New year, Same issues

Hey everyone, Its good to back! Here are several videos we didn't post in late 2011. Enjoy and share!

Commissioners meeting 10.03.11 + Events to follow

What a great meeting we had. Thank you for everyone who came down and showed your support. Please join us on the 17th. Please enjoy the videos below and share the poster of loisfrankel " Dark Lord of Politics. "

Lois Frankel " Dark Lord of Politics" Artist: Unknown

Please watch and share the video below. We need to bring the cites corruption to the attention of all the Hard working Citizens. Lets this be known.. Justice will be served.

Delsa Bush resigns as West Palm Beach police chief

    

WEST PALM BEACH— 

A day after criticizing the mayor to The Palm Beach Post, Police Chief Delsa Bush has submitted her resignation.
Bush submitted the letter Tuesday morning, effective Jan. 1.

Mayor Jeri Muoio had planned to meet with Bush today after The Post reported yesterday that Bush told a reporter, "Who's the mayor? What does she know?" regarding a police radio system on which the city has paid millions of dollars to set up -- at Bush's urging -- but which the mayor plans to end. The mayor told The Post this week that the system wouldn't work and that she would urge the city commission not to spend the money required to make it operational.


In a news release Tuesday, Bush said, "Please know that the West Palm Beach Police department is one of the most highly regarded in the nation. This fact can only be attributed to the fine men and women who work within the organization, both sworn and civilian."


Muoio, in her own release, said: "Chief Bush has served this community for many years. Her dedication to the people of West Palm Beach and to her officers has earned the admiration and respect from those she serves. I thank her for her many years of hard work."


Bush and the mayor have disagreed about the OpenSky radio system since Muoio took office in March, and Bush has had a tenuous relationship with Muoio in general.


During the mayoral election campaign, Muoio was one of three candidates who said they would replace Bush as police chief, with Muoio blaming Bush for low morale in the police department.


Bush, who was named chief by Mayor Lois Frankel in 2003, submitted a resignation letter to Muoio on July 29, but took it back on Aug. 1.


Bush has been one of the biggest advocates of the police radio system, removing the city's technical team from the consortium of municipal representatives organizing it in 2009, after the team wrote an internal report critical of OpenSky. It and another critical report written in 2010 were not made public or even available to commissioners until after The Post reported the contents of the reports for the first time in May.

By Andrew Abramson, The Palm Beach Post  ( ORIGIN PAGE )11:29 a.m. EDT, October 4, 2011 
    

Commissioners Meeting 9.19.11 Clips

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. (c) Conduct which occurs outside the state which would constitute a knowing violation of this section is 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.

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

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

West Palm dilemma: Does shutting off a complainer's microphone at a public hearing violate his right

by andrew abramson

                                             
WEST PALM BEACH — William McCray has argued for months that the city is restricting his First Amendment rights - first when former Mayor Lois Frankel cut off his criticisms at city commission meetings and now, when Mayor Jeri Muoio turns off his microphone and the city's TV cameras.
The state's First Amendment Foundation sides with McCray.
McCray is a former city cop who won a racial discrimination suit against the city, but who also was fired for what the city says was the worst disciplinary record in the police department's history. He is fighting for his job back and for more than $230,000 that a jury awarded and he appears frequently at city meetings to criticize city officials and employees.
Monday's commission meeting was no exception. And when he launched into negative commentary against the former mayor, he apparently pushed the buttons of the current one, who pushed a few buttons of her own and turned off the public broadcast of the discussion.
McCray had been quoting negative comments about Frankel said by several members of Muoio's transition team in a recent Palm Beach Post article. He also referred to the ex-mayor, currently a candidate for Congress, as "Earthquake Frankel."
"You cannot come up here and say negative things about people," Muoio shouted several times at McCray. She briefly let McCray read a few comments. Then he was escorted from the podium by Police Chief Delsa Bush, while he shouted that Muoio was "out of order."
McCray left city hall without a police escort.
Frankel, Muoio and City Attorney Claudia McKenna have repeatedly pointed out that the city's civility code states that "all remarks shall be addressed to the commission as a body and not to any one member or to the audience."
The problem arises, when officials allow positive comments about individual commissioners or members of the public, has Muoio has, but not criticism, said Barbara A. Petersen, president of the Tallahassee-based First Amendment Foundation.
"If they invoke the code only when comments are negative, then they have a huge problem," Petersen said. "Reasonable rules are allowed and those rules can require orderly behavior and prohibit shouting or profanity, but a government agency can't limit our speech to only that speech that they like. If they allow public comment, they must allow all public comment, both negative and positive."
City spokesman Chase Scott said that while Muoio told McCray at Monday's meeting that he couldn't "say negative things about people," negative speech is allowed - just not personal attacks.
"You can tell the commission, 'I hate my taxes. I think you're not working hard enough for me,' " Scott said. "But it says that you are supposed to address the commission as a whole. We're talking about an individual who came in here and slandered people who were private citizens."
McCray was referring to Frankel and city administrator Ed Mitchell at Monday's meeting.
Petersen said Frankel is still a public figure, though. Even Mitchell, who is not elected to office, is a public-private figure by Petersen's definition - someone who might be public for some purposes and private for others.
"I would argue that the former mayor, who was also a former (state) House member and is now running for Congress, is a public figure," Petersen said. "But even a public-private figure, the standard for proving slander for remarks made is much higher than the standard for the purely private figure."
Regardless, the city is still allowing positive comments directed at individuals, which Petersen said goes against its own civility code.
"People come up all the time and say, 'mayor, you're the greatest,' or '(Commissioner) Bill Moss is the greatest.' They love it, and they say 'thank you very much,' " McCray said Wednesday. "The minute you give dissension, you're a problem and they make special rules for you."
Scott argued that positive comments are allowable because they don't harm an individual.
"I don't think it causes harm to another individual to say something positive," Scott said. "But it obviously can cause harm if you start slandering."
Petersen says Scott's explanation doesn't meet First Amendment muster. As for turning off McCray's microphone, Petersen said, that raises questions.
"There's nothing in the Sunshine Law that requires that meetings be audio- or videotaped," Petersen said. "But, if the mayor cut off the audio and/or video of a particular speaker but allowed others to be taped, that could raise First Amendment questions."

Origin site : Here
Palm Beach Post