Attorney Meddling and Intervention at April 16, 2024 City Council Meeting

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Clayton City Attorney Malathy Subramanian and Joanna Gin:

I am writing to express my respectful disagreement with Joanna Gin’s intervention at the April 16, 2024, Clayton City Council meeting. While I apologize for speaking out of turn from the audience without being recognized, I felt Joanna Gin’s guidance to reopen public comment on agenda item 8a was legally questionable and could set an unhealthy precedent.

Mayor Diaz exercised his discretion to have the members of Community Financial Sustainability (Hank Stratford, Howard Kaplan, and applicant Frank Gavidia) speak last during the public comment period under Item 8a, as he had indicated they would before opening the floor to comments.

Under the Brown Act, public comment must be allowed on each agenda item before action is taken. However, once public comment is closed, there is no provision to reopen it on the same item. Doing so raises issues of fairness and equal access, as some residents may have left already believing they had their chance to speak.

My concern is less with this one instance, but rather the precedent it could set. If a mayor can arbitrarily reopen comment later to allow one side to speak again, it damages public trust and accountability. I would urge adherence to the Brown Act, League of Cities Guidelines, and California's Open Meeting Laws which guarantee and protect equal public participation.

If Hank Stratford, Howard Kaplan, and the applicant Frank Gavidia had been listed under a separate agenda item like 8.b., your intervention would have been justified.

While city attorneys have leeway, adherence to open government laws and fair proceedings is paramount. I understand your role is to advise, but in this case, your guidance seemed to contravene core public access principles.

In conclusion, I am optimistic that one of you will address this critical issue at our next council meeting, scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 7, 2024, so that the council and the public have a better understanding of open meeting law and policies.

Above all, I thank you for your service and commitment to our community, despite this disagreement.

Please accept my apology again for my outburst.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

--------------------------------------------------------

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate