The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item 2C - Minutes with Errata 12-05-05 Special• • Rosemead City Council Special Meeting 12-5-05 Minutes Errata Submitted by Mayor Gary Taylor Open comments of Special Meeting: Tran: Mr. Mayor. Point of order. Can I ask who called for the meeting? For a special meeting tonight. Mayor Imperial: Yes, It was Mayor Pro-Tem Taylor, Maggie Clark, and myself and this ...I was going to ask you John, in that meeting the other night when I had seen you, but I didn't want to bother you. Tran: I am just kind of curious. Maybe legal council can help out with this. On the Resolution that was adopted by the council. Mayor Pro-Tem Taylor did abstain on the vote. Therefore he cannot bring the item back. Am I correct? Mayor: Not that I am aware of. Tran: I'm asking legal council. C. Attorney: The call for a special meeting can be made by the Mayor or three council persons. This meeting is properly called by having Jay Imperial call the meeting. Tran: Properly called. C. Attorney: It is properly called Tran: Properly called - Mayor: (Inaudible) C. Attorney: We're not... Mayor: Can everybody hear us here? Audience: No Mayor: You can't hear us? Audience: No Tran: Also, given the fact that there could be a possible conflict of interest with the form 1090(?) Could the Mayor indeed, call this special meeting? Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 1 of 52 • 0 Mayor: That's the Mayor's privilege. We've had the ability to do that... C. Attorney: Both the Brown Act and the Rosemead Municipal Code provide that the Mayor has the power to call a special meeting. Tran: Correct, and I do understand and recognize that. However, there could be a possible conflict of interest on this. So can he call the meeting? C. Attorney: Yes Nunez: May I Mayor: Yes, go ahead. Nunez: My concern is that we...the question was ask of you, the Mayor, who called the meeting. Mayor: Yes Nunez: And you said there was three people who called the meeting. Mayor: Yes Nunez: And now all a sudden you said you called the meeting. Which one was it actually? Mayor: I was ask to call the meeting and that's why I called it. And that the mayor's job and he can call a special meeting. Nunez: So what you are saying - Maggie Clark and Councilman Taylor did not call for this meeting. Mayor. It was requested we have a meeting Taylor: Mr. Mayor. If I may, we've got the court case that came before us last I think it was the day before Thanksgiving it was settled or so...ruled on. And we were all given a copy of it. And because of the confusion, what do we do with it. And as far as us being able to make any kind of decision we have to have a meeting on it. So as far as myself or Mrs. Clark or you calling the meeting we needed the meeting to get everybody to hear the same thing on it. And that's why we are having the meeting. Nunez: Can I ask why it has to be tonight? A special meeting, disrupting a planned..a planning commission meeting. Why couldn't this be two weeks from now and we get a lot of information in it. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 2 of 52 • • Taylor: Mr. Mayor, as far as the Planning Commission meeting tonight the rest of the council is going to be gone all week until Sunday. I believe. Saturday or Sunday. So they are gone for a complete week. And then the following week we have the public hearing for the Environmental Impact Report at the Rosemead auditorium. And I see nothing wrong with having the meeting now to stop all the rumors and innuendos that are going. Let's find out what we need to do and what we can do with this. Nunez: Mr. Taylor don't you think that is possibly more prudent to have a meeting when we have a lot more information than we have right now? Right, now we don't have-we don't ...There's a ...case down to Santa Ana. Not to us. Nobody has said that we have to take any action right now. Why are we doing it? Why are we having this meeting now? Why can't we have this meeting in January or later on in December? C. Attorney: This meeting is to determine whether or not to take any action. It is not,... it is the choice of the council to decide whether to take action or not to take any. Nunez: Mr. Wallin, are you comfortable.. C. Attorney: The fact... Mayor: Let him finish John. Go ahead. C Attorney: We have an election in the process which may or may not be valid. And it's up to the ...because of the petitions. Let me explain the decision first. The decision ruled that the Voting Right's Act, Federal Voting Right's Act applies to recall petitions. In other words, recall petitions have to be in the languages of foreign speaking people in the jurisdiction. We have already entered into a consent decree with the DOJ. Says that all of our election materials will be printed in English, Vietnamese, Chinese and Spanish. The recall petitions were distributed only in English and the City Clerk's and City Attorney office had approved those recall petitions because at that time it was believed those were recall petitions and not election materials. We could go, the Ninth Circuit ruled recall petitions are indeed election materials. Thus we are in a quandary that says that we have to have all our materials in those four languages. We have a law, that we have petitions before us, which may or may not be valid. Because the decision did not say whether the election would be good or valid, not withstanding the invalidity of the petitions. We don't know the answer to that. The only people who can give us that answer are the court system. Nunez: And exactly. C. Attorney: Systems and particularly the Federal Court. Nunez: Exactly, and why I'm asking you. Why don't we wait and see what the court says we have to do. Why do we have to.. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 3 of 52 C. Attorney: That's one of the options available, is to do nothing and allow the courts to make that determination. If somebody, a candidate, a recallee or anyone else wants to go into court and make that decision. That's one of the options available... another option available is to rescind the election and let somebody else take the The third option is to suspend the election and proceed to go into our Federal Court which has retained jurisdiction on our consent decree and determine what the Federal Court.. to get and answer as to whether or not we should be processing this recall given the defect in the petitions. Nunez: Have you in your mind defective. Nobody has said the recall petitions in the City of Rosemead are defective. C. Attorney: The Ninth Circuit has said that petitions under the Voting Rights' Act, which is the Federal law under the Voting Right's Act, those petitions were supposed to have been in four languages. Nunez: Okay. So that means that the City of.. what city do you live in? City Manager: Huntington Beach Nunez: Hungtington Beach; today, if they have a reelection, a recall election, they would have to stop the recall election and say get it in all the different languages. C. Attorney: As I said. The Padilla case did not decide that issue. And that is one possibility. The other possibility is they could say even though it violated, violated federal law, go ahead with election anyway. I can't give you an answer. Only a court can give that answer. Nunez: That would only be apply to some councils, not to all...some city councils. It doesn't apply to the whole state. Does it? C Attorney: Yes. It does apply to us. Any jurisdiction which has a 5% non English speaking... Nunez: Not 17% percent C. Attorney: No, five percent. Nunez: So that means in the election that we just had not too long ago in the State of California recall... For all these proposals that ...were out there. They went out in four different languages so therefore that should be on the ballot. C Attorney: The municipal election is what brought on the federal lawsuit and led to the consent decree. In our last municipal election we did not have all our material in those four languages. And the consent decree requires it. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 4 of 52 • 0 Nunez: I'm of the understanding Mr. Wallin that there was a conversation between our city attorney and the Dept. of Justice. And the question was ask. What do we do with the petitions. And they said the petitions are not to be out? C. Attorney: That's correct. They said that the petitions are not election material. Nunez: So.. C. Attorney: They did not foresee the Ninth Circuit decision any better than we did. Nunez: Okay, so tell me, how are we supposed, how is the SOC group, how could they foresee to ask the City Clerk should we do them all in four languages? Or, better yet, in sharing the responsibilities we have. Why didn't we say to them. Do them in four languages. C Attorney: We could have done them in four different languages and taken care of problem. There was no way we could foresee the decision that would come down. Nunez: You know, I think. I can't believe that you are going in this direction as the city attorney. I would believe that right now you should be defending your own work. As the city attorney you should be defending the work that you did and what you ask them to go out there and do not stop an election right now. If the courts tell you - this ruling also applies to Rosemead, that's a different story. Has any court told you or the City Manager, or the City Clerk, or any judge, or any court. Has anybody said to the City of Rosemead you should not have this election right now? C. Attorney: No. Nunez: Why are we having this meeting? C. Attorney: To discuss whether or not we should take any action in light of a decision that says the petitions are invalid. Nunez: If they can say that they are not valid... C. Attorney: As I said before. The court case does not tell what the impact of what the invalid decision would be. Nunez: Let's wait and see what they tell us C Attorney: My job is to give you the options that are available to you, given a decision which could have a real impact on a recall. Now there is people out there, candidates, recallees, spending money, the city is going to be spending money for an election. And one of the options is to suspend it and try to get the answer to that question. Prior to everybody going out and doing everything they have to do in an election. That's one of the options. Another option is just to cancel it. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 5 of 52 • Tran: We're spending money anyway in your resolution which states we are going to pay the County regardless of whether there is an election or not. C. Attorney: We will pay the County for the work they have done to date. The County expenditures occur on election day, when they have to hire all the people to do everything. Tran: And your fees as well.. the city council. And we also retained special council. So there are costs involved. C. Attorney: There are costs involved. The question... Tran: I've never seen a city attorney jump so fast on a ruling without actually doing the homework on this. Taylor: Mister Mayor. In all fairness to the City Attorney, the fact that we are going to have to start ...I don't believe the...our contractor with the election materials - have they translated and started to do the printing yet? City Clerk: Not to date. Taylor: Okay. So they have not started that cost yet. Once that begins, then we start paying more bills. And we don't know what the outcome is going to be on it. That was part of the reason. Let's find out before we continue spending the money and then the judge just like they did in the Santa Ana court case. While everything is out and you are just a few weeks before the election. Two weeks, four weeks, it's too late. We can't get anything back in time for the election, so just go ahead with the election. Nunez: Is that a problem? Taylor: Yes, I want to find out Nunez: Who is that a problem for? It's not for me and it's not for John Tran. Taylor: Of course it's not for you. Clark: Mr. Chairman. Could I in here real quick. Taylor: Mrs. Clark has something. Mayor: Let's keep it down, Let's keep it down okay. Taylor: Mr. Mayor... Mayor: It's not a free for all. It's a meeting. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 6 of 52 • • Taylor: Mr. Mayor Audience: We can't hear Maggie Clark: Is this on Audience: We can't hear you still Clark: I would just like to say something and clarify actually what each one of us sitting here at the dais is named in a lawsuit. The Dept. of Justice came down on three cities, Azusa, Paramount and Rosemead and I have no idea why they came down on those three cities out of the 88 in the county. I don't know if somebody turned us in or what. But, it says, it states in the lawsuit: Defendants, Jay Imperial, Gary Taylor, Margaret Clark, John Tran and John Nunez, members of the City Council, each of defendants, reside in Rosemead and are sued in his or her official capacity. And then our memo for tonight says that, basically, paraphrasing, that as long as we act in good faith we are not sued personally. In other words, when you are on a board and you act in good faith, you won't lose you house over it. As long as you are acting in good faith. This is the struggle that I have with this is; we are named in this lawsuit and the Dept. Of Justice is watching everything we do as far as elections. Why was Rosemead, why not Monterey Park, why not Alhambra, I don't know. But, because of that I have to act in good faith. It's Federal Dept. of Justice that is watching us. And it is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which is a Federal Court which has ruled this. (Senator Romero Arrives). This has been in flux since. I believe the gentleman's election of Nativo Lopez was in 2002. And there was appeals. There was a lower court that ruled in his favor. And then the Ninth Circuit over turned that just 12 days ago. So I have to look at that as I am being sued by the Federal Government basically. I have to see if this applies and if I knowing, once you know something, you have to act on it. Thirteen days ago, we did not know that this was coming down. Once you know, you have to act on it. And just to clarify on the issue of whether the Ninth Circuit applys to everybody in the Ninth Circuit. If you will recall 3 or 4 years ago, Alejandro Gandara when you brought the suit about the invocation issue with... in conjunction with Irv Rubin and the Jewish Defense League and then you took it to Burbank. And it was that you could not have invocation where you closed your prayer in Jesus' name. And you won that. Alejandro Gandara: I went all the way to the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit and you still did not comply then. Clark: Okay. What I am trying to explain is it does apply to us. What you're just saying. Alejandro Gandara: Yes, it does and it did then and you did not comply. Clark: Well, I complied tonight. If you will notice when I close in your name, not in Jesus' name. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 7 of 52 0 0 Alejandro Gandara: No, I meant when it was in the Ninth Circuit, before I went to the Supreme Court. I went all the way to the Supreme Court. Clark: Yes, They refused to hear it. Alejandro Gandara: They did not refuse, they let it stand. Clark: That's semantics. They let it stand. I mean they let the Ninth Circuit stand. So as a result, every city in the Ninth Circuit has to comply with that ruling. Correct? Alejandro Gandara: Yes, it does. Clark: So that is what I am just explaining is that once the Ninth Circuit rules on something, everybody has to comply. So that is where I am coming from.. We are in the Ninth Circuit, it is a Federal Court and they have ruled differently than anyone else on this... Alejandro Gandara: My suit was very very clear. Sectarian prayer did not have to be re- interpreted what that meant. In this case, nobody knows what this means yet. Clark: I don't know if you have read the thirteen or so pages. I have read them all twice and it is very clear to me that is applys to the petitions in being in the other languages. So I have to act in good faith on that and I intend to vote to have it looked at by a federal judge to see if we are in compliance. But, that is.. I just wanted to explain that we are being sued. My name is on the lawsuit. So this is why it's not.... Nunez: I beg to differ on this. On a certain point you just said. I think it did come down that they named all five council members. Even myself and John Tran who weren't in office. Clark: I know, that is kind of awkward. Nunez, And you, I am not sure whether it was you or Gary, had went and ask Peter to take our name, or Bob (Kress) to take our names off the lawsuit. And I think that was accomplished. Is it not so? So that the only two names that are standing on the lawsuit is the City Clerk and the City Manager. Is that what happened? City Attorney: The councilmembers are not named individually in the Consent Decree but the City Council is a part of the Consent Decree. So the City Council has to act in compliance of the Decree. Nunez: The City Council as a whole, but not as individuals. Clark: I have it right here. I don't know what this is....? Is has nothing... Nunez: You remember you did not feel that your name should be on that. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 8 of 52 0 0 Clark: No, you were the one because you were not on the Council. And we agree. Nunez: I don't care. We are the one's that have to correct it. And there was a conversation, and maybe I am wrong. Maybe it was not you that ask. But somebody else ask on the Council ask to have that change and it was done. It was actually moved and go ahead and move it out of...our names out of the lawsuit that's when they added or we just kept the City Manager and the City Clerk's name on it. Tran: And...... in the Consent Decree no where does it stipulate that a recall election should be in four languages. And this was given to us Sept 8`h. After we started the petitions. After the Save Our Community residents started it. The ruling from the Appeals Court did not get voted on until November 23 after the Council had already decided to call a special election. So I don't think this does affect us in any way shape or form. I think this is, you know, and I think that our city attorney needs to look more deep into this before he calls for a special meeting like this in 24 hours. City Attorney: I did not recall for a special. But I do see a need to make a decision on what to do about the recall petitions. I can't give you an answer. The only body qualified to give you an answer is the court. Tran: So why don't we wait till the courts, let the courts decide. Continue the election and let the courts decide. Nunez: And if you really want to know right away. There is a procedure that a couple of Councilmembers can go out and pay a lawyer to go out there and take care of it. The people ...they know the process. They know it very well. And they, you know, now, it's not that they-there is a legal team. Mr. Taylor was quoted in the newspaper him having a legal team. So there is obviously there is lawyers and stuff like that, can... I hope to go and take care of..go to court and take care of it. The fastest way to get it done. City Attorney: I guess it can cut three ways. You can ask some people, the people that are being recalled to challenge it. You can cancel the election and ask the recall proponents to challenge it. Or the city can take it on its own to go out there and determine what the answer is. Those are three alternatives. I'm not telling you which one to take. Nunez: Let me ask you about that alternative. The last alternative you said. You just.. just so I can get it straight, okay. First of all, there are several reasons why we have elections, is it not true? One of them is that we have scheduled elections. So we have that scheduled election. You know, you ask us to have a resolution to in a timely manner to call for that election. Because election time is coming. January 7`h is not, excuse me, February 7th. I'm just trying to move it up. February 7th is not the scheduled election. So therefore you did not come to us and say we need to do all these things to have an election on the 7th, February 7`h. What was the reason that we have to do all this work to get an election on February 71h. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 9 of 52 0 0 City Attorney: State law requires that when a recall petition is certified that within some number of days. 120 days I believe. On a recall election, it can't be less than 89 and more than 120. Nunez: Okay, So there is a petition that was gathered out there that forced us to have this election. Am I correct..? City Attorney: Yes. Nunez: And so the authority to have this election, that we have to hold this election is the people that signed the petition. Is that correct? City Attorney: Yes, the fact that the petition was certified. Nunez: What authority do we have in regulations to say that you're wrong, we are not going to have this election. City Attorney: There is case law authority that says when there is...the legislative body that calls an election also has the power to rescind that election. In this case... Nunez: For what reason? City Attorney: In this... for whatever reason.. Nunez: In case, what would... City Attorney: The reason here is that the petitions. Nunez: No, I don't want to know what this reason is. City Attorney: The petitions that were circulated were in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Nunez: Let me ask you. I'm sure that the reason that Right is on the books, is not because we did not have the petitions signed in four different languages. Are we pretty sure that that didn't happen? The reason we.... C. Attorney: We're sure the petitions were not in four different languages. Nunez: Okay. Hold on. Peter just listen to what I'm, let me explain it a different way, okay. There is a provision in law that allows us to recall elections. Okay, you said so. Okay. Did that ...was one of the cases, in other words when you said, if you look at it. These are some of the reasons why you can cancel an election. Okay. And what and maybe you can give me one or two, besides this point. Because there has never been a time, or maybe there has been a time. That a city has recalled an election or rescind the election because the petitions were not done in four languages. So what are the reasons that you normally rescind an election for. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 10 of 52 C. Attorney: You can call an election on a, say a measure, approve a measure, perhaps get the voters to approve a sale of bonds. Then the City Council decides, hey wait a minute, we don't want to have an election, we can rescind it. Nunez: I understand that, okay. C. Attorney: What you are saying... Nunez: Far cry from this... C. Attorney: It may be a far cry.. What I am saying is that the petitions that were circulted do not meet the requirements of the Voters Rights Act and I don't know if that involves these petitions or not. Nunez: I don't think we know that that's true. Because you can't say that for sure. City Attorney: I can say... Nunez: You can't be 100% sure C. Attorney: The Ninth Circuit has said that the petitions that are circulated have to be in four different languages. Tran: Are circulated City Attorney: Ours were not circulated in four different languages. What's the impact of that... Tran: From what date? Nunez: From what dates on? What date? Starting now? Starting four years from now, so we can go back and get Grey Davis back on... C. Attorney: It's really on something happened two years ago. What you are saying it only has prospective application. That it only applies to petitions circulated on or after... Nunez: That's a dollar word. Tell me what that means. C. Attorney: That it only applies, what you are saying it may only apply to petitions that were circulated after the date the Ninth Circuit. Nunez: Do we know for sure? C. Attorney: As I said, we don't know the answer. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page I 1 of 52 0 r Nunez: Then why are we having this meeting? Why are we having this meeting? Why don't we wait until they tell us what exactly we should be doing. C. Attorney: That is one of the options. Taylor: Mr. Mayor Mayor: Yes - Taylor: I believe that there are a lot of people that want to speak on this. Audience: We can't hear you. Taylor: I believe there are a lot of people that want to speak on this and I would like to hear from them before we just have a conversation up here without them participating. C. Attorney: Do we have any request to speak? C. Clerk: The first speaker request form is from Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero. Romero: Good evening. I just really should say here we go again. I am asking you to think very carefully about any action which you may take this evening. An action to rescind this special election is simply slamming the door on democracy and slamming the door on the people that you represent, that we represent here in this city. Earlier, and let me go back. We were here a year ago. It seems almost to the date. You were here a year ago and at that time the constituents of Rosemead ask you, they brought in petitions asking you at that time to have an election to let the people decide. Your action you through the petitions in the trash can. To do this again is essentially throwing much more than simply petitions. You are now throwing the entire election into the basket and democracy will not allow you to do that. You are not a court of law. You may have an opinion and with all due respect let's test that opinion in a court of law. I would point out in fact that there were many questions in this special election that millions of Californians just voted on. That was the special election in November. I contested the legality of Proposition 77 but you know what: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of California didn't throw that election out. He ruled as did the Justices to let the election go forward and if there was a challenge it would be after an election. Not before an election. If the Chief Justice and the California Supreme Court can do that with all due respect, I don't think there is anybody here with the credentials of the Chief Justice. Let the people decide. And I would ask should there be a desire to contest this and with all due respect Mr. Imperial or Mr. Taylor, as private citizens on your own dime and not on the dime of the taxpayers of the City of Rosemead. Should be able to go to court, it is your constitutional right in order to challenge that. But that should be out of your wallet, not Rosemead. There are many people who wish to speak this evening. But I do not think, and first of all I applaud you being concerned about bi-lingualism and multi-lingualism in the City of Rosemead. However, I have to add, it is with a bit of irony and a great deal of hypocrisy and with all due respect that is all I'm going to say. You can read between the Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 12 of 52 • lines there. The other thing I would ask you to think about and do, especially to the Mayor and to the Mayor Pro Tem, who incidentally happen to be the two names whose names are up on the recall ballot. If there is to be a vote this evening take a look at state law. Because you have a financial interest in the out come of this special election. That the voters of the City of Rosemead have forced upon you. Recuse yourself from any vote this evening. Because to engage in a vote tonight to bring forward an election that I believe a conflict of interest. Your, don't let that be another lawsuit that the people of Rosemead will have to fight. So, this is about democracy and again too. Had you listened to the people a year ago and simply taken their petitions and the spirit of their request maybe we would not be here this evening. But we are here this evening. Cancel this sham meeting this evening. This is a joke and further more what's this all about? That this is about democracy and the people's right to speak, but we know it's much bigger. We know its' still about the Wal-Martization of the Rosemead economy. And simply if you have the courage to fight for democracy and a bi-lingual front, then simply have the courage to put that question to the voters. And ask the people do you want a Wal-Mart or do you not. Because I think you know the answer. I think you are projection the outcome of the recall election and that is why you are engaged this evening in this sham meeting. Thank you for having me come forward. - My name is Kenneth Pike Audience: Has his name been called C. Clerk: Actually we do have speaker request that came in order. Nunez: Okay, and who is speaking next? C. Clerk: Mr. Ruiz is the next speaker. Nunez: Can we recognize the next speaker in order Pike: I think I put my name in before there was any there. Nunez: Mr. Mayor. Is he out of order, or is not out of order? Mayor: I'm trying to find out if you give me a minute. Is his name in the list? C. Clerk: The next speaker is Victor Ruiz and they are all in order to which I received them. Mayor: Okay. Then you will have to wait until it is in order. Mr. Flournoy: I was third and Mr. Pike was second. Bevington: Come on Jim, get out of it. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 13 of 52 • • Mr. Flournoy: It's true. Mayor: Okay. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Flournoy. Mayor: We do it in order. That's the way this meeting is set up. Pike: Well, we had one speaker already. So me being second would be my turn wouldn't it. Mayor: Well we... (Transcription of Mr. Pike not completed) Audience: Cross talking Mr. Ruiz: He said he would forfeit his time and let Mr. Pike speak. (End of Tape 1 A) (Nunez: confused about recall-Pike Start Tape 1 B 3% M. Shinen: I was beginning to think he (Mr. Pike) was your legal council. My name is Marlene Shinen, I reside at 8447 Dryer Lane, South San Gabriel. For almost 3 years now the people have spoken clearly against Wal-Mart. We are gathered here tonight because we are about to lose our election. This city council, five people, are here to decide on passing a resolution to cancel the election. If the people will be denied their right to vote, Wal-Mart knows if the people vote, they will lose. Has the Rosemead City Council listened to the people? Yes, they have listened to the people. They have listened to the people with the purse. The people who in March 2005 open that purse and put in over $75,000 dollars into the Rosemead City Council election. How much of that money was given to reelect councilmember Margaret Clark? Margaret Clark is well versed in environmental safety and must know that routine exposure to dirty air during childhood actually harms lung development. Leading to a permanently reduced ability to breath And in the last few years asthma chronic usually an allergic condition causing difficulty in breathing has increased in children. Yes, she is sure vote for Wal-Mart. She voted for the Wal-Mart project directly across the street from Rice Elementary School. Clark: Mr. Mayor, are we going to stick to the recall. Both sides. Mayor: Yes Shinen: A large playground just 83 yards away. