Mayor Mathews Interview On FRSC Sunday 10 AM

Mayor Cynthia Mathews was sent the following e-mail, containing two letters to her, which she had not answered. Earlier in the week, on meeting me by chance, she had scheduled a meeting--perhaps because I reminded her that she'd not answered either of these letters or two-or-three phone calls about them.


NOTES ON THE MEETING WITH MAYOR MATHEWS

I and Human Rights Organization activist Bob Patton met with her earlier today for about 45 minutes. Previously Mathews had declined to communicate with me during any of her previous twelve years on the Council, with one or two exceptions.

I will be playing our interview with her on Free Radio Santa Cruz Sunday, from 10 to 11 with commentary. Folks can call in with their reactions at 831-427-3772. I will also be playing a brief part of the interview having to do with Spygate on Thursday between 7:30 PM and 8 PM during the course of other interviews. This show streams at http://www.freakradio.org and is archived at http://www.huffsantacruz.org .

Mathews reaffirmed that her e-mails were private, even those directed to her as Mayor, and would not be revealed in Public Records Act requests, though she would make available any replies she wrote for inclusion in the Mayor's Outgoing Correspondence file (available either at the library or at the clerk's office-one of the two, not sure which).

She also insisted that since she carried about her own personal calendar with her, it was not subject to the terms of the Sunshine Ordinance of 2004 which requires public officials to reveal their meeting schedules both upcoming and in the past.

Mathews denied that she'd treated homeless local Michael Tomasi with any discrimination at City Council meetings (see allegations in the letter below).

She indicated she would allow other groups to make special 5-minute presentations during Oral Communications as she let a merchant do on January 24th, speaking against the Living Wage.

Most of my questions concerned the letters below rather than substantive homeless issues and civil rights concerned under the Downtown Ordinances, though Bob Patton raised these questions.

She also indicated that she knew the "Ten Minute Limit" in Parking Lots and Garages anti-homeless law was coming back--which is something the community needs to be concerned about.

I told her I would be asking to meet with her again around the Downtown Ordinances and other specifically anti-homeless laws, and she didn't reject the notion out of hand.

The only time she became agitated was when I asked her, regarding police surveillance of peaceful groups, whether she backed what the police department did, and more importantly, whether she would take action to stop future such incidents from happening or at least indicate disapproval.

I didn't press her too hard on most of the issues, because my concern was getting her to speak freely and publicly. Mayor Mathews hasn't done much of this in the past.

Folks can make up their own minds, but mostly what I got was reassurances, generalities, justifications, and a determination to proceed as she'd been doing. On the hard issues (like why she gave the Spygate speaker significantly less time to speak), she did not seem candid or persuasive.

I will concede that she may be more cautious about limiting Public Comment to 2 minutes in the future at Oral Communications. (Perhaps she dislikes the moniker "Two Minute Mathews"). She clearly is willing to meet with critics like myself--which can be a positive sign if it actually leads somewhere.

Listen in to my shows Thursday and Sunday for fuller commentary.

Robert Norse


E-MAIL TO MAYOR MATHEWS

From: Robert Norse <rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com>
To: cmathews [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
Cc: citycouncil [at] ci.santa-cruz.ca.us
Subject: Two Letters for Mayor Mathews
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:36 AM
Cynthia:

Here are the two letters,for your reference, that I'll be bringing with me tomorrow at 2 PM for your commentary. Thanks for agreeing to meet and have your comments recorded for HUFF members and for the FRSC audience.

I believe you were sent the first letter over a month ago, and the second one yesterday. I also left you several phone messages referencing the first letter and reminding you of our concern about answers to these questions.

If I was in error regarding your knowledge of "spygate", I shall publicly apologize. To more objectively judge the situation, I am waiting for the results of the northern California ACLU's second Public Records Act to the SCPD for Rico Thunder.

Thanks again. I look forward to speaking with you tomorrow afternoon.

Robert Norse


LETTER #1 TO CYNTHIA MATHEWS

Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
309 Cedar PMB #14B
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

December 29, 2005

Mayor Cynthia Mathews
809 Center St.
Santa Cruz, CA

Dear Mayor Mathews

We have some concerns about your conduct of the December13th City Council meeting and how you intend to treat the public in the coming year.

