Sunday, September 25, 2011
Saturday, September 10, 2011
William McCray - Civility Code Take 4
SUNSHINE LAW BELOW
286.011 Public meetings and records; public inspection; criminal and civil penalties.— (1) All meetings of any board or commission of any state agency or authority or of any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision, except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, at which official acts are to be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times, and no resolution, rule, or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at such meeting. The board or commission must provide reasonable notice of all such meetings. (2) The minutes of a meeting of any such board or commission of any such state agency or authority shall be promptly recorded, and such records shall be open to public inspection. The circuit courts of this state shall have jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforce the purposes of this section upon application by any citizen of this state. (3)(a) Any public officer who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a noncriminal infraction, punishable by fine not exceeding $500. (b) Any person who is a member of a board or commission or of any state agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision who knowingly violates the provisions of this section by attending a meeting not held in accordance with the provisions hereof is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (4) Whenever an action has been filed against any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision to enforce the provisions of this section or to invalidate the actions of any such board, commission, agency, or authority, which action was taken in violation of this section, and the court determines that the defendant or defendants to such action acted in violation of this section, the court shall assess a reasonable attorney’s fee against such agency, and may assess a reasonable attorney’s fee against the individual filing such an action if the court finds it was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. Any fees so assessed may be assessed against the individual member or members of such board or commission; provided, that in any case where the board or commission seeks the advice of its attorney and such advice is followed, no such fees shall be assessed against the individual member or members of the board or commission. However, this subsection shall not apply to a state attorney or his or her duly authorized assistants or any officer charged with enforcing the provisions of this section. (5) Whenever any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision appeals any court order which has found said board, commission, agency, or authority to have violated this section, and such order is affirmed, the court shall assess a reasonable attorney’s fee for the appeal against such board, commission, agency, or authority. Any fees so assessed may be assessed against the individual member or members of such board or commission; provided, that in any case where the board or commission seeks the advice of its attorney and such advice is followed, no such fees shall be assessed against the individual member or members of the board or commission. (6) All persons subject to subsection (1) are prohibited from holding meetings at any facility or location which discriminates on the basis of sex, age, race, creed, color, origin, or economic status or which operates in such a manner as to unreasonably restrict public access to such a facility. (7) Whenever any member of any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision is charged with a violation of this section and is subsequently acquitted, the board or commission is authorized to reimburse said member for any portion of his or her reasonable attorney’s fees. (8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), any board or commission of any state agency or authority or any agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision, and the chief administrative or executive officer of the governmental entity, may meet in private with the entity’s attorney to discuss pending litigation to which the entity is presently a party before a court or administrative agency, provided that the following conditions are met: (a) The entity’s attorney shall advise the entity at a public meeting that he or she desires advice concerning the litigation. (b) The subject matter of the meeting shall be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures. (c) The entire session shall be recorded by a certified court reporter. The reporter shall record the times of commencement and termination of the session, all discussion and proceedings, the names of all persons present at any time, and the names of all persons speaking. No portion of the session shall be off the record. The court reporter’s notes shall be fully transcribed and filed with the entity’s clerk within a reasonable time after the meeting. (d) The entity shall give reasonable public notice of the time and date of the attorney-client session and the names of persons who will be attending the session. The session shall commence at an open meeting at which the persons chairing the meeting shall announce the commencement and estimated length of the attorney-client session and the names of the persons attending. At the conclusion of the attorney-client session, the meeting shall be reopened, and the person chairing the meeting shall announce the termination of the session. (e) The transcript shall be made part of the public record upon conclusion of the litigation. History.—s. 1, ch. 67-356; s. 159, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 78-365; s. 6, ch. 85-301; s. 33, ch. 91-224; s. 1, ch. 93-232; s. 210, ch. 95-148; s. 1, ch. 95-353. |
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Palm Beach Post Grossly Unfair and Unbalanced!
September 7, 2011 Post Rebuttal I would like to address and give a different perspective on an article written by Andrew Marra on August 31, 2011. The headline of the article read, “Gadfly right, Muoio wrong”.
African Americans have, for many years, felt they have been treated differently by the press, government, police department and other institutions that govern this great country. Whenever someone from our community is portrayed so differently and the article is so grossly unfair and unbalanced, this gives credence to their beliefs.
The headline from the onset refers to me as a gadfly but addresses Mayor Muoio by her name. The heading should have read, “McCray right, Muoio wrong”, thus giving me the same respect as Muoio. If you felt the need to refer to me as a gadfly, in this narrative, that would have been fine but the heading should give both of the objects the same respect. If you called me a gadfly at the beginning, then you should have called Muoio a First Amendment rights violator or something similar.
In the article, I was called goading but gave no evidence to prove that I am goading? I was called litigious. I have only filed one lawsuit in my entire life and it was against the city of West Palm Beach and I won that lawsuit. How does that make me a litigious person? Mr. Marra then said I was a haranguer. If you listen to my speeches, they are not rants; they are intellectual and appear to be very professional and truthful.
I have watched many other people speak, criticizing the city and they were allowed to go on and on and also praise the city and they were allowed to go on and on. I correctly pointed out that these people were Caucasians. I then explained, it is racist for them to be treated differently because I and other African Americans have been shut off. Due to the fact that this is true, that Caucasians are not interrupted but African Americans are, this is discrimination and racism. If there’s another explanation, please give it to us.
The article said, Mr. McCray is probably right and the city should probably not interpret the First Amendment the way they do. The city should not be given any room on this issue, either I am right and they are wrong or the city is right and I am wrong. There should be no wiggle room or misunderstanding about what the First Amendment means.
The Supreme Court recently ruled, with an 8-1 decision, Westboro Baptist Church, who truly says outlandish, demeaning and very irresponsible words, had a right to do so. The First Amendment is not needed to protect speech that is complimentary or pleasing because no one objects. That Amendment is to defend speech that may be offensive or hurtful to the masses. This is what the founding fathers wrote the First Amendment for and this is the foundation for the rest of the Constitution of the United States.
The Post writer, Mr. Marra, continues to say there’s nothing wrong with setting minimum standards for civilized discourse. Who decides what civilized discourse is? Surely Mr. Marra understands if there’s no profanity, threats, or violence, it must be civilized, even if you don’t like the contents of the speech.
The city will soon be telling this writer what is appropriate for him to write about the city or anything else. The city has shown a propensity to make its own laws and when another government body says something that is in disagreement with this governing body, they have a major problem with that. The city has a problem with Palm Beach County widening roads. The city has a problem with the State Legislatures decision on Second Amendment rights. The city has also decided to make its own laws regarding Second Amendment rights, which is also contrary to the Constitution of the United States.
The Palm Beach Post has written about the incompetence of the city dais. The Post have also written how this dais does not follow the will of the voters by building city center and other abuses of the previous, Mayor Lois Frankel. Mayor Muoio has the same political DNA and continues the same political abuse of power and authority of her predecessor and mentor, Lois Frankel.
The Palm Beach Post has written about how this dais appears to be incapable of properly governing this city and that is why the city is politically, culturally and economically dysfunctional. Lastly, the writer, Mr. Marra spoke of me having a checkered past. My checkered past, in large part, is due to the retaliation of the city of West Palm Beach, once they learned I was suing the city, due to their discrimination and racism against me and other officers at the West Palm Beach Police Department.
There is much more that can be said by me about this dais dysfunctional governance of the city of West Palm Beach, much of which has already been reported on by the Palm Beach Post but this should suffice for now as these captions in the article have been addressed. Thank you for you accommodation.
William McCray
African Americans have, for many years, felt they have been treated differently by the press, government, police department and other institutions that govern this great country. Whenever someone from our community is portrayed so differently and the article is so grossly unfair and unbalanced, this gives credence to their beliefs.
The headline from the onset refers to me as a gadfly but addresses Mayor Muoio by her name. The heading should have read, “McCray right, Muoio wrong”, thus giving me the same respect as Muoio. If you felt the need to refer to me as a gadfly, in this narrative, that would have been fine but the heading should give both of the objects the same respect. If you called me a gadfly at the beginning, then you should have called Muoio a First Amendment rights violator or something similar.
In the article, I was called goading but gave no evidence to prove that I am goading? I was called litigious. I have only filed one lawsuit in my entire life and it was against the city of West Palm Beach and I won that lawsuit. How does that make me a litigious person? Mr. Marra then said I was a haranguer. If you listen to my speeches, they are not rants; they are intellectual and appear to be very professional and truthful.
I have watched many other people speak, criticizing the city and they were allowed to go on and on and also praise the city and they were allowed to go on and on. I correctly pointed out that these people were Caucasians. I then explained, it is racist for them to be treated differently because I and other African Americans have been shut off. Due to the fact that this is true, that Caucasians are not interrupted but African Americans are, this is discrimination and racism. If there’s another explanation, please give it to us.