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 14 of 52 • i Mayor: Let's stick to the issue, Okay. Shinen: and is adjacent to the project parking lot. Over 922 parking. This is about what we are here for. Councilmember Clark must know that the vehicle exhaust fumes from the parking lot and toxic emissions from 15,000 daily vehicle trips and the dangerous diesel air pollution from huge tractor trailers will blow right onto the Rice Elementary school playground and athletic field. According to the EIR study of wind flow. If air flow is above unsafe emissions standards in the San Gabriel Valley then why increase it. Next to an elementary school playground. Why not reduce it and protect young children? It is because Wal-Mart has opened their purse. Councilmember Clark has said that the city needs the expected $500,000 dollars from Wal-Mart. So betray the children, betray the elderly, betray the sick and the infirm, betray the homeowners, betray the neighborhood, for it is at their expense that the city may receive increased revenue. It's all about money. Another person with a purse made a tragic decision when he settled for 30 pieces of silver. He betrayed more thanjust the people. When he saw the condemnation that resulted he was remorseful. Judas returned 30 pieces of silver. But he did not confess that wicked love of money which is the root of all evil. Human nature has not changed. Yes Councilwoman Clark has the deciding vote tonight. If she has heard the voice of the hurting people she will vote her conscience, her sense of right and wrong. Or the richest corporation in the world has convinced her to betray the trust the people have invested in her. She will decide, will she vote for Wal-Mart and that is why we are here. Clark: I need to clarify something. First of all, I would not take a penny from Wal-Mart. I have no control over the PRIDE group that is in favor of Wal-Mart. And secondly, I have some people here that can attest after the election I saw the turmoil that was happening in our city and I wasn't sure anything was worth the turmoil that we are going through. I went to an opponent of Wal-Mart and I said why don't you just put it on the ballot? We will put it on the ballot and if Wal-Mart wins that ballot issue will you back off. And back off the recall and let Wal-Mart come. I mean you've always said let the people decide. So that is what I was offering. And that person went to the leader of the anti-group and the answer came back, no. We can't do that. We will not do that. So a couple weeks later I said no string attached, okay. If we the city council puts it on the ballot, we have to do a full blown EIR per state law. If the people put it on you can do it much faster and I said while you are doing your recall petitions have behind your recall petition a petition on whether we should have a Wal-Mart or not. It would be very easy and it would not cost you anymore time to circulate that. And I was totally blown away when the answer came back after, when Mr. Tran you and I talked about it even. Tran: You talked about Wal-Mart again. Clark: This has to be clarified because Senator Romero brought this up and I was challenged by Ms. Shinen. But, the question on whether to put it on the ballot, that needs to come out. So I was to...and A `m almost finished with this. But I was totally blown away the answer came back after these people talked to the leaders of NO on Wal-Mart. No, we will not do that. So I to this day am totally flabbergasted as to why that was not Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 15 of 52 put on as an issue. Then you could say, okay people don't want Wal-Mart or the people do want Wal-Mart. Audience: Clark: Well Okay, if that's your reason. But don't tell me we didn't do it. I offered. I offered two times. C. Clerk: Next speaker is Steven Ly Steven Ly: Rosemead Pl. Mayor: Give him some courtesy, please Ly: Thank you, Jay. That's okay. Let them speak, because I'm speaking my piece too. Fact of the matter is this, I want you guys to abide by the Consent Decree. I want you guys to understand that certain people were lied to during this election. And you must allow... sorry- go ahead, get it off your chest first because when I'm saying my piece, I'm saying my piece. I want you to abide by the Consent Decree because it's the right thing to do. These petitions were circulated in English only. These petition were done incorrectly, suspend the election for now. Get a correct answer from the court. Not from the California State Supreme court. Ms. Romero, thru the Federal Appellant Court. The one that presides the State Courts. I want you to get an honest answer from these courts. Figure out the right way to do it because I don't believe it is. I mean, time and time again, I've come before this council to tell you the story of my mom. Talking to councilmembers about my mom and what happened to her. That's okay. Jay, don't worry. Because you know what, I am saying my piece, go ahead and say all you guys want to say. Audience: We all know your mom loves Wal-Mart Ly: Yeah, my mom does love Wal-Mart and you know what the fact of the matter is you did not tell her about Wal-Mart because of which I'm here today. I was not involved in this process until my mom was lied to. I did not want to be a part of this process until my mom was lied to. Fact of the matter is you violated the democratic process. Ms. Romero comes in here and talks about the democratic process. Mr. Tran talks about the democratic activism in the newspaper. About the democratic process. You have no understanding of what the democratic process is. The democratic process is about letting everybody, no matter what language you speak in and who are citizens of this country have the right and have their voices heard correctly. Audience: inaudible Ly: However, you did not do it correctly. You employed shady tactics. The fact of the matter is, if we want to talk about previous elections. And I did not want to do this, I did not want to talk about Wal-Mart today. But since we've started this path. We'll talk about Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 16 of 52 • the fact that in the last previous election the opposing factors took over $92,000 dollars in union money. The fact of the matter is people like Judy Chu and Gloria Romero, Judy Chu especially in the last six months has taken over $14,000 in union money. Don't tell me that this is not a union issue. Don't tell me... Audience: Is Wal-Mart union. Ly: Wal-Mart is actually union. You have no idea how much the union..you have no idea.. Clark: Jay, We need to keep it off Wal-Mart. Ly: I will do so. Go back to talking about community leaders because Ms. Romero is here right now. I have a bill in my hand that Judy Chu once proposed two years go. Audience: (Estelle Holtz) Judy Chu is not here. Ly: Well, let's see. She came out a couple of days ago supporting your 2 candidates for recall. Gee! I wonder what she has to do with the recall election? Tran: Is she being recalled? Mayor: Judy Chu is not here. But her aid was just recently Ly: Let me go back to my point. Judy Chu recently wrote a law, basically says if you negotiate in a certain language a car dealership, negotiate in a certain language, that contract has to be in a certain language. Now look at this bill right new. Guess who it's co author is..? State Senator Gloria Romero. I will just say this..., Gloria Romero and Judy Chu should be coming out here right now saying that you must abide by this Consent Decree because it was not multi-lingual. Mr. Tran and Mr. Lo, who's right there, has stated previously that there were not enough multi-lingual speakers at polling places. How come not other petitions themselves. How come petitions aren't in english. The fact of the matter is....? The fact of the matter is, these petitions should be written in the language of the people. They should be written and followed by the Consent Decree. I ask the Council today. The fact of the matter is I am a Rosemead resident, I deserve for my voice to be heard. That lady came up here from So. San Gabriel saying that Maggie you should abide and listen to the will of the people. Listen to my voice. I am our boss. I am each one of your bosses. Audience: inaudible disruption, --cross talking C. Attorney: Call the next one. Mayor: Next speaker please C. Clerk: Next speaker is Brian Lewin Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 17 of 52 • 0 Levin: Good evening, Brian Lewin resident of Rosemead, 9442 E. Ralph St. Tonight I am primarily going to be addressing councilmember Clark, because all though I believe that Mayor Imperial and Mayor Pro Tern Taylor do have a clear conflict of interest in that they do a financial invested interest in this. I'm hoping that they will rescue themselves. I suspect that they will not and I believe we already know Councilman Tran's and Councilman Nunez's opinions on the matter. Therefore, I would like to appeal to you in a sense of fairness and propriety. We have 4200 people who signed these petitions. 4200 people that signed these petitions. These people deserve to be heard. As the person preceding me noted, they are your bosses too. 4200 members of our...who are also your bosses said we want the right to do this. I understand that the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals has ruled on one petition in one case. However, whenever you have a ruling like this there is always fallout. It takes a while for everything to get sorted out. It doesn't suddenly have the decision and everything is magically sorted and everything is clear. It takes a while for this to happen. Some cases may apply, some cases may not apply. Ex post facto for example, would it apply to something that has been set in motion prior to the time that the decision was made. And it may or it may not. In this case I think the correct thing, the honorable thing to do would be to allow the election to proceed. And let the people say their voice and if they choose to retain Mayor Pro Tern Taylor and Mayor Imperial, fine. And if someone wishes to challenge the election on the basis of that law, they may do that at that time. If Mayor Pro Tern Taylor and Mayor Imperial are replaced and they wish to challenge or some of their allies wish to challenge it. Fine, let it happen. The fact remains these petitions were created, circulated, and approved by the LA County Registrar of Voters by the laws that existed at that time. Therefore the election should proceed. Any liability for this I strongly doubt would rest upon your shoulders. Because this is something which has... the proper procedure has been followed and then you would be able to have as your defense should it arise the procedures as they existed at the time were followed and there was no clear case of violation and no clear verifiable reason to cancel this election. Because as I noted a very portion of the electorate has spoken and has requested this election. And I urge you strongly to listen to your conscience, listen to the people and do what is right. Keep this election. Mayor: Thank you for your comments C. Clerk: Next speaker to Ed Stepanen (tape I B at 50%), not transcribed) He went out alone and got about 200 signatures. 50% Tape I B C. Clerk: Polly Low is our next speaker. Low: Good evening, Polly Low, 1039 L Presa, Rosemead. Good evening, Councilmembers. I just want to kind of re-emphasize what has already been said. SOC Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 18 of 52 • 0 filled the recall paper work based upon the rules and regulations that they knew at that time and we really did and we did the best we can. (transcribing not completed) 65% Tape 1 B Victor Ruiz (not transcribed) 70% Tape 1 B Alejandro Gandara (not transcribed) 85% Tape I B - Jim Flournoy- Secretary of S.O.C. (He invited Romero and Chu to meeting) 95% tape 1 B C. Clerk: Next speaker is Estelle Holtz (SSG) Yes, you know I don't think that Peter had agreed? To open up when he said let's look at the Santa Ana thing. I think Wal-Mart is being pushed. But, no way Wal-Mart wants this election. Wal-Mart knows they are going to lose big time on February 7th. And don't smile Peter because you know very well why we are here. Because it has come down that if we stop the election, we'll maneuver and maneuver until we get something on that lot. Some irreversible decision made. It is nothing but a stall tactic by Wal-Mart. Now you guys have carried the water for Wal-Mart long enough. For God sake don't go out to the public as again saying no to the people who voted. Because that is what Wal- Mart is asking you for again. The people in Rosemead worked hard, yes I am from So. San Gabriel, I could not walk. But they came back tired in the hottest months of August and July. The almost gave up about 2 or 3 months before but nobody would let them. And so they went on to get almost a thousand more votes than they needed. Because people want the right to vote. Rosemead is a new city it's very slow coming into the process. It has a very low voting. So people are getting interested, they want to vote. Nobody wanted to recall two people. But they could not wait for the next election to get two more no's on Wal-Mart. They could not wait. So that's you just happened to fall in the wrong category. You had to go in order for the people to get four votes against Wal- Mart. Super majority and they are long gone. Please think of the people of Rosemead, you carried water for them long enough. Start tape 2A Speaker Larry Bevington Bevington: I live at 8372 Rush St. One thing about coming this far behind on the agenda most of the things you think are important say have been said. My? in this case I'll just make two comments. What I had written out here. Again I want to make sure that its clear the City Attorney and his memorandum said whether or not the defective petitions would invalid the election was not answered by the Padilla case. So, it really didn't speak to these things except that one Santa Ana School Board election. I've always been interested in the desenting vote on a point like this. I going to read a few of the decending votes. Points that were made by the judge. In effect and I paraphrase some of it. Not in legaleez. The signers could simply refused to sign. I don't understand, they were not denied anything. They had that right, I don't understand it. The signers could have sent in a postcard and requested removal from the petition. Which was actively Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 19 of 52 • 0 promoted and terribly unsuccessfully as you know. The signers could have voted no on the election in the Santa Ana case. There are two other Circuit Courts that decided the same kind of an issue and as so often happens the Ninth Circuit Court is the most over turned count in the United States. And they had disagreed with these two other courts. Both of these cases said petitions were a product of the people and therefore do not come under the wording of the Voters Rights Act. Another thing they made important is that the laws in the states and rules in the States of California are not much tougher than most other states. And they prescribed by law what you have to do and it also says that petitions must be handed in and reviewed by the governing body and must be in order prescribed by state laws. What I am really trying to say is we put in a petition. I put in a petition for a altered sent back to the city, had to be changed. And many things added to them and we circulated those petitions as approved by this city. Another thing they brought out was somehow this opinion basically in opposition to the peoples right to petition their government. The ? now if this is allowed to stand as full wording as it is in and the law that you have all these things on the page that people sign. We were almost at a full page putting the notice and the replies and the ? parties on one page and were restricted on a whole sheet of paper down to five signature pages and is you have got to go to four languages you can see what that does to a petition. The rules of the city, State of California come out to be continued, it would become so arduous and expensive and questionable how you put one of these together. And it would almost be impossible to do an initiative a referendum or a recall or that kind of petition. Two others points that he made or said. The real purpose of the petitions is get as many people, 20% in this situation to sign the petition. And so it is their purpose to reach as broad a population as possible and have a large number and certainly is not to exclude a group by a language barrier. As it turned out we found some people some people that need the Spanish or other language interpretation. We then went back marked those ? on our list and went back and talked to them in their own language. So it is not a case of denying their right to know or vote on anything else. In this case we did as good a job as we could. A ? has to be reached there has not been any notice of intention to sue the city over the issues of languages... Therefore any action at this time is presumptuous. All the action the city has proposed did work in accordance with the law at that time. And the reversal...? is certainly untimely and most people would be.. You do the laws as they are and to go back and say I'm going to change the laws, after you are 90% thru the process is not proper. If the City Council is going to take an ...like this, it would be proper in this sense to ...at such time there is a threat or notice of proposed suit and therefore the city council should not act on this tonight. Let it run its course. And if any of these things happen at that point they can make a decision on what they are going to do. Thank you. C.Clerk: ? Choi ? Choi: Let me first say that Assembywoman Judy Chu is involved because she represents the citizens of Rosemead. Mayor: Can you give us your address and name please. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 20 of 52 • 0 Choy:?? I'm representing Assemblywomen Judy Chu. Let me say that Assemblywomen Judy Chu is involved in the this because she represents the citizens of Rosemead and she believes in the democratic process. I will be ready a prepared statement from Assemblymember Judy Chu of the 49 Assembly District. "I strongly oppose the motion to cancel the February recall election. It is not the place or the jurisdiction of the City Council to cancel the recall. Rather it is the perveiw of the courts. I strongly support going forward with the will of the people to address the appropriateness of that representation by asking for this recall election. The recall petition was approved by the Rosemead City Clerk and the Los Angeles Registrar Recorder. Let the recall go forward then let the court decide if it follows the letter of the law. The Council's job is to set policy not to adjudicate it. The motion to cancel the recall is unfair and unpressidented effort to deny the residents of Rosemead the opportunity to express their concerns and priorities in this community and stifle the democratic process. Thank you. C. Clerk: Mr. Flournoy-speak-Jim He already submitted a card. Taylor: Yes, he already spoke. C. Cerk: Nativo Lopez Lopez: Good evening. Honorable Mayor, Honorable councilmembers. My name is Nativo Lopez. I'm the National President of the Mexican American Political Association and the National Director of Latino Americana (group). At the risk of inserting myself in the local controversy of the current recall election process. Permit me to share with you my perspectives on the proposed resolutions to set aside the recall election in the City of Rosemead. I've heard that my name has been used in vain in relation to the recent Ninth Circuit Court decision on the litigation Padilla vs. Lever of the Orange County Registrar of Voters. This particular case arose as a result of fraudulent and illicit election activity conducted by professional paid signature gatherers who collected signatures disceptively on recall petitions to remove me from the Santa Ana School Board in 2002 and 2003. The petition was certified by the Orange County Registrar of voters in English only while some 25% of the electorate worked and are today are non-english speaking. Spanish and Vietnamese preference. That election was bought and paid for by antibilingual education multimillionaire advocate Ron Unz. The author of proposition 227. The Anti-biligual Education ballot initiative. The recall election in Santa Ana resulted in the violation of the civil rights of non-English speaking voters and my removal from office due to my principle advocacy for parental choice of bi-lingual education. The Ninth Circuit Court recent decision in favor of the plaintiff Padilla is a vindication of the allegations of fraud that we made in 2003, 2002 and 2003. What an irony that our fight for bi-lingual education and the civil rights of non-english proficient voters would be used today in Rosemead to impede a certified recall election and thus subvert the will of the citizenry. I ask you council members to not stand Padilla vs. Lever on its head and use the rigourness? of that cause to sustain the last breath of the political life of recall targets. Let the will of the people be done. Proceed with the recall election Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 21 of 52 • 0 allow the recall concilmembers to make their case before the electorate and let the rule of law prevail. Thank you. C. Clerk: Our next speaker is Julie Wang Wang: Good evening. My name is Julie Wang. I live at 1012 S. Marengo in Alhambra. First of all I want to thank everyone in the room. I sincerely mean everyone for being here. We're literally witnessing a miracle. And for me personally it is a miracle because it is a reminder for me as a strong advocate for democracy is indeed true and alive. Everyone has sacrificed their time, their energy their money to be here. To stand up for what they believe in and indeed that is what we are here about. For me, and I will give you a personal story and a very short one. I know everyone is tired. For me, I think the most deeply personal lesson I've learned in past four or five months of volunteering with Save Our Community is from my mentor Estelle Holtz. Who I think to be our understudy Very often and Mr. Taylor your smile because I know she shared many wonderful stories with me about her experience you and Mr. Imperial. Mayor: Her what. Wang: Her wonderful experience with you both Mayor: Oh, Lets hear a clap. I finally did something right. Go ahead. Wang: Many things right Mr. Imperial..? You know witnessing somebody that has never run for office willing to sacrifice their time, her energy, her money, her family, to serve our community is such an amazing experience overwhelming experience for me. There's so few human beings like that on this earth. And they are indeed the once that keep democracy alive. They have no personal ambition they have no personal agenda all they want is social economic justice. And I need someone like that and standing aside what someone like that just can't. I can't help but have tears in my eyes and want to work and volunteer with her. She never claims to take me on as an understudy. I just proclaim myself as one. I hope, for me the miracle tonight, perfect miracle if by some act of God that a few months later a few weeks later I hear that Rosemead City hall had a meeting and there is a four vote moratorium on Wal-Mat construction without really having the recall election. To me that would be an act of God. To remind the people that Estelle Holtz does have an impact and can live that thrive in the United States. Thank you very much. C.Clerk: Senator Gloria Romero. She has a speaker card. C. Clerk: Ron Gay Gay: Good evening. My name is Ron Gay, residing at 4106 Encinita Ave, Rosemead. Mayor, City Council and elected officials here. I'm going to read you a little something because I want this to go on the record and I will be giving you this document when I am done with it, so bear with me. It's not too long. The December 5, 2005 memorandum Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 22 of 52 9 0 from Pete Wallin, City attorney, asserts that because of the recent decision of Padilla VS Lever the city is now faced with the prospect of spending pubic funds on a special election that is likely to be determined invalid because it was initiated by petitions that violated the Voting Rights Acts. The memorandum then concludes that the City Council has two options. Both of which will expose the city to litigation. The memorandum completely ignores 20 yrs of decisional law for the California courts that protects the precious right of the voter in the form of referendum, recall and the initiative. Resolution number 2005-45 is enacted by the City Council would rescind a qualified recall petition. In doing so, the resolution would disenfranchise the publics right to vote on a ballot measure in violation of the California Constitution and California Elections Code. What the moratorium fails to analize is that the Padilla decision was a post ballot challenge properly brought by individual citizens with proper legal standing to seek a declatory judgement. The citizens of Santa Ana initiated the effort after the result of the ballot measure were realized. In contrast resolution number 2005-45 is effectively a pre ballot challenge. Okay. A pre ballot challenge to recall petitions that City Clerk has properly approved as to form in accordance with election code 11042 (I) and to which the elector has not had the opportunity to cast their votes. If in fact there is a chance of litigation regardless the City Council would still be wise in not starting the fight. Especially at the pre ballot stage of the elections process. Notably the Padilla decision references Election Code 11042 (d) in the context of its post ballot challenge analysis. The code section provides that and I quote, no signatures may be affixed to a recall petition until the election official has notified the proponents that the form of the wording for the proposed petition meets the requirements of this chapter. With this chapter, being chapter one of decision two, of the California Elections Code. The limited discretion that the election official exercises in a voter initiated recall petition is to insure the proper form of the recall petition mandated by the California Election Code. As opposed to reacting to alledged violations of the Voting Rights Act described by Federal Law. For the City "Council to affirmatively to weigh in and effectuate a pre-ballot recision of the qualified recall petition is unwise, illegal and pretext to slam the door shut on the electoral process. An exact opposite outcome intended by the Voting Rights Act. If this City Council approves resolution 2005-45 their intention to close rather than open the electoral process will be made clear to the citizens of Rosemead and to a reviewing court. The resulting pre-ballot decision will be caused by the undue influence of those seeking to prevent an election when sufficient signatures have been gathered. Rather than by interest of individuals seeking access to sign a recall petition. In 1985 the seminole decision of aton VS City Council explained that it is more appropriate to review Constitutional and other challenges to ballot propositions or initiative measures after an election. Rather than to disturb the electoral process by preventing the exercise of the people's franchise in the absence of some clear showing of invalidity. The city attorney memorandum references the expenditure of public funds on a special election that is likely to be determined invalid. When under the Botare? Decision the only action likely to be determined invalid is the pre ballot recision of a qualified recall petition. The California Courts are clear. The State Constitutional right of initivive, recall, and referendum is an I quote, "one of the most precious rights of our democratic process. These powers are reserved to the people not granted to them thus it is our duty to zealously guard these powers and construe the relevant Constitional provisions literally in the favor of the Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 23 of 52 • 0 people's right to exercise???..... which you will have all the things you need to go back to. Reaffirming this settled law of twenty years the California Supreme Court recently stayed a Superior Court decision directing the Secretary of State not to place proposition 77 on the November 8`h, 2005 ballot. The Supreme Court concluded and I quote, "It would not be appropriate to deny the electorate the opportunity to vote on proposition 77 at the special election to be held on November 81h, 2005 on the basis of alledged discrepancies. The same rationale applies here. With the noted distinction that here in the city's election official already confirmed the proper direction for the city to take. I respectfully urge this city council to do nothing to interfere with the electoral process. Especially at a point in time, when the electorate has not cast its vote one way or another. Thank you. C. Clerk: Barbara Murphy Murphy: That's alright. Everyone has said everything I was going to say C. Clerk: Fred IIerrera • 0 Tape 2A 55% John Davidson Tape 2A 65% Jaun Nunez. Tape 2A 85% C. Clerk: Todd Kunioka Well, members of the City Council, First, a lot of points that I want to