Tuesday, July 18, 2012, the community showed up to say NO when the Venice Neighborhood Council agenized a motion meant to criminalize homeless people in Venice. This included Occupy Venice people, Civil Rights Attorney John Raphling, Steve Clare from Venice Community Housing, Spirit of Venice, Venice Community Unity, the Heartbeat of Venice and plenty of other community members that came to speak against criminalizing people and in favor of positive humane solutions to homelessness.

The proposal to take up this motion came to the Venice Neighborhood Council (VNC) Board through its Public Safety Committee where it was introduced by Mark Ryavec, president of the Venice Stakeholders Assoc. (VSA) - a local nonprofit corporation that some Venice people question the “public good” it was formed to do. Especially considering this motion that effectively asked the LAPD to unconstitutionally enforce laws on homeless people.

The motion was item 7b on the agenda and it was well into the evening, probably after 9:30pm, before it was introduced (read and officially made) by board member Daffodil Tyminski from the Public Safety Committee. Ryavec gave a presentation and handed paper copies of a letter from his attorney that was a response to a letter submitted to the VNC by Civil Rights Attorney Carol Sobel. Ryavec stated that his attorney basically said that Sobel’s letter had no merit. Sobel’s letter cited a Supreme Court case striking the very same language in the law that the motion was telling the LAPD to enforce on homeless people.

Then, seemingly out of the blue, a different substitute motion was introduced by board member Ira Koslow. Turns out that Koslow had met with Ryavec and created this new substitute motion in the anticipation that the original motion would not pass. Hmm.

The problem with introducing a different new substitute motion at the meeting (not an amendment to the original motion) was that it was not provided to the public 72-hours in advance per the Brown Act. Paper copies were given to board members because many had not read it in Koslow’s email from that afternoon. Also some paper copies of the new motion were passed to members of the public.

To complicate things, VNC President Linda Lucks, recluse herself from this motion due to some minor perceived conflict of interest, even though Hillary Clinton (a s/hero of Luck’s) would not have done that. VNC Vice President Marc Saltzberg, who took over chairing the meeting, and the so-called parliamentarian, Ivan Spiegel, did not see a problem with this new substitute motion. Board member Ivonne Guzman tried to make a motion to indefinitely table the motion and said that it “did not make sense.”

I personally believe that hearing and voting on the different substitute motion was a Brown Act violation committed by the VNC. Nonetheless Marc Saltzberg appeared to be in command and went on to try to limit public comment! The people who came and waited hours to make public comments went into an uproar.

It appeared to be a bit of a VNC fiasco at that point, yet still many passionate public comments were allowed and these were predominately against the motion/s (?).

Venice Community Activist David Ewing stated in his public comment, “On one hand you have a cautionary letter from the city attorney’s office and a letter from one of the nation’s preeminent civil rights attorney [Carol Sobel], and on the other hand Mr. Ryavec has managed to find an entertainment attorney to promote his point a view.”

The substitute motion was eventually voted down: 12 against, 2 abstentions, and 5 in favor. The votes in favor were cast by Ira Koslow, Daffodil Tyminski, Mariana Aguilar, Scott Kramarich and Brennin Lindner.

Following that vote, Saltzberg brought back the original motion (that was substituted?) and no public comment was allowed. This motion was voted down unanimously except for two abstentions.

“This vote was a great victory for the people of Venice.” According to Venice Civil Rights Attorney John Raphling, “Our neighborhood council rejected Mr. Ryavec's proposal, whose only purpose was to drive poor people out of our community. The proposal, basically demanding that police arrest homeless people for the crimes of sitting down on the sidewalk and setting their stuff on the ground is a morally wrong.”

