|The Lookout Letter to the editor|
|Speak Out!||Send Letters to firstname.lastname@example.org|
January 7, 2020
Two crucial questions are raised by Interim City Attorney George Cardona's position concerning Councilmember Kristin McCowan's Brown Act violation ("Council to Redo Vote for Top Posts," January 6, 2020).
Has there been a violation of the Brown Act due to Councilmember McCowan’s serial meetings?And has the violation been cured?
The answer to the first question is a resounding yes.
Has the violation been cured?
Mr. Cardona’s answer is yes. He claims Councilmember McCowan making a public disclosure cured the violation.
If it were true that the disclosure cured the violation, everybody would violate the Brown Act, then simply disclose the violation publicly, and pretend everything is fine.
All Council deliberations would then take place behind the closed doors, then the Council would confess the violation publicly, and proceed to a for-show-only public meeting.
Without Councilmember McCowan recusing herself during the new vote, we would be reinforcing that it’s okay to violate the Brown Act and there are no consequences to the violation.
Moreover, the message would be that you might actually be rewarded for the violation with a Council leadership position like that of Mayor Pro Tem after violating the Brown Act.
This would be a very dangerous precedent, one we cannot allow.
|Copyright 1999-2020 surfsantamonica.com. All Rights Reserved.|