordering Motor Ave, between the wall and the westernmost seating section, in a camera area designated as between the 5th and 10th rows of seating. 

ii. Other Locations – at least 60 feet away from the general assembly and board seating area. If room size limitations do not allow for such placement, then the device must be placed no more than 5 feet from the wall furthest from the general assembly and board seating area. 

b. Committee Meetings – At Palms NC committee meetings, recording devices may be placed as follows: 

i. IMAN Center (Main Assembly Room) – Same rules as for General Assembly Meetings.

ii. Other Locations – At least 45 feet away from the committee seating area. If room size limitations do not allow for such placement, then the device must be placed no more than 5 feet from the wall furthest from the committee seating area.”



Background 
The Palms Neighborhood Council has never presented a “reasonable finding”, as mandated by The Brown Act, that the actual filming process by the public, of their public meetings has ever caused “a persistent disruption of the proceedings.” 
City Attorney Hawkins can attest that, during each of her visits during Palms’ most recent prior term (2014-2016), there has never been a disruption to the Council’s proceedings due to the public’s actual process of filming their meetings as protected under The Brown Act.  
The Palms Neighborhood Council is taking Ms. Hawkins quote out of context, as it was made in response to Palms Neighborhood Council board members who were recording and photographing members of the public during meetings from the Council table (without the public’s knowledge), and was not made in reference to members of the public, seated in the audience, who have respectfully filmed the Council’s meetings without causing disruption to date, i.e., disruption as defined by The Brown Act as recording being too noisy, causing illumination interference, obstructing views, etc. (The emails that Ms. Hawkins is being quoted from confirm this).  
Ms. Hawkins would not suggest the creation of  “an area that would not be disruptive to the conducting of the meeting” if that designated area were to impede transparency or lead to the extinguishing of the public’s ability and right to record the Council’s meeting as protected by The Brown Act; or if the basis for that area’s creation was discriminatory in nature. 

                                            ///
 
General Assembly Meetings 
The PNC’s new designated area in the Main Assembly Room at the IMAN Center has an obstructed view, making it impossible, if you are filming, to accurately see which board members are speaking, and this area’s distance makes it impossible to hear and record the discussions and proceedings of the meetings (See Attachment #1, possible obstructed view directly caused by the Motion passed by the Palms Neighborhood Council).   
Before this new PNC Motion, the public has been able to record the meetings usually within an approximate distance of 12-20 feet from the general assembly, without causing any disruption to the proceedings.  There are very few recording devices available for public purchase that are able to effectively record within that distance, much less further away; due to this new Motion.
It is already difficult, if not impossible at times, to hear the proceedings in the Main Assembly Room regularly, and the Palms Neighborhood Council does not invest in any type of audio equipment (microphones or speakers) to make hearing their proceedings easier for the public.  On August 3, 2016, a stakeholder sitting directly in front of the Council, just a mere 10 feet away from the Council table, had to ask Council member Seo to speak up because they could not hear him; even more difficult for a recording device now having to be placed up to 10 rows back and up to 50 feet away, off to the side and against the wall.   
During the PNC General Assembly Meeting on July 6, 2016, a former Palms Neighborhood Council member, seated in the audience filming the meeting, used their public comment to inquire whether or not these rules had the public’s “best interest” in mind.  At this particular meeting there were approximately between 4-6 cameras being used at once by the public to record the meeting, dispersed throughout the main room; several on tripods.  These were the most cameras ever being used to record a single Palms Neighborhood Council meeting at one time, and there were no disruptions to the meeting’s proceedings.  Remember, the actual process used by the public to film or record the PNC’s meetings has never caused a disruption to the meeting’s proceedings.  
If the Neighborhood Council wishes to ignore the fact that they have never had any disruptions due to the process of filming their meetings and create a designated area anyway, then they have to insure that that designated area not obstruct or impede the public’s ability and right to effectively record their meetings to insure transparency.   
It is disingenuous for the Palms Neighborhood Council to state that their basis for this Motion is “To ensure the smooth running of meetings and the comfort of stakeholders”, when the real “comfort” that the public (not just stakeholders) require is to know that their local government is not trying to disenfranchise them by stripping them of their protective rights.  It is simple discrimination by the Palms Neighborhood Council, as they seek to “comfort” some people, while discriminating and denying rights to others.  Proof of this came at the general assembly meeting on August 3, 2016, in their main assembly room.  
General Assembly Meetings  - Continued
A member of the public (the only person in attendance with recording equipment that night, not causing a disruption, sitting by themselves in an empty section) was asked to move to the newly designated area (dictated by this Motion), too far away to see and hear the meeting. 
The Council’s minute taker, who uses recording equipment, was allowed to use and have their recording equipment at the Council table, well outside the new Motion’s designated area that the Council says is supposed to house EVERYONE’S recording equipment, and is a designated “place for everyone, Public and Board Members”.  This instance further highlights the discriminatory basis and practice of the Palms Neighborhood Council under this new Motion, as the Council chose to enforce its rules on some, and relax them for others.  If The Brown Act does not discriminate, then neither can the Palms Neighborhood Council.
                                           
                                            ///
 
Committee Meetings & Other Locations
The Palms Neighborhood Council and its committees have held meetings in various locations from outdoor restaurants, dining halls, and once even attempted to have a meeting in a parking lot.  At each of these different locations, members of the public used their recording devices close enough to effectively record the meetings, without disrupting the Council or committee’s proceedings, and still be close enough to engage and participate in those meetings.  Not once has there ever been a disruption to their meeting’s proceedings due to the public recording their meeting (SEE Attachment #1A, pictures from various Palms Neighborhood Council General Assembly and Committee meetings, over the years, where there was no disruption in the proceedings, despite the close proximity of the public’s recording device).
Recently the Palms Neighborhood Council Homelessness Committee met on July 27, 2016 at a restaurant/coffee house called the Coffee Commissary, located at 3417 Motor Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90034, and the meeting took place outside at one of the venue’s sidewalk seating areas (SEE Attachment #2, a picture of the committee meeting as posted on the Palms’ Twitter account).   
To prepare for the next meeting, following the passing of this new Motion, I went to the outdoor venue after their meeting ended, and measured how far away that, on the noisy public street where the meeting was held (with cars and buses driving by), I would have to stand if I wanted to exercise my rights, attend and record this particular committee meeting (SEE Attachments #3 and #4, pictures showing how far away one would have to stand to record this meeting).  
Again, it would be impossible to effectively record this meeting under this unlawful Motion that violates The Brown Act by denying the public the ability to effectively record public meetings.  It doesn’t matter if the distance was 45 or 60 feet away, nobody would be able to effectively see, and definitely would not hear anything transpiring during this meeting.  
In addition, and in reference to this particular committee meeting that occurred on July 27, 2016 (outside on a public street) how would the public be able to record the meeting from up to 60 feet away, and still be able to engage in the discussion, comment, and business of the meeting, as they are encouraged to do?  Simple, they can’t.  
The parameters and distances set forth in this Motion make it impossible for the public to record a meeting from 45 to 60 feet away, in an environment already insensitive to the needs of the public trying to exercise their rights and use recording equipment.  This Motion was not created to insure transparency.  If it were, it would not contain an additional fail-safe stipulation that, in the event that the Council is unable to banish the public up to 60 feet away, that “stakeholders” still must be “no more than 5 feet from the WALL FURTHEST from the committee… general assembly and board seating area”.

Committee Meetings & Other Locations - Continued
Further, in reference to this committee meeting on July 27, 2016 that took place outside (See Attachment #5), and highlight how ridiculous this unlawful Motion truly is, it would appear that whoever took this picture (Palms’ board member, committee member, member of the public, or stakeholder, as the rules apply to EVERYONE) to post on the Palms’ Twitter account is in violation of this new Motion’s parameters as well.  This new unlawful Motion states that if the Council is not able to unlawfully and discriminately force the public 45/60 feet away to record or photograph the public meeting, then people wishing to record or photograph cannot be “more than 5 feet from the WALL FURTHEST from the committee”.   In Attachment #5, the measured distance from the furthest (back) wall to where the camera is placed is approximately 8 feet, which is in violation for being more than the 5 feet allotted by this unlawful Motion; which again, the Palms Neighborhood Council has yet to provide a “reasonable finding”, as mandated by The Brown Act, that the process by the public filming their public meetings has ever caused “a persistent disruption of the proceedings.”  If taking this photo did not disrupt this committee’s proceedings, then why has the Palms Neighborhood Council denied the public the right to take it, by deeming it a violation under their new unlawful Motion?

                                            ///

 
Remedy

Over the years there have been disruptions by the public, stakeholders, and board members that have affected the Palms Neighborhood Council’s proceedings including instances where the room has had to be cleared, a board member yelling across the room for a stakeholder to “STOP!” their ranting and certifiable behavior, and even an instance when a Council member left their seat on the board to physically harass a member of the public in the audience; and yet, over the years, and through all of the disruptions, not one instance can or has ever been attributed to be caused by someone who was exercising their right to quietly and respectfully record these public meetings, as authorized and protected by The Brown Act .  Not once has anyone said or complained that they could not see, and not once has anyone ever complained that they could not hear any information being presented during a Palms Neighborhood Council meeting because someone was exercising their right to transparency by recording the public meeting.  Not once.  

I demand that the Palms Neighborhood Council correct this Brown Act violation, and cease any and all further discriminatory and disenfranchising action taken against the public.  By attempting to circumvent The Brown Act with this unlawful Motion, the Palms Neighborhood Council has violated the public’s trust.

I respectfully request that this Motion, since the Council has chosen to exercise bias, and enforce this Motion on some, and not on others (as evidenced during their August 3, 2016 general assembly meeting), be immediately repealed, or considered void.

If it is not to be repealed or considered void for its violation, disenfranchising, and discrimination against the public, I request that this Motion be suspended until a legal resolution from the Department, made in accordance and full compliance of the Brown Act,  can be obtained.


Thank you,

Fred Stewart





                                            ///

Brown Act Violation:

“54953.5.  (a) Any person attending an open and public meeting of a legislative body of a local agency shall have the right to record the proceedings with an audio or video recorder or a still or picture camera in the absence of a reasonable finding by the legislative body of the local agency that the recording cannot continue without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that constitutes, or would constitute, a persistent disruption of the proceedings.”

“54953.6.  No legislative body of a local agency shall prohibit or otherwise restrict the broadcast of its open and public meetings in the absence of a reasonable finding that the broadcast cannot be accomplished without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that would constitute a persistent disruption of the proceedings.”

The Council needs training on the Brown Act.

This Motion is supposed to be for everyone (board member, stakeholder, public, etc.), and the Council does not universally enforce its own rules, picking and choosing who has to obey.