Despite my criticisms of how the VNC conducted the meeting, I agree wholeheartedly with Raphling and I’m glad both motions were voted down.The only thing I might add, in conclusion, is that Ryavec certainly has earned the un-honorary title of head cheerleader for crushing homeless people out of Venice using unconstitutional law enforcement.

error

error

Mark Ryavec's motion to further criminalize homeless people in Venice was denied by the VNC board members on Tuesday July 17, 2012 - demonstrating that humanity and compassion can prevail in hard times :)

View video of meeting here - http://youtu.be/fT4DxsfDzbQ

Full video of VNC July 17, 2012 meeting - http://youtu.be/Fd_B9G4X0eg

Make sure Venice and your city wherever it is continue to post agendas in advance and abide by the Brown Act.

Brown's defunding measure looks like that may no longer be certain or required any more.


http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/California-authorizes-government-in-the-shadows-3726683.php

"...In what was billed as a cost-saving move, the Legislature and the governor recently suspended portions of the Brown Act - specifically those ordering local governments to post notices of public meetings in advance.

This purportedly will save state government about $96 million by eliminating a mandate. (Mandates placed on local government by Sacramento must be paid for by the state government.)

This saving equals about .07 percent of the state budget. Despite the loss of state funding, the vast majority of school districts, cities, special districts and counties will follow the law, because it is the right thing to do.

Some jurisdictions, however, will not, and the implications of their actions could be more costly than the money saved.

These agencies will, instead, follow the Legislature's and governor's cynical lead and no longer post meeting notices or report results of closed sessions.

Eventually, an agency will do something wrong - either unintentionally or purposefully crooked - that might not have occurred if the public and press oversight that comes from posting agendas and reporting actions were required.

When that happens, we will hear the predictable hue and cry from the press and Sacramento lamenting the day.

Special investigations will be launched, reports issued and crackdowns promised.

Citizen confidence in government will decline further.

People will be less likely to vote for new taxes if they know that the governing body can meet without public notice to decide how to spend their money and make other important decisions.

If just a few of California's hundreds of local governments act badly, the rest are tainted.

Citizens should do two things.

First, demand that the local governments that serve you continue to adhere to the Brown Act. Second, convey your opinions of the state's decision to your legislators and Gov. Brown.

History offers inspiring stories of people who would not trade their principles for temporal benefit. Those stories should be required reading in Sacramento.

Don Tatzin is a member of the Lafayette City Council, which will continue to follow the Brown Act."

I'm applauding the victory of the people of Venice. Yes, the homeless need a place to go but to be told they can't sit down on the sidewalk and setting their stuff on the ground? That IS morally wrong.

this writer needs to think and write clearly to all who indy readers...who want info, agreed or disagreed to, instead of this jumble of words that makes no sense at all.

the only quotes were from a slanted few agreeing with each other..only, and not from any "other" side so who can believe an prejudiced limited article anyhow ? on any topic...

and homelessness being an important enough topic to include MORE than just 1 sided version to be worth reading here.

so the homeless in venice are More Special than anywhere else in LA?
why ? how ? who decided this ? on what whose Authority ?

get real, write cleaRly, be en, tell readers more than your preferred version of any story.

all homeless in LA or anywhere deserve better than this.

Thanks for the article Peggy Lee. A correction is necessary regarding my vote. As you can see from the posted photo, I did not recuse myself from the vote and handed the gavel to Vice President Marc Saltzberg so that I could speak against the motions and vote.

see this for more info that may be relevant to Brown act and what is suppose to happen or no longer ?

http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/tag/brown-act/

"Brown Act enforcement bill on its way to Governor’s desk

August 24, 2012 by 1stamendmnt
Filed under 1st Amendment News, News & Opinion

The Brown Act enforcement bill, SB 1003, by Democratic Senator Leland Yee, passed the legislature today and is on its way to Governor’s desk. The Assembly voted to approve on a 62-12 vote and the Senate approved the measure on a 24-14 vote. The bill will extend the time allowed for submitting a complaint to within " [more.....]

want to clarify what is required or not to be legal or are legal loopholes and games played continually still ???