top
Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

The Right to Disrespect: A Reminder

by Robert Norse
I wrote this letter this morning after Vice-Mayor Cynthia Chase attempted to stop me from speaking with my back to the Council during Oral Communications yesterday afternoon. It wasn't clear to me that she was taking action to arrest me, but seemed like she was threatening to do so. It has to emphasized again that a violation of Council rules, unless it disrupts the meeting, is not a disruption, however much a presiding officer wants to paint it as one. The interruption and threat to the speaker is the disruption. Showing disrespect is not a crime and often a duty.
Cynthia Chase, Vice-Mayor
309 Center St.
Santa Cruz, CA

Cynthia:

Council's failure to either agenda-ize or allow at least a three minutes per speaker Oral Communications time last night (and a 5 minute period for groups as has been traditional) provoked a lot of justified anger in the community.

Council has failed to recognize, much less reign in a long out-of-control police department with a lethal use of force policy, a perpetual lack of transparency, and a history of class profiling. This means many have lost their faith that the Council will provide even the semblance of a discussion, much less action, on these issues facing communities confronting abusive behavior by police departments across the country.

I think other speakers (and common sense) has made it clear. Leaving everything to the same department (and its D.A. friends) who OKs 4 armed and armored police shooting a guy "brandishing" a rake 4 times in 20 seconds appears like a corrupt rubberstamping of an out-of-control police department.

Refusing to demand the department show its video/audio to the community seems further evidence of this. And the final straw, of course, is failing to protect the community by requiring Vogel either discipline his officers or be fired.

I'm writing you regarding your attempt to persuade me to face the Council when speaking. I actually wasn't aware it was you speaking (though I should have been), incidentally. My comments were not intended to be personally insulting, but to attempt to finish my (1 minute only!) public testimony without interruption.

Without intention to insult you, I'd add that this wouldn't have made any difference. As I've told the Council in the past, this is my right and the right of any member of the public which the Council is required to respect (though it seldom does). As the 9th Circuit Court has ruled in an early City Council attempt to arrest me and later avoid responsibility for a civil rights violation--violating a Mayor or a Council's "rule of procedure" is not a disruption. On the other hand, repeatedly interrupting a speaker at the microphone during Oral Communications so as to materially interfere with their right to speak is.

It was those who repeatedly interrupted my attempt to speak that were creating the disruption. A disruption is something that materially impedes the progress of the meeting. I would go so far to say as shout from the audience while viewed as "disrespectful" are a part of the democratic process--which is often not polite and friendly.

I thought this whole matter was made clear to the Council in the lawsuit that cost the City $200,000 in the mock-Nazi salute case of 2002--which you may be familiar with. Mayors Lane and Mathews have thought better of trying to stifle an obviously First Amendment-protected activity at the microphone during a public comment period.

This is likely to happen again, depending on the behavior of the Council. It's up to the speaker at the mike, not to the Council or the Council's presiding officer, how a person makes their commentary. If they choose too be disrespectful, that's something the no member of the Council has any business moving to repress with force or threats of force.

I've had little contact with you other than the brief friendly chat we had when I interviewed you last month outside City Council for Free Radio Santa Cruz. I don't have much faith in your interest in restoring basic rights to the broader community or the homeless community--based on your track record. But I found you amiable and approachable.

Hence I'm writing to you to explain that my back-to-the-Council presentation was not intended as a personal insult to you. My raised voice was intended to make what I was saying audible because, indeed, as you pointed out, I was turned away from the microphone.

I was addressing my views to the community because the Council clearly intended to do nothing about the Arlt slaying other than leave it in the hands of the agencies who committed what appears to be a rather lethal crime. I encourage you not to take gestures of disrespect to the Council personally, but to regard them as a necessary (if unpleasant for you) part of the cost of being a public official facing an justifiably outraged citizenry.

I would be happy to discuss this matter more fully with you if you wish. I think it's important for you to understand some of the history here as you are likely to be the next Mayor.

I can appreciate your wanting me to behave in a certain fashion and your asking me to do so. Repeatedly interrupting me so as to interfere with my speaking time, however, is another matter. Obviously, even more seriously, I cannot and will not accept the use of armed force to attempt to suppress free speech at the public microphone during public comment period. Please assure me that you will not do this again and will intervene on behalf of speakers there if other members of the Council attempt to do so.

Feel free to call me if you wish to discuss these matters more fully.


Robert
(423-4833)
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Just Sayin
You would reach more people with your words if you spoke into the microphone. The tv audience for council meetings is much larger than the chamber attendance. I guess you think of it as a protest, but to me your stunt seems like kind of a limp protest that simply wasted other speakers' time at the podium.

Thanks for speaking out against police violence, though.
by John Cohen-Colby
18_u.s._code____2381_-_treason___us_law___lii___legal_information_institute.pdf_600_.jpg
I think Robert Norse's statement of disrespect for the City Council at their latest meeting was appropriate. They don't deserve his attention, but the public who (in the majority) decry nationwide police violence (against (emotionally) disabled people) do deserve to hear what long time Santa Cruz Police Department (SCPD) critic Robert Norse has to say about the recent murder in context of decades of the SCPD running amuck. If anything, Norse should have directly pointed at SCPD Chief Kevin Vogel, Deputy Chief Rick Martinez and their fellow SCPD minions to demand they immediately resign because they have disgraced the SCPD (violating their own policies) and have betrayed the Constitution (aiding and abetting Treason against the People).

This time Robert Norse has the Will of the People behind him while the SCPD and their despicable cheerleaders are widely reviled by the People. Robert Norse is on the right side of History while his (Take Back Santa Cruz and neoliberal) detractors are squarely placed on the wrong side of History.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
by Robert Norse
Don Lane, former Mayor and outgoing Councilmember, was the only one of the Council who responded to the letter above. Vice-Mayor Chase has not replied.

In his reply, Lane doesn't address the specific issue of whether it's okay to interrupt and threaten a speaker at Oral Communications who is standing at the microphone by turning his back on the Council and the Mayor (and the microphone).

My point, of course, that doing so gives visual force to the content of one's speech as well as emphasizing the power and responsibility of the audience-as community to reclaim its power and not be intimidated by or put unjustified faith in a fatally co-opted City Council. It's really a question of free speech where "decorum" rules are being used to tame, tone down, and weaken persuasive expressions of dissent outside the boundaries set up by the Council for its own political comfort.

Lane gave a long reply prompting me to write one that was even longer and ultimately edit it in favor of a simple question: "are you justifying the right to shut down a speaker if they turn their back on you even though that is clearly part of their message?" As I've said, neither he nor Chase have responded to this. Nor has Chase made it clear that she intends to exercise this kind of authority if she becomes Mayor (as is likely) next City Council.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$230.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network