cover have been addressed by a number of the other speakers. So that means I can keep it short. The other thing that will keep it short is my actual prepared remarks I forgot to bring with me. I just got a quick outline here. First issue of course is we want to address the recusal of Mister Taylor and Imperial. Obviously there is a conflict of interest. And I would certainly expect you to recuse yourselves from any issue that would directly affect you ? future. Mayor: If that is an accusation. I don't agree with it. Go ahead. Kunioka: It is not an accusation. Mayor: I mean we're looking at integrity and mine will pass the test. Go ahead. Kunioka: Okay. We will see. Mayor: I come from the other side of bridge. Kunioka: I don't know what that means. In the terms of ....of this next piece are somehow related to the Padilla VS Levis case, I certainly want to stress the many differences between that and the petitions gathered here in Rosemead and those in Santa Ana. First of all, deception as you heard from Nativo Lopez, who I was shocked but pleasantly surprised to see him come here. Many of the claims he had, his problem was in people going around and gathering petitions in Santa Ana not telling people it was a recall. Telling people it was only to gather information. And of course there are no accusations. No one has made any statement. No one from Wal-Mart. None of the six mailers that Wal-Mart dollars paid for. None of the fliers that came from your campaign or from Rosemead PRIDE. No one has made any claims that we were not explicit in telling people this was for a recall. There are a couple of people who have made claims about the rationale for the recall. They were upset apparently than rather sticking to a single issue. We who walked with petitions listed a whole laundry list of reasons why we wanted a recall election.. No one's saying we aren't saying this is for a recall. That's not disputable. And that's an important difference between this case, or may be this case, and the Padilla VS Lever case. I also stress the information available, of course the Rosemead PRIDE-Wal-Mart dollars paid for. I got about six mailers from them. And so there was a real effort apparently if people wanted to recind their signature they could have. A number of those postcards did get returned. Most of them were not. By people who actually signed the recall petition. But there is certainly information information out there so if people wanted to remove their signature they had the opportunity. Never the Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 25 of 52 0 r less we still turned in 4800 signatures. 4200 of which were verified as Rosemead voters at the time those petitions were turned in. The Padilla VS Lever case also is based on an inappropriate precedent. Cites very importantly that an issue called? Zaldave VS City of Los Angeles which also concerned a recall issue in the City of Los Angeles. And the reason why that is inappropriate precedent is because Los Angeles is a charter city, Rosemead is a general law city. The laws the regulations and the ordinances that govern recall and initiatives in the City of Los Angeles are not the same rules that apply to the City of Rosemead. And also note there's conflicting precedent in this particular issue that have already noted by a number of speakers. The I O'h and I Vh Federal Circuit Courts have said very explicitly that you do not have to have mutilingual translations on initiatives or recall or referendum. Also this particular was not a unanimous decision. It was 2 to 1. One of the judges voted against the requirement. And he made very compelling arguments I thought about violations in equity and fairness if he were if this rule proposed by the jurists was adopted. It seems pretty clear that if this case were to be appealed either by the entire Ninth Circuit en banc, or if it were to be appealed to the Supreme Court I think a lack of it prevailing would be great. It doesn't seem reasonable that could be turned on its head and keep people from being able to vote rather than insuring that everyone got the opportunity to vote. And also this final action was also addressed. When I was here, again as Senator Romero stated, almost exactly a year ago, I think it was December 10th sitting in that chair right over there. And Ms. Clark you were sitting in the Mayor's chair. And we had these petitions for referendum, I shouldn't say we, I had nothing to do with the referendum petition. I wasn't active in Save Our Community at that time. But, literally, and I'm sure you didn't mean it irrespectively. Ms. Clark but you laughed in the faces of Save Our Community when you told them "You guys messed up. You guys should have come to us and ask us what you had to do if you wanted to have a petition to allow a referendum on the Wal-Mart." I don't think you remember that and I was appalled and I was a little and I know you, I assume you didn't mean it disrespectfully. And me and a lot of people. I'm sure it wasn't meant disrespectful. But you told them you guys, you guys, Save Our Community have got to follow the rules. Come to us and if you wanted to do this you should have done it right. But in this case with the recall petition of course we did do it right we went to the City Clerk. We had our petition approved by the City Clerk and then by the Board of Registrar of Los Angeles County. Followed all the rules. The standard for the recall in the City election as you know is very high. Some of you have been active in this before. You need 20% of the registered voters in Rosemead have to sign our petition. By contrast, I don't think people quite understand. In the case of the Governor's recall in 2003 the standard for a statewide recall was just 12% of the voters that voted to put him in office. So if a similar standard was applied in Rosemead all you needed was 12% of the votes that participated in the election that got you guys elected. We would have needed about a hundred signatures would have been done in half a day. Two hours of walking and you are done. Instead we had to raise that 20% number?? around. I personally almost gathered almost 200 myself. It was also very volunteers. Obviously no one was paid to do it. I walked voluntarily. I went door to door on weekends and every evening. It was a long and hot summer but in past because I thought Save Our Community was disrespected in the meeting here in December. I was angry enough, yeah. I wanted personal accountability of City Council. So we actually managed to get about 25% of the Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 26 of 52 0 0 registered voters in Rosemead to sign this petition. That's not an incredible feat. In fact 4,800 signatures, 4200 verified signatures as most....? know that is about four times as many people who voted for you here in the last reelection campaign. Also, it's not a trivial matter. It's not a typical election. I don't see how you can just imagine how many voters signed these petitions. It appalls me. That you would even consider cancelling this election. Unless you have compelling irrefutable legal evidence that there is just no choice, you have to cancel it. Then has been noted several times by other speakers but in fact it is in part conflicting legal precedent. It is not a matter that you have to do do one thing or the other. I mean if the other side wants to challenge it legally they are free to take it to court. The City of Rosemead ought to stand by the rules that have been set up for the people who gathered these petitions..? Mayor: Maggie Clark Clark: I want to just clarify that what I said was that the attorney that advised you what to do the referendum on. Audience: Bevington: No you didn't Clark: I'm not saying you should have come to us. I said your attorney. And I hope you, I told that to several people, I hope you didn't pay money to the attorney. Because he messed up, Kunioka: And I don't deny that. Obviously he kind of screwed up. It is appalling to say that you can be on the bar of the State of California and make some silly mistake. But you also ask us if we wanted to do that. You told us that we should have come to you. You should have come to City Council and ask us what do we have to recind. Is the development agreement that's to stop this. Or do we have to change the zoning and get ordinance you were very specifically telling us we should have come to you and you would have told us what we had to do to get that recinded. C. Clerk: Yuki Yuki: My name is Yuke Fukumoto, I live in Rosemead. 1807 Delta Ave and I have a real simple plea. Is to let the election go on. I was here on the night of the referendum and you took the vote of the people away then. And this is the second time you are trying to take the vote away from the people. I have never seen a council who advocates for others, whoever that may be, but not for the people. If you had worked as hard for the people as you do for the other entity I think we would be in better shape. All I ask is that let the people vote. If you are afraid of the consequences than so be it. We have consequences as well. We may lose too. But we want it to go to the vote. That's what I did for the referendum. That's what I did for the recall and so I ask you. I don't know if you have a conscience about letting people vote. I think you have been there a little bit longer than you should have. You do not own the city. One thing more to say. One of my colleagues, Marlene, has said its not over until we win. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 27 of 52 • • C. Clerk: Jim Clouet Clouet: Good evening, I'm Jim Clouet. 3719 N. Ivar St. Rosemead. I'm also a candidate for this up coming election. I think the message that you got tonight is pretty clear and I'm not going to reiterate what other speakers said. But I want to remind everybody in the closing hours of this meeting. That there already has been an election. It's done. Even if 25% of the people had no idea what they were signing its still 3,000 people out there who consider that there is something wrong in the city government. I'm not going to sit here and point fingers. I'm not going to make accusations because I'm not those 3,000 people. The 3,000 people believed that they don't feel that the city is up to par. They don't feel safe enough. They don't feel like there are enough programs for the kids after school. They don't feel that it is a clean enough city and progressive enough city. They have lived here, they love it. We were cut off. The petition drive was cut off simply by time. Had they continued it would have been 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 7,000 signatures. There is something wrong. Regardless of how you vote this evening. Everybody needs to keep in mind that those petitions are out there and they need to be resolved. Thank you C. Clerk: Rosie Lazario Lazario: Good evening. My name is Rosie Lazario. I live at 9225 E. Steel St. I come today ...(end of tape 2A)...to this country to make a better life for themselves were lied and tricked into signing the petition. Mayor: Let's give her a chance. Lazario: I made the callings. I'm just bringing out the facts. The circulators told them that the petitions were about cleaning up the city, cleaning up the parks, cleaning up our city. They never told them it was regarding Jay, Gary. They were told that was to bring Wal-Mart. Sign here, bring Wal-Mart, sign here. I spoke to the Hispanic community that evening ad several people have said they were upset saddened, they were shocked. They couldn't believe that this was going on. We know very well that these petitions are to recall two councilmen, who supported Wal-Mart. It is obvious. It is not too clean up the city. It's not to clean up the parks. When I told them what this was about recalling two councilmembers and Wal-Mart, they became angry. I could feel their embarrassment. That was the first thing they were embarrassed. They said democracy. I didn't understand what they were saying. How can you being democracy. I mean they have the right to speak. They have the right to understand they need to have these petitions in their language. They needed to know that this was not to support Wal-Mart. This was not to clean up the city. This was not to clean up the parks they live next to. It was there right to know exactly what they were signing. So may be they did tell them in English. Sign here we will clean your park. That's an embarrassment. The petitioners took advantage of the people who could not speak the language well. So today I come in front of you as a Mexican American who understands English and I'm very fortunate in that. I ask you today to delay the election so the courts can decide on the validation of the petition. Just delay it, if they decide to go along with it than you lost no money on going out there and Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 28 of 52 • • doing what you have to do and continue where you left off. Because in my heart I know that the petitions, the petitions should be thrown away. Just like the people did.... Mayor: Give somebody some courtesy. What does it take to give somebody some courtesy? Now answer a question for me. Because it has been a big one in this campaign than everything else. You talked to the people in the Hispanic community, Right? Lazario: Yes I did Mayor: They are the third highest population in this city from what I understand. How many of them knew about what was happening? Lazario: None of them that I spoke to. Audience: Cross talking. Lazario: I have the right to speak. Audience: Shouting and cross talking Mayor: Hey, hey, knock it off. Were you next on the list Speaker: Yes, Sir Mayor: Sorry to interrupt you go ahead. Damian Navarez: Good evening, Councilmembers and folks here tonight. I agree with several people here. You do need to be respectful to everybody up here speaking to give them their time. You would like it to. I agree with both sides. The gentleman speaking over in the corner. Mr. Ly. Okay. You make a point there. They represent us. They represent our votes. They represent our needs. It's true they work for us. I told you that in a meeting about two years ago, when I did a petition for Zapopan Park and the surrounding community. I advised you at that point that you do work for us. I just moved a year ago and I came back to Rosemead a month ..two weeks ago. 3043 Charlotte Ave in the city of Rosemead. And I noticed changes around here and I was kind of fed up with Rosemead at the time I left. I moved to Covina it's a pretty good community. It's kind of unincorporated where I live. But it was similar to Rosemead in certain respects. I moved back because of traffic reasons so now I'm back here. Last night I went to Star Bucks, it was a good experience. I went there and enjoyed coffee. Walked to Beach's Market, Sav- On's which I grew up there since the age of thirteen and I did not encounter any problems or harassment or anything like that. I think a Wal-Mart proposal is a good deal. The location is a bad area. But I think we are in need development in the area. We do need different things. We look at different areas and that would be a great thing. You know, give us certain things on that. I not going to talk to you much more on that. But the reason I'm here tonight is, I really did want to get involved with this and I really Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 29 of 52 0 • didn't want to be up here tonight. But I have a question for Mr. Tran. How were you elected here? Are you the first Asian elected official in the City of Rosemead? Tran: Yes I am. Navarez: Good, Times are coming. Times are changing folks. I'm sorry to say that but times are changing and the winds are blowing. Okay. My mother Bertha Savadra owns the house that I currently live in. I rent it from her. Fifteen years ago, her and an attorney named Benillo? Basera who has a law practice in the city of Montebello came here and they were up before the City council meeting for an English only ordinance that she told me tonight that Mr. Imperial and Mr. Taylor wanted in the City of Rosemead because they saw back in 85 and 88, the encroachment of Monterey Park. And they said, God, we don't want that. We want English only signs. She came and said no that's not it. She spoke here that evening. I don't know what date it was but I'm sure if you pull the record its there. But she has worked many times as an advocate for people all over LA. Currently, she works in Pico Union, at a non-profit organization and Mr. Basera also represents people without a voice. For them to tell me that, it just came to me that you have to go and let that be heard. I read in the paper that ....the catalyst that you are using to prevent this election happening is that you need it in different languages. But if you had it your way fifteen years ago then it would have been in English only. Taylor: A point of information. That is not, your statement not true. Did you look in the city council minutes? Audience: Bevington We can't hear you... He said did we look in the city council minutes. Taylor: Did you look in the city council minutes to see what that discussion was about. What did it say? No, I do not know. I did not read it. Taylor: But you accused us of saying that and that's not true. But this is what I've heard. Taylor: Okay. But let's set the record straight. Get with the City Clerk and go get the minutes. Navarez: Okay. Taylor: What was happening is that the businesses were putting up foreign language only and the stipulation was that they had to have at least six inch letters so that the people living in the city and the law enforcement people could read the name on the building. Navarez: Okay Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 30 of 52 • • Taylor: That's all it was about. And you are welcome to get the minutes. Navarez: Okay. I do appreciate that. Mayor: I do appreciate that fact though what you have done to help us clan up that area there. Navarez: Right. And you have done stuff and I... Mayor: I appreciate it. Thank you. Navarez: And thank you for what you have done. It didn't come at an easy price. And I heard initially it was was kind of I sensed apprehension from the city council at the time I was doing that. Granted you came along. Mr. Wagner helped out a lot. I communicated with him. Deputy Jewett, they helped out immensely on that and they were very helpful on that. But, back on the subject here. If you go back, like I said times are changing. He just got on the council. It was because of change. It was because people were upset and that's what's going to continue to happen. Regardless if the election does not occur tonight or in February, I'm sorry it is going to happen eventually. Time is changing and if you stay on another year and it happens again that election is going to occur gentlemen and that's all that is going to be. And after that if you want to go back further in history with the State of California. The State of California is a funny place. We used Hispanic and Asian as pawns, in a political chess game. Governor Stanford in the 1800's wanted to get rid of the Asians. But he brought them back when he needed cheap labor in order to build railroads. 1920 they wanted Mexicans to build canals in El Centro. After they built them instead of giving them jobs they sent them back to Mexico. So now what's happening our languages are being used at the ebb and flow depending on who needs it. Those people are being used and their voices aren't being heard. That's all I have to say. Mayor: Let me explain something to you. Whatever we do in our meetings with the properties okay. And I started this thing a long time ago and the council agreed with me. If you come up here and say something needed to be done and I answer you and see if you understand and if you go like this---(head motion) that gives me a trigger. The council has seen me do this time and time again over the years. I ask the question again. Are you sure you are understanding me? Are you sure you understanding me? I make sure that we cancel that until we get an interpreter in here because I want to make sure they understand. It is affecting their lives. Okay that's the way we operate. That's number one. As far as the community out there. I ask you a question about the Hispanics. I've had another problem, incidentally my wife is Chinese and a wonderful lady, okay, and I'm very proud of her. But we have the Asian population that is not being talked to. It's not coming out in the newspapers like it should. I can show you a lot of people that are Asian, Hispanics. I adopted as my little granddaughter, a little Hispanic girl okay. They are not getting this information. They are coming to me and saying we are not getting this information. If we want to do something go out and talk to these people in Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 31 of 52 0 0 other cultures and find out what their needs are and talk to them okay. You are going to find the majority of them are not getting the information okay. Do that for me. Go ahead. Navarez: I just want to say again. Respect other people that are up here folks. (not completed 2 or 3 minutes more) Tape 213 - 15% C. Clerk: Mr. Mayor at this time we do not have anymore speaker cards. Mayor: Okay, Thank you. We haven't passed anybody up. Tran: Mr. Mayor. Mayor: Yes Tran: At this time, I would like to make a motion, due to the fact that we do not have all the information required to make a decision tonight; therefore, I'm asking in the form of motion to adjourn this meeting Nunez: I second it. Also, that the... I say I seconded the motion. And I also want to remind City Councilmember Taylor that told me when he abstained on a decision that we made not to long ago on a contract for the disposal company. He said to me, "I don't vote for anything that's not completed, a completed contract." Mr. Taylor, I can tell you right now the information is not complete...? and I think you know it. Should let us adjourn this meeting and let the course go and let the courts tell us what to do. Taylor: Call for the question Mr. Mayor Mayor: The question has been called for, all in favor. Taylor: No, lets vote it out. Your motion is to adjourn the meeting, alright. (vote 3 nos, Clark, Imperial, Taylor; 2 votes yes, Tran & Nunez) Taylor: Alright Mr. Mayor. Now we can continue with this meeting. There were many items brought up... Audience: Let's take a break. Taylor: Alright. Let's take a five minute break then. Mayor: Let's take a five minutes break. Please. Back in five minutes. Mayor: Banana Republic (sign in audience) That's alright. Nothing wrong with that. Meeting is now in order again. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 32 of 52 0 • Taylor: Mr. Mayor Mayor: Go ahead Taylor: Alright. Mr. Mayor my objection to the recall process started before the signatures were turned in. And I would like to go back to June the 27`h I wrote an open letter to the residents of Rosemead and I would like to read three short portions of this. It states many residents were concerned about gun sales on September the 7`h... and bear with me there was a lot of discussion about air pollution, the referendum, the union money and what went into it. So I'm going back to the gun sales that was decided at the public hearing a little over a year ago at Rosemead High School. Many residents were concerned about gun sales on September the 7`h, 2004. Sixty planning conditions of approval were required before Wal-Mart could build. Condition number 60 states. No gun, handguns, rifles or other types of fire arms or ammunition shall be sold from any business on the project site. To help with the safety of the children who cross Rush street. Wal-Mart will pay for a crossing guard for the next 20 years along with a flashing beacon lights at the school crossing. The same people that organized the repeal of ordinance 836 are giving more false information in the recall petition against Gary Taylor and Jay Imperial. Many people who were in favor of the Wal-Mart were tricked into signing the referendum petition on ordinance 836. The actual demand made by SOC group to repeal ordinance 836 is as follows: "We the undersigned demand that Ordinance No. 836 be reconsidered by the Rosemead City Council and repealed. Or if not entirely repealed that ordinance 836 be submitted to a public vote of the people of the City of Rosemead at the next regular local election or if desired buy the City Council at a special election called for the purpose. The City Council was required by State laws to repeal Ordinance no. 836 as demanded by the SOC group. Wal-Mart did not instruct the City Council to repeal Ordinance 836. The City Council repealed Ordinance No. 836 and saved the residents of Rosemead the approximate cost of $35,000 dollars to hold a special election which would not have stopped Wal-Mart from building the store. Many of you who are registered voters received an election letter from organizers outside the city and their supporters stated, the Rosemead City Council thru the petitions in the garbage. That is a statement. The statement is a deliberate lie. The City Council by State law is not even allowed to look at the petitions that were signed. This lie was an attempt to destroy the honesty, integrity, character of the entire City Council and even the City Clerk for not keeping the petitions secure. The petitions are still locked up by the City Clerk in a secure place as directed by state law. You may call the Rosemead City Clerk, the phone number, and verify that she indeed did secure the petitions and the councilmembers did not throw any petitions in the garbage. Now I have to respect ever single person in this room, rich or poor, and if you are gathering petitions and getting signatures and such. Those petitions come in with the weight of law behind them. As for us to be accused of throwing them in the garbage, what do you think that statement implies? Audience: Figure of speech Gary. Taylor: Isn't that nice. Sticks and stones will break my bones. But let's send this letter out to 15,000 people and let them get the impression and the innuendo that this means Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 33 of 52 0 • nothing to your City Council. Throw it in the garbage and they will think we disrespected them. Poor people want to be respected, middle income want to be respected, the rich want to be respected. So when people come out and they say we through it in the garbage because it was rotten, it was no good; just get rid of it. That's what the statement was and it was a deliberate statement. So getting back to some of the others that's lies and deceptions. We had three or four people come up tonight and talk about the petitions and how they were tricked into signing them. They didn't understand what it was. They told them things that weren't true. Clean up the parks, clean up the city, whatever. Audience: Cross talk Taylor: Let me continue on with what we've got here. Here's a letter in the an article in the Tribune dated,...there is not date on it, but it is recent. Turning in the petitions to the City Clerk. And there is a comment right here where Mrs. Clark states something "Some people told her signature gatherers claimed they should sign the petitions if they are in favor of Wal-Mart". Clark said. And I have had the same thing told to me and these people that stood up here and spoke about being told lies, being told different items, that did go on. But we don't know the number. Going onto the next item I would like to read. This is from the ....the minutes of the City Council meeting of 9-27-05. When a Ms. Rosemarie Gonzales came up and spoke. As she stated, and I'm paraphrasing. Audience: Cross talk Taylor: Anyway, I'm going to read what she stated. Don't let it be read. Now listen to the people objecting to it. There was a few gentlemen that came up here and they said they walked the streets in all sincerity. They were saying we walked the streets and they were out there and it was hot and we wanted to give up. But they kept going. Here's what Mrs. Gonzales stated. I am opposed to the pro... excuse me. At the last meeting and I stated at the time. Councilman Taylor, I am opposed to the process that was used. And I would like to read a statement from the last meeting. Ms. Gonzales was speaking. She said, "My name is Rosemarie Gonzales and I am a resident of Rosemead. I am here to tell you I here to talk in favor of the recall. A lot of people say this is corruption.. I am not corrupt. The other thing is that you didn't listen to us. We went before the board over at the Rosemead High School you didn't listen to us. I walked up the down the streets getting signatures and I did not lie to anyone. And I will tell you. If you think we corrupted you and we lied then you weren't really listening because we didn't try to deceive anyone." I believe her comments. I believe she was sincere. But she could not circulate the petitions. Audience: Cross talk Taylor: Now we're getting the opposite story. Please I haven't finished the statement yet. Ms. Gonzales: I have a Rosemead mailing address, and I live in South San Gabriel. I gave you the address, 8819.. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 34 of 52 Taylor: You did not give us the address. Ms. Gonzales: Yes, I did Taylor: This is verbatim. This is verbatim minutes. Ms. Gonzales: No. It's not verbatim. Taylor: It is, ma'am. You said "I am a resident of Rosemead" Audience: Cross talking Ms. Gonzales: What I said was, I'm Rosemarie Gonzales, a resident of 8819 East Highpine Street. And I said Rosemead because is my mailing address. But I live in South San Gabriel. I'm so used to saying Rosemead that that's what I said. Taylor: You gave no address Ms. Gonzales: I gave no such.. I'm not lying. And when I was upset, we did not. We went with people, but I was not allowed to carry the petition. Taylor: That's not what you said here. Ms. Gonzales: I walked but I did not say that I carried the petition. Because I couldn't. I wouldn't have taken that chance. Taylor: That's not what you said Ms. Gonzales. Ms. Gonzales: No sir. You cannot speak for me. Taylor: I am reading your exact words. Ms. Gonzales: They are not my exact words. If they were my exact words then I would say, Oh, I am sorry I said it. But I didn't. Taylor: Alright Ms. Gonzales: And my address is 8819 East Highpine St. South San Gabriel and Rosemead address. It's a mailing address. It's Rosemead and I live in South San Gabriel. Taylor: I understand why you are saying this now. Audience: Cross talking Taylor: Alright, thank you. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 35 of 52 i • Audience: Estellr Holtz, Gary, Gary be honest for a change. Gary listen the clerk would have checked, did she sign the petitions. Taylor: Mrs. Holtz, this is why we're going to have all of them opened up now. Holtz: Gary, the clerk followed it dead one. She looked at the address. If she had signed it...It would have been false. It went to the County. Had she signed it. It would have been caught. Taylor: We're going to open up, have the court give us an order and we can open up the recall petitions we can open up the referendum petitions we can check all the circulators and verify their addresses and we also going to Audience: Cross talk Taylor: The minutes are all... Hey, I already told you this was long before... Mr. Mayor, There's a deputy back there. If they can't keep quiet I would like them removed. Mayor: Okay Taylor: They have no respect. They have been ask a half dozen times. You let your statements be made, I'm making mine. Audience: Yours is full of shit. Mayor: Hey, watch your language Taylor: No, no Mayor: Hey, watch your language. Taylor: Mr. Mayor Mayor: We got women and children in here, be a man. Taylor: Mr. Mayor. That's indicative, of what. Mayor: That's not indicative. That's stupidity. Taylor: But anyway, I've read my comments about. Audience: You're afraid of being recalled Taylor: Mr. Mayor. You're going to get to vote on my election of not this February you will get it next year. Absolutely. Or maybe I won't Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 36 of 52 • Audience: you don't have the right to vote, we do, (4 times) Mayor: Now, hey, watch it, let's have some order, okay Taylor: Mr. Mayor Mayor: Now cut it out, and I don't want to tell you again. • Taylor: Alright. We had enough comment about what's in the minutes. The verbatim statement. What was said by a half dozen people about how the signatures were obtained. I've read Mrs. Clark's statement. There are several others. But I would like to read something about circulators. I want to read what a conspiracy is. Audience: We don't need to here it. Taylor: Well, you do need to, because this is going into the courts. It states right here. It states right here Mr. Mayor what a conspiracy is. It is a combination of... Mayor: Let him talk. Taylor: Conspiracy is a combination or confederacy between two or move persons formed for the purpose of committing by their joint efforts some unlawful or criminal act or some act which is unlawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerned actions of the conspirators or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of act not in itself unlawful. Okay. Now let me read you something else here. Audience: Senator Romero: Are you calling the conspirators. Taylor: Let me finish. Mr. Nunez (Jaun) please. Mayor: You already had a chance. Now let him finish Taylor: Mrs. Estelle (Holtz) is telling me to go ahead. Mayor: Let him finish Juan (Nunez) Audience: He is finished. Mayor: And so are you Taylor: Now let me read here... Mayor: Yeah you, try me baby, try me Taylor: Mr. Mayor Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 37 of 52 • 0 Audience: Cross talk Taylor: I want to read what libelous per se is. Libelous per se a publication is libelous per se when the words are of such a character that an action may be brought upon them without the necessity of showing any special damage. The imputations being such that the law will assume that they are so slandered-they are so slandered there must be suffered damage. Audience: You need help-bedtime story or what... cross talk Taylor: Are you ready. To render words libelous per se the words must be of such character that a presumption of law will rise therefore that the plaintiff has been degraded in the estimation of his friends, or of the public or has suffered some other loss either in his property, character, reputation or business or in his domestic or social relations when a publications is libelous per se. This is defamatory on its face. It is actionable per se. One need not prove that he received any injury as a result of the publication in order to recover damage and in such a case general damage for loss of personal or business reputation or or avertinance or proof of special damages are necessary. And the next one would be subversion and I will skip the rest of them. The corruption that went on. But to get to the bottom line now, we all take an oath of office up here. Now I want you to listen to this group over here (cross talking) when you talk about respect, just listen to them.. It talks about an oath of office and I want to read this. I do solemely swear, whoever the officer maybe, that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Sate of California against all enemies foreign and domestic that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. That I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion... and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. Now I mentioned conspiracy, and I referred to corruption and subversion and such. That has to do with local government. Local government being a representative of the government. The State of California we do have the rights as a local government by the State laws of California. Now if I were to tell you, go out and throw all these petitions in the garbage that means I'm getting rid of them. Now here it is. This is a letter from State Senator Gloria Romero. It states in here. That's alright. Okay, you ready. Thousands of residents signed petitions to stop a 24 hour store from selling guns, alcohol and ammunition across from a school. Anyway, it states selling guns and ammo across ....now this you have got to remember that the Public Hearing was on Sept 7`" 04. This comes out in February to early March prior to the election. Okay this is six months later and I read the very first comment, condition number 60 at Rosemead High School. There will be no selling of guns or ammunition, rifles, on any business down there. So six months later this (letter)comes out. Let's get the people upset that they are going to sell guns down there when in fact they are not. It continues on: The Rosemead City Council through those signatures in the garbage. We disrespected the people, we through them in the garbage. It's a lie and we got Audience: Cross talk Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 38 of 52 Romero: To allow the election. Taylor: We through them in the garbage. Okay, now that is Senator Gloria Romero. This is her letter that she sent out. It's here own envelope and such. Romero: and that's the truth. Taylor: Now, let's go to the next letter. Assemblywoman Judy Chu. Over four thousand parents asked the Rosemead City Council not to allow Wal-Mart to sell guns, or ammo, and it was assemblywoman Judy Chu that brought it up at the public hearing and said that we can't sell guns and Mr. Bill Alarcon on the City Council put in Condition 60 that night that no guns or ammunition will be sold ...Then it states here. The City Council through the initiative petitions in the garbage. These are three separate letters by three different people with the same wording. Now let's go to the next one-yeah. They don't want to hear the truth. The fire fighters support. Now this is from Mr. Audience; protest-cross talk. Mayor: Alright, alright, let him finish. We let you finish, we let him finish Taylor: This is the third letter, this is the third letter from Miguel Controres. Executive Secretary of the Los Angles County Federation of Labor. He is the highest official. Mayor: Put 400 people out on our streets. Taylor: No, no. of several hundred thousand union members. He puts out the letter and I want to read what he says. "The firefighters supported the 4000 Rosemead residents who signed petitions asking the Rosemead City Council not to all a 24 hour store with guns, alcohol, and ammo to open across the street. Now, keep in mind six months before this in the official record. Mrs. Chu brought up and they are putting out falsehoods, they're lying. Continuing, but bold letters, "the City Council threw those petitions in the garbage." Now how did three independent people sent out three letters from the same organization that happens to be what we call a conspiracy. When two or more people get together and put out lies. Mr. Nunez(Juan) you ask me about the letter. Do you believe it. Juan Nunez: I haven't seen it. Taylor: We have know each other for 34 years and I have tried to be honest with you on everything we talk about. These letters they do, they're deliberate lies. They knew that they were lies because they attended the meeting and the issue was brought up. So, when we have to put up with this nonsense and the oath is taken that they are going to uphold the Constitution of the (United) States and the state of California that is hogwash. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 39 of 52 • L_ J Juan Nunez: Well, as you mentioned. Two person get together, you never know which one is going to do something illegal, you are a conspirator. Taylor: This tells us what they did illegally. Juan Nunez: I'm telling you when two persons get together and you know we worked for you. We worked for Jay, we worked for Maggie. And you know, I don't know what you did outside of the time that we weren't with you. Whatever you did whether you went out and killed somebody an old lady or whatever. Taylor: Juan let's go back to the issue. These three letters were sent out. It wasn't something that was done between two people. This was done between three extremely prominent people. And that's a disgrace. Audience: Cross talk Taylor: Mr. Nunez I didn't mean... Juan Nunez: Excuse me. When you were saying about the letter that Ms. Gonzalez wrote? you have the tapes, and I don't know whether you keep the tapes from way back when you went to the... Taylor: No, I don't keep... Juan Nunez: Does the city keep...? Taylor: What is it you want? Juan Nunez: to find out exactly what she said at the meeting and... Taylor: at the meeting about what? Juan Nunez: about that... ? signed the petitions the petition. Taylor: Yes. Juan: ? She had written the letter? Taylor: It's verbatim word for word. Alejandro Gandara: So any of us can stand up there and just start to speak Juan: They're verbatim Alejandro Gandara: I don't think that's right. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 40 of 52 • Mayor: Juan, you're through Taylor: we have to allow everyone to come up and start all over again Mayor: I can't make anybody happy. Have a seat Juan. Juan: We worked for you at no cost. Maggie at not cost. Do you recall Mayor: You what? No you got the wrong guy. You didn't work for me. Go ahead. There's a problem here today, Just like I'm feeling really bad today. We had somebody who lost a parent here in City Hall with a heart attack and I got a letter saying thank you and today I'm a dirt bag. Okay. So you never know where to go okay. Taylor: The reason why we need to have this meeting is to have the federal courts steps in and get a judge to open up all those petitions and find out who signed them. How were they actually gathered, and there's enough people that... another point was made. Let's let them go on over here... Romero: Audience: and if you want to then go to court. That's your Constitutional right. But you go to court. You don't act like judge, jury, and executioner. Taylor: Mrs. Romero, this is going back into court. This is going back into court. That's what you are saying. Romero: You're not the court. You're not the judge. Taylor: the comment was made... Audience: Cross talk Mayor: you aren't either. But you're here. We're just having a conversation Taylor: But the comment was made that there were 400 cards returned back as far as taking... requesting these names to be taken off the petition. Audience: 300 of them did not even sign the petition Taylor: There's a comment that 300 didn't Audience: How many were valid Taylor: that's why we need to open up the referendum petition to see if they were confused and they did sign a petition. Mr. Mayor... Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 41 of 52 0 0 Audience Mr. Bevington: 425 cards came in and they went down to County Registrar of voters. He threw 300 of them, three quarter of those he threw out. Taylor: for what reason? Bevington: Because they had never signed the petition. They lied, lied, lied, PRIDE talked them into lying, and you people keep talking about people who lie. This is one of the biggest forces in the world. The other thing you keep preaching about throwing it in the garbage can. These were figurative statements. Taylor: That's too bad Bevington: Nobody is dumb enough to think they would throw them in the garbage can. If you? in the garbage can. You denied us the right to vote. You say that we have been illegal and improper about this. We will see you in court. Taylor: Again Bevington: We will see you. You bet. You haven't been there yet. Taylor: Mr. Bevington, here's your letter. Bevington: Will you shut up Taylor: Here's your letter. Mayor: Okay, knock it off Bevington: you don't listen to anybody, you talk right over them. Audience: Cross talking Bevington cont.: We'll see you in court. We'll see you on the recall trail. The only difference there will be three persons on the recall list this time. We didn't recall Maggie Clark last time. Because she had not been in this office six months. That's the only reason she was not on that recall list. I guarantee you she will be there this time. Mayor: You said there would be three persons on that recall list. You and who are the other two Bevington: The list for that recall will be Mr. Imperial, Mr. Taylor, and Mrs. Clark. Taylor: Mr. Mayor I would like to continue, I have a letter here dated October 41h 2005. End tape 2B, begin Tape 3A Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 42 of 52 Taylor cont: This is why I can put verbatim minutes with the city Clerk and the minutes are verbatim. Let me read this letter now from Mr. Bevington "Pride should change its name to Shame, During the gathering of signatures for the recall petitions Shame mailed out hundreds of cards urging Rosemead residents to remove their signatures from the recall petitions. The Rosemead City Clerk election official received 425 remove name cards. Which were submitted to Raymond Olandre? Head of Data Entry and Signature Verification Section for Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder. The signature verification section rejected 300 of the signatures on these cards. Mr. Olinandre? was questioned during a phone call on 9-30-05 and his simple statement was that the persons submitting the remove name cards did not sign the petition." Let's repeat that. The 300, seventy five percent of the persons submitting the cards knowingly lied. Now this is Mr. Bevington's, knowing lied since they had not signed the petition and still sent in a card. While just perhaps they signed the referendum petition and didn't know the difference. "Shame committed a fraudulent act in encouraging people to send in the cards. 