Archives for posts with tag: fullerton city council
060220 ADM Hunt Branch Library Proposal

The proposal being recommended to the City Council.

Matthew Leslie

The Fullerton City Council is scheduled to consider proposals for programming in the closed Hunt Branch Library during it’s regular meeting on June 2. Eight different organizations responded to a Request for Proposals issued last November by the city to solicit programming proposals for the site. A five member panel that included members of the Library Ad Hoc Committee reviewed the proposals following direction by the council in March. The highest ranked proposal came from Heritage Future in partnership with Arts Orange County. The council is being asked to approve staff engaging with the Heritage Future/Arts OC.

Eight responses were received to the city’s Request for Proposals, issued in November, 2019.

Arts OC is a non-profit arts advocacy group founded twenty years ago at a time when such an organization was lacking in the county. Every major, and most minor, arts organization in OC is a member of the group, which advocates for arts funding and support and provides organizational and other services to both local governments and constituent members. For many years they have managed the Imagination Celebration in Orange County. Heritage Future was founded by Kevin Staniec, a writer, publisher, and arts impresario who founded and directs the 1888 literary space in Orange and has organized exhibitions for the City of Irvine’s Great Park gallery for many years and previously worked for the Muckenthaler Cultural Center.

The joint proposal envisions utilizing the historic Hunt Branch Library as an arts and literary presentation and educational space. Staniec would serve as the program team leader, while Arts OC would help to conceive, plan, and implement programs for the space and grounds. The proposal also includes architect Robert Young, who would presumably direct use of $2.5 million in state funding for renovations and restoration of the building.

What oversight the Library Board of Trustees will have of the project is unclear, but the state grant requires that the site retain some aspect of library use.

The library’s tenant, Grace Mission University, also submitted a proposal to utilized the site, scoring at number 5 of the 8 submitted proposals. The next to highest score was received for a proposal called Hunt Library Gardens, but no other information about it is provided in the agenda report, nor were proposals submitted by Access California, Arborland (who operate a private school in Amerige Heights), Faruk Zia & Associates, OCHCC, or Bonnie Hall.

Matthew Leslie

Last night the City of Fullerton sent an email notice of a Special City Council Meeting to be held tonight, Thursday, March 26, along with instructions for how to access the meeting online and how to submit comments on agenda items. PUBLIC COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY 5:00 P.M., TODAY IN ORDER TO BE READ AT THE MEETING. You cannot attend this meeting in person.

I have reproduced the instructions sent by the City below, including the appropriate links to the agenda and instructions on submitting comments.

City of Fullerton

We’ve posted the latest City Council Special Meeting Agenda on our website.  Follow this link to view the agendaand related materials: www.cityoffullerton.com/agendas.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 and given the current health concerns, members of the public can access meetings streamed live online at https://fullerton.legistar.com, on Spectrum Cable Channel 3 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99.  Members of the public may not attend the meeting in person.

In addition, members of the public can submit comments electronically for City Council consideration by clicking on the eComment link accompanying the agenda posted online at https://fullerton.legistar.com until the close of the public comment period for the item.

The public can also email comments to cityclerksoffice@cityoffullerton.com with the subject line “PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #” (insert the item number relevant to your comment) or “PUBLIC COMMENT NON-AGENDA ITEM”.  Staff will read aloud comments received by 5:00 p.m. during the applicable agenda item at the meeting, provided that such comments may be read within the normal three minutes allotted to each speaker.  Any portion of your comment extending past three minutes may not be read aloud due to time restrictions.  Staff will not read email comments received after 5:00 p.m. at the meeting but the official record will include email comments received after 5:00 p.m. until the close of the meeting.  Contact the City Clerk’s office at cityclerksoffice@cityoffullerton.com or (714)-738-6355 with any questions.

The only item on the meeting’s agenda is a temporary moratorium on evictions due to COVID-19. Other cities in Orange County have already passed similar measures intended to protect workers suddenly thrown out of work by State of California orders to causing the shut down of businesses that employ them. The eviction ban would apply to commercial or residential tenants and owners whose income has decreased or whose medical expenses have increased due to “COVID-19-Related Financial Impacts.” The ban would take effect immediately following adoption of the ordinance by council, and would extend until the expiration of Governor Gavin Newsome’s Executive declaring a State of Emergency in California.

I anticipate a unanimous vote in support of the eviction moratorium. It is a sad commentary on our medical system that such legislation is necessary to prevent people from being evicted because they have no money for rent or a mortgage owing to medical expenses that would be free in any otherwise civilized country.

 

Agenda-40_Page_4

My comment would be to suggest that when a notice of a City Council  meeting is sent out, the date of the meeting should be included somewhere in the body of the email and in the title. Anyone reading the email and not checking the agenda link might have assumed that the meeting date would be next Tuesday, since notices of meetings regularly held on Tuesdays are generally sent out on Thursdays of the prior week.

City Hall

Matthew Leslie

 

It’s an ugly day when a municipality sues its own residents in an effort to seize back digital files left unguarded on its own website.* By now readers should be aware that the City of Fullerton is suing the publishers of the Friends for Fullerton’s Future (FFFF) blog over the blog’s publication of numerous files obtained without authorization, but without evident illegal activity–despite claims by the city attorney–from a Dropbox folder (mis)managed by the city itself. A court has already refused the city’s request to have the servers and computers associated with the bloggers seized and examined, and the order the city did obtain at the same hearing enjoining FFFF from further publishing the materials in question has just today been stayed by an appeals court.

The Fullerton City Council is wasting its time and our money on a lawsuit that will almost certainly be decided against the city on free speech grounds. Courts have long held against lawsuits that constitute prior restraint when it comes to a free press, and there is no reason to think the city’s case will end any differently. Just yesterday The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed an amicus brief in support of FFFF. The RCFP characterizes the suit as “A brazen misuse of computer crime laws against journalists.” (Speaking of laws, if FFFF did break the law by accessing the files in question, why have they not been criminally charged for doing so?)

The decision to sue FFFF and some of its named bloggers was made in closed session on September 17, but only reported this past Tuesday when the City Attorney during a meeting of the City Council finally acknowledged what should have been reported over a month and a half ago.  At the time the Fullerton City Council’s unanimous vote to initiate legal proceedings against FFFF for publishing stories referencing city employee personnel files might have seemed the responsible thing to do, on some level, in order to protect the privacy of the employees and diminish the chances of the city itself being sued by them for its own abysmal failure to secure such sensitive files in the first place. Either way, they ought have known that their chances of prevailing were slim, and ought to have had legal counsel tell them so.

Readers can decide for themselves whether or not they approve of FFFF’s tactics, but there is no denying that they have exposed some questionable practices by city management. Our government shouldn’t use litigation to shield itself from public scrutiny, especially when it is transparency itself that is in question. Suing to save face is an irresponsible use of public funds. A full hearing of the case is scheduled for November 21, but it’s hard to imagine that the case will ultimately stop publication of any files at this point. The city should cut its losses and drop the case now.

*(For coverage of the case see Spencer Custodio’s reporting in the Voice of OC)

%d bloggers like this: