The Anti-Zuma Dogg Act

Tune in to LA City View on Channel 35 at 10am to catch the LA City Council consider a motion brought to my attention by Venice activist “Zuma Dogg”:

did you hear about tuesday’s agenda item? voting on a “new code of conduct for public comment” including things like: no standing, must remain seated at ALL times (like in “mommie dearest”) — no loud talking, no repetitive comments, no signs (really? i thought that was protected expression) — plus, they can kick you out for good for repeat offenses (which is extremely subjective.)

I call it “The Anti-Zuma Dogg Act”.

While I’m not sure what the City Council refers to it as, it is listed on their agenda as an amendment to the rules “under Chapter II, Public Notice, Attendance and Comment” that include Rules of Decorum and Enforcement of Decorum.

My question, do we need more rules regulating free speech when addressing our elected officials?

Details after the jump, or download the .pdf with the full text by clicking here.

From the proposed Rules of Decorum:

All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any single member thereof, unless in response to a question from such member. No question may be asked of a member of the Council or of the City staff without permission of the presiding officer. Persons addressing the Council shall not make personal, impertinent, unduly repetitive, slanderous or profane remarks to the Council, any member of the council, staff or general public, nor utter loud, threatening, personal or abusive language, nor engage in any other disorderly conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of any Council meeting. No person in the Audience at a Council meeting shall engage in disorderly or boisterous conduct, including the utterance of loud, threatening or abusive language, whistling, stamping of feet or other acts which disturb, disrupt or otherwise impede the orderly conduct of any Council meeting. Signs, placards banners, or similar items shall not be permitted at any time in the Council chamber. Unless addressing the Council or entering or leaving the Council Chambers, all persons in the audience shall remain sitting in the seats provided. No person shall stand or sit in the aisles or along the walls, nor shall the doorways be blocked.

It should be noted that when I initially posted an article that hinted at such an agenda, Zuma Dogg was quick to distance himself from the situation he is now eager to name after himself as “The Anti-Zuma Dogg Act”.

One Reply to “The Anti-Zuma Dogg Act”

  1. Regarding your comments that I was quick to distance myself that I am now eager to name after myself: How can you read the damn ordinance and NOT say it’s targeting me???
    (Greuel cut me off on Friday for saying, “Transfer of Funds? Can I ask you a question?” — And the dumb bitch claims I said “FUC*” (The FU on “funds” and the C sound on “Can” = FUC* at City Hall when ZD says it) and cut me off with no warning, even though The City Attorney told me I should have gotten a warning first. So they aren’t just looking for stuff?

    I did distanced myself people who were showing up at City Hall using racial epithats and swear words. Although I think some of the words used by those people SHOULD be able to be said aloud…that is not what I was showing up at City Hall about. And didn’t want people to get it twisted. (I’m fighting for unconstitutional things going down at Venice Beach.) When you read the “Anti-Zuma Dogg Act”, things like must remain seated…no loud talking, no this, no that…So to me it looks like 98% addressing ZD issues, with the addition of the part about trying to get people from saying the “N” word.

    ANYWAY — EVEN IF YOU THINK WENT FROM DISTANCE TO EAGER TO NAME THE ACT AFTER MYSELF, DON’T TRY AND SQUASH MY COMEDY, Y’ALL!!! No one would have printed the story if I said, “They are trying to amend the code of conduct regarding behavior during public comment.” (I’ve probably already lost all your readers.)

Comments are closed.