300 persons did so knowing they hadn't signed the petition and got caught. Too bad there isn't a money penalty for doing both. Shame should also be penalized for engaging in a lie. Submitting a lie that resulted in 300 PRIDE, SHAME, members lying." And incidently the PRIDE people need to find out who your 300 members are that lied. Because Mr. Bevington says they are. Bevington: I ask to do this and the city Clerk told me I couldn't do it, I couldn't see those petitions. I had no right to. Taylor: so they all lied Bevington: I would have loved to have gone through all those 4800 signatures and picked out those 300 there. Taylor: so they all lied. Okay, continuing, "PRIDE, lies should have been expected. During the referendum drive PRIDE claimed to know that Save Our Community was paying five dollars per signature. First big lie. SOC paid nothing." Now get this. SOC paid nothing, I don't know. Did the unions pay something? Okay "PRIDE also repeated these lies. (Audience cross talking) PRIDE also repeated their lies by claiming Save Our Community was bringing in Jesse Jackson and Reverend Sharpton to influence the signatures. SHAME was consistently playing very loose with the truth. Apparently, Mike Lewis's theory is to say anything that could possibly effect his side of the problem. Fortunately, many of the statements have been so foolish that most people disregard them completely. To the residents of Rosemead please continue to avoid this" Bevington: Thank you for reading one of my better letters. 5% Tape 3A Taylor: Let's finish continuing what states here. Begin Tape 3A - (5) Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 43 of 52 • • Tape - Bevington letter (10-4-05) 425 names received. 5% Tape 3A Romero: Mr. Mayor, - Point of order- Please let me just say something. Mr. City Attorney, your client, has the right to remain silent. I'm going to advise you to have your client remain silent. Let me just say this. Regardless of what issue we are on. This is an embarrassment. I say an embarrassment. Let me just say. The agenda says that you are hear to consider the impact of the ninth circuit, a court decision in Padilla vs. Lever. This to me, and I would say too in a court of law. You are showing your intent Mr. Taylor, your intent is not about language. We all knew that. That's the essence of Padilla vs. Lever. What you are arguing and trying to repute and to use the Padilla case is exactly what you are spelling out right now. You don't like the recall election. But you know what, It qualified, it's the law. So, exactly, let's move forward. Mr. Mayor, point of order, Mr. City attorney advise your client. He is digging the city of Rosemead into a deeper hole because depending on the outcome of this vote. And if there is a 3 - 2 vote (tape 5A- 10%) to discard and throw into the waste basket the people's right to an election. You're showing your intent. That this sham meeting tonight was never about bilingualism or multi-lingualist. It was that at least Mr. Taylor doesn't like that there's an election. And Maggie Clark, I would ask you to listen very carefully. Mr. Taylor has first spelled out the real reason for this meeting tonight. You, Padilla has nothing to do with all these things. You might as well call me a communist for saying that I'm a conspirator. But you know what though. It's not about me tonight. It's not about this recall. You have no right to decide that. That's been qualified. So I would urge you mister Mayor. Get control of your council. Mr. Attorney advise your client to stop smirking at the people ...And why don't you just proceed with the vote. We all have work to go to tomorrow. Let's try getting back to what we are here for. It's about Padilla vs. Lever. That's all. Taylor: Mr. Mayor Mayor: I Taylor: Mr. Mayor the issue tonight is the language was not put in for the people to understand. And these are connected together. People really didn't understand (Tape 3A) what they were signing. And that's the reason I'm bringing it up to support the conditions that lies were put out to people. They were put out in the election referendum. They were put out in the election. They were put out in the recall and the issue is to Audience: Put out by Pride. That's all here say. That's all here say. Taylor: No this is Mr. Bevington. Mr. Bevington states right here. "The city of Rosemead as a result of errors made in the March 8ih election was censored and fined". The city clerk, responded to Mr. Bevington's letter as he shades the truth here. "The city was censored and fined by the department of justice". Not true. The city clerk sent him back a letter saying we weren't fined and we weren't censored for it. But let's twist the Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 44 of 52 • • words. So that we can get the people to say we spent city money for that. Not true. So anyway the point behind this is to show why those petitions all have to be opened up and inspected to clarify what was really done. Audience: Mr. Bevington. Just do it. Quit talking about it. Audience: You are not an attorney neither, are you. That's right exactly and that is why we are here. Let the courts decide. Taylor: We are. We are going to let them decide. Audience: vote, vote, vote, vote... Mayor Imperial: Hello. Audience: ? Mayor: and I will build a new bridge. Taylor: Jay,Ma ggie wanted to say something Mayor: Okay Audience: We would like to hear from other city council members. What do you think of this. Audience: you let other people speak. Let them speak Taylor: Mister Mayor. Mrs. Clark has something to say Mayor: Maggie Clark Audience: please vote Audience: I can't believe this I've lived in Rosemead for 30 years and this is a joke Audience: we all had our chance to speak. It is their turn Mayor: Listen to me now. I've got control. Okay. If you do not like it, leave. Let me tell you something. Okay. We're going to conduct this meeting the way it supposed to be conducted. Or I'm going to request you leave. Okay. Now give some courtesy to the rest of the people here. You got your say. Let them have theirs. Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Do I have the floor? Mayor. Yes. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 45 of 52 • • Clark: Thank you. I'm going to give the back ground to a motion. Obviously there is a desire for a court to look at this. I just want to clarify a couple of things that were brought out. Concerning the ....I'm taking it back to the court. The Ninth Circuit Court. Because that's what triggered this whole thing. And the issue of the petition already being certified or whatever, that, in that court case with Nativo? Lopez. That was retroactive and the only reason they did not require him to step down. Or to go back on actually to the school board was because his term had already expired and the gentleman that took his place, the term already expired, so it was a moot issue. But it is retroactive. It's not like when someone passes a bill and says effective Jan. I" and be able to have all contracts in Chinese for example. This was prior to the Chinese speaking person. And so there's 2 different ways to look at that. I spent a lot of time ready this case at least twice over. And it appears to me that it does apply. There was something that was mentioned also, that there were 2 circuit courts that had ruled differently, and that is true in the 10`n Circuit in Colorado in the Montero decision and the 11`h Circuit in Florida. In the Delgato decision, However, they were petitions. They were like a referendum like we had on the ballot in Nov. This case applies to recall. And that's why I'm really concerned about whether it applies in this case. The issue of it being time critical. I think it is because we need to minimize losses. In fact if this case does apply to this. I don't think it would be fair to have either side spend money on an election and after the fact being we have spent a whole lot now. This, if we ask a federal judge, which I'm going to ask to look at the case and hopefully review it in 21 days and we would know whether it goes or not. And no one has spent money that's wasted. I think people want to move on. So I will make the motion that we add to the resolution that is before us tonight. It is the intention of the city council in enacting this resolution to place the current recall election proceeding in abeyance until the validity of the recall petitions have been returned by the Federal Courts. The city clerk is instructed to retain council and to expeditiously file an appropriate action to secure such a determination. If in such action it is determined that the recall election should proceed not with standing the inadequacy of the petitions a new date should be set for the recall election in progress and as I said that could take place within 3 weeks Taylor: Mr. Mayor. , I would like to clarify something with the city attorney. According to the statutes to open those petitions and such, it states that a judge can give you the authority to have those opened. Is that correct? City Attorney: the city clerk has access to them. Taylor: But she cannot open them unless a judge orders it. So I ask that they be saved for that very purpose that they could be verified. So who is the correct person. Excuse me Maggie that should be in your motion. City Attorney: I'm not concerned that. That had to be done during the petitions process. Clark: I'm not concerned with opening the petitions. I personally don't think that looking at the signature as to verifying them. That's already been done. That is not the issue. If Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 46 of 52 0 0 • 0 Nunez: Excuse me. I'm looking at what you're saying is right. We have to have a court or somebody tell us what we need to be doing. Okay. I don't think I'm pretty sure you probably think you don't have the right to stop an election. I'm pretty sure that is what you are thinking. Mayor: Is that right. Is that what I'm thinking Nunez: I didn't say you. Taylor: No, go ahead Mayor: I just wanted to clarify that Nunez: So, I think that if you look at what you want to bring this back 21 days later which is a couple days after Christmas. Or if you want to wait until a couple days after Christmas, that is fine too. And then lets see what the courts and courts may come to us and then we can look. This is the kind of stuff that I've been saying. Then may be we can find out. Clark: the motion says: that if the court Nunez: That is a motion. What I'm saying is don't vote on that motion. Look at changing that motion. Let the motion. Let the rocess go because 21 days from now which is on the 26`h. Let us come back on the 27 Tran: Maggie the ballots will not even be received until Jan. 9`h. So we still have enough time. Clark: But by then they will be printed and all the cost will be. Tran: Yeah ...but we have legal council. We just got costs for the special council to pick up and we're paying for L.A. Co. Nunez: And you know what Maggie? If somebody... If 2 council members that are being recalled feel that those petitions were doing wrong or illegal. Let them go to court, let them go to court Mayor: Let me say this. Nunez: I still have the floor. Do I not Mayor: Yes go ahead Nunez: Okay. Alright. Let them go to court and let them go through the process. In the mean time let the election continue. Don't delay it for 21 days. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 48 of 52 • • 0 Mayor: Are you through it... motion Nunez: No, I'm not done. It's not the city council that needs to stop the election. Okay. If the election gets stopped let the court stop it. Taylor: That's right. Nunez: You file an injunction and if Mr. Imperial wants to joint you both of you file an injunction. If Pride wants to join you all 3 of you can file an injunction to stop this election. That's the process. That's the way it should be done. You know what it looks like we're doing here and I think the Senator had it right on the head. You've trying to get the city, the city of Rosemead, to pay for your ability to go out there Taylor: The Alhambra School District was named with you in a suit. Nunez: The Alhambra School District did not pay that. Taylor: You were in the suit with them and now you're accusing us, oh we might have the city in this. Nunez:... to change the wording on the election. Mayor: Why don't you leave the Senator alone. She's sitting back there relaxing. Nunez: Are you challenging the wording? Taylor: No. I'm challenging the disenfranchisement. Nunez: We never tried to stop the election Taylor: Okay Mr. Mayor, Mayor: Yes, sir Tran: I do agree with you on this. Unfortunately we inherited this. But let's continue with this, and wait 21 days. Let's continue the election. Let the court come back. Let Peter do some more work on it and come back to us. And if we could suspend it. Mayor: What's your pleasure? Tran: And my question for the city attorney is the fact that councilmember Taylor abstained to this resolution, I don't think he has the right to vote on this. City Attorney: Yes he does have a right to vote on it. Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 50 of 52 0 Mayor: Do I have the right to vote on it. City Attorney: Yes Mayor: And Maggie City Attorney: Yes. Mayor: Does he have the right to vote on it. City Attorney: Yes Mayor: And you have a right to vote? Taylor: Mr. Mayor. I would like to call for the question; Mayor: The question is called for. Taylor: To approve Mrs. Clark's Mayor: Say your motion because we lost a lot of it along the way City Attorney. The resolution presented in the agenda packet with a new section 4 and (audience : interrupt can't hear.) The remaining section renumbered 5 + 6 Audience: Mr. Bev. Come on Peter. Speak up. City Attorney: I'm not on, sorry Mayor: Okay City Attorney: The resolution that was presented in the agenda packet. Audience: can't hear you Clark: hold it up to your mouth Mayor: the resolution has been presented in the agenda packet. City Attorney: The resolution presented in the agenda packet. With a new section 4 reading. The intention of the city council in enacting this resolution to place the current recall election proceeding in abeyance until the validity of the recall petitions have been determined by the Federal courts. The city clerk is instructed to retain council expediously filing the appropriate action to secure such a determination if in such action it is determine that the recall election should proceed not withstanding the inadequacy of Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 51 of 52 El the petition a new date shall be set for the recall election in progress. That would be added to section 4, and current sections 4 & 5 would be renumbered 5 & 6 Taylor: call for the question Mayor: the question has been called for (vote 3 to 2 - Clark Taylor Imperial Yes- Tran, Nunez No) Audience: We can have a recall up you Maggie Audience: continue comments against Meeting adjourned Taylor Errata - 12-05-05 Page 52 of 52