The article said, Mr. McCray is probably right and the city should probably not interpret the First Amendment the way they do. The city should not be given any room on this issue, either I am right and they are wrong or the city is right and I am wrong. There should be no wiggle room or misunderstanding about what the First Amendment means.
The Supreme Court recently ruled, with an 8-1 decision, Westboro Baptist Church, who truly says outlandish, demeaning and very irresponsible words, had a right to do so. The First Amendment is not needed to protect speech that is complimentary or pleasing because no one objects. That Amendment is to defend speech that may be offensive or hurtful to the masses. This is what the founding fathers wrote the First Amendment for and this is the foundation for the rest of the Constitution of the United States.
The Post writer, Mr. Marra, continues to say there’s nothing wrong with setting minimum standards for civilized discourse. Who decides what civilized discourse is? Surely Mr. Marra understands if there’s no profanity, threats, or violence, it must be civilized, even if you don’t like the contents of the speech.
The city will soon be telling this writer what is appropriate for him to write about the city or anything else. The city has shown a propensity to make its own laws and when another government body says something that is in disagreement with this governing body, they have a major problem with that. The city has a problem with Palm Beach County widening roads. The city has a problem with the State Legislatures decision on Second Amendment rights. The city has also decided to make its own laws regarding Second Amendment rights, which is also contrary to the Constitution of the United States.
The Palm Beach Post has written about the incompetence of the city dais. The Post have also written how this dais does not follow the will of the voters by building city center and other abuses of the previous, Mayor Lois Frankel. Mayor Muoio has the same political DNA and continues the same political abuse of power and authority of her predecessor and mentor, Lois Frankel.
The Palm Beach Post has written about how this dais appears to be incapable of properly governing this city and that is why the city is politically, culturally and economically dysfunctional. Lastly, the writer, Mr. Marra spoke of me having a checkered past. My checkered past, in large part, is due to the retaliation of the city of West Palm Beach, once they learned I was suing the city, due to their discrimination and racism against me and other officers at the West Palm Beach Police Department.
There is much more that can be said by me about this dais dysfunctional governance of the city of West Palm Beach, much of which has already been reported on by the Palm Beach Post but this should suffice for now as these captions in the article have been addressed. Thank you for you accommodation.
William McCray
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Gadfly right, Muoio wrong
"You cannot come up here and say negative things about people," West Palm Beach Mayor Jeri Muoio kept insisting during last week's city commission meeting. The focus of her ire was a former West Palm Beach police officer turned gadfly who was using the public comment time to blast past and current city officials. Ms. Muoio eventually shut off his microphone, saying that he had violated the commission's civility code for public meetings.
The former officer - William McCray, a goading, litigious haranguer with a checkered past - cried unconstitutional censorship. He's probably right. The city's civility code, which bars citizens who speak at commission meetings from aiming their comments at individual commissioners or others, crosses the hazy line separating reasonable speaking guidelines from unconstitutionally broad limits on speech content. The city's selective enforcement of its code only strengthens the claims that West Palm Beach is engaging in unconstitutional censorship.
The First Amendment gives no guarantee that a citizen can say whatever she wishes at a government meeting. But courts have ruled that the Constitution's free speech protections bar governments from uneven or content-based prohibitions. Imposing uniform time limits and barring physical threats and profanity at a public meeting are legal. Telling citizens that they may speak only if they don't target specific commissioners, employees or citizens is probably not - and shouldn't be.
Mayor Muoio was hoping to undermine Mr. McCray when she shut off his microphone, but she undermined the city's own rules. By silencing instead of ignoring him, she made Mr. McCray into a headline and may have provided grounds for legal challenges. Making the city's case even shakier is the fact that city officials apply their policy inconsistently. Speakers like Mr. McCray who criticize individuals are told that they are violating the civility code, while speakers who praise or thank individual commissioners are allowed to continue.
Many other local governments, including Palm Beach County, Lake Worth and Riviera Beach, have civility rules that prohibit profane and aggressive behavior at public meetings. The Florida League of Cities has gone as far as to encourage its members statewide to adopt them. There is nothing wrong with setting minimal standards for civilized discourse, but West Palm Beach has gone far beyond that with its limits on whom citizens can address and whom they can speak about. Commissioners and Mayor Muoio should revise this problematic policy before it becomes the subject of a costly lawsuit and the source of further censorship.
- Andrew Marra,
for The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board
Origin site Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)