You repeatedly cautioned one member of the audience (Michael Tomasi) to make his comments "brief". Much as you may dislike Tomasi's style or content, such warnings constitute a kind of selective pressure which is inappropriate and, we believe, if repeated, violate the Brown Act. We would like your assurance that this kind of discriminatory badgering will not be repeated.

In your enthusiasm to finish the agenda, you failed to announce public comment on each item, as is required by the Brown Act. At one point Councilmember Rotkin and a member of the audience had to remind you of the public's right to speak (on the Office of Compassionate Use item). The public should not have to risk being found "disruptive" in order to assure their right to speak. Can we be assured that you will take the time to do this?

Past Mayors have made it a practice of advising the audience and the viewing public at home what each item was about as it came up. You did not. What will your practice be here?

As Mayor you schedule the agenda. For the first time in memory, the one December Council meeting was limited to an afternoon session. We presume this was your decision. This put pressure on the public, requiring them to wait through the afternoon session, and then rush their comments.

Afternoon sessions are difficult for many working members of the public to attend or watch. For those homeless people who need to use the emergency Interfaith Satellite Shelter Program, both afternoon and evening sessions are not accessible--because of the early-entrance requirements, particularly in the winter.

Many of those members of the community who were hardy and patient enough to wait three hours for Oral Communications--which you declined to schedule at a time certain--were union members with pressing concerns. Was your reduction of Oral Communications speaking time and its tortuous scheduling a punitive response to the "sick out" or negotiation difficulties? The extraordinarily reduced time allowed each person to speak (two minutes instead of three)--given the small number of speakers (9) gave the impression you were going out of your way to hear as little as possible.

This new 2-minute restriction on Oral Communications also was applied to public comment on other items.

This reduction in public comment time was most glaring since the usual 30 minute public comment time was reduced (for the first time in memory) to 20 minutes--2 minutes for each of the 9 speakers. You did allow one favored speaker the option of speaking five minutes (on the non-controversial business-friendly topic of Santa's elves)--but he only took 3-4 minutes.

We also have a few further questions.

What is your procedure for scheduling individual meetings with the public?

What public meetings will you be having with members of the public in your official capacity as Mayor? We are making this request in light of the state Sunshine Act passed in 2004. We would also like to know your policy about revealing what lobbyists you have met with. Finally, are your mayoral/city council e-mails accessible to the public or are you having them routed to your private or home computer and claiming a privacy privilege?

We realize that this was your first full meeting as Mayor officially. Yet you've been on the Council for ten years now and were Mayor for a full-year back in 1997. You're quite familiar with procedures. Hence, we think it's fair to put these questions to you.

Every Mayor should begin with a chance to voluntarily show respect for the public and follow the law. We're hoping you will not disappoint us.



Sincerely,

Bob Patton, John Thielking Human Rights Organization
Linda Lemaster Housing NOW ! in Santa Cruz
Coral Brune, Becky Johnson, Robert Norse HUFF
Valerie Christy, Michael Pentecost SAFE (Society for Artistic Freedom &
Expression/Streetperformers Against Foolish Enforcement)


cc: Shanna McCord, Santa Cruz Sentinel; Terry Franke; First Amendment Coalition



LETTER #2 TO MAYOR MATHEWS

Homeless United for Friendship & Freedom
309 Cedar PMB #14B
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

February 14, 2005

Mayor Cynthia Mathews
809 Center St.
Santa Cruz City Hall
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Dear Mayor Mathews:

On December 29th, we wrote you of our concerns regarding your conduct of the December 13th Council meeting, particularly in regards to discriminatory treatment of a disfavored homeless speaker, Michael Tomasi, the cutting back of traditional Oral Communications time. and other issues.

We additionally asked you to disclose your upcoming calendar of public meetings and a record of recent meetings with lobbyists and other members of the public, as required by the Sunshine Initiative of 2004. We also requested you clarify whether your e-mails are public record. You declined to answer our concerns on any of these issues. When Mr. Norse contacted you by phone on two subsequent occasions, leaving messages on your Council voicemail, he received no answer.

At the January 10, 2006 meeting you again treated Mr. Tomasi in a discriminatory fashion--this time blatantly so and in violation of a vote by City Council. Council member Porter’s motion, passed unanimously by the Council explicitly extended Oral Communications time, allowing Tomasi and two other speakers to give their comments. After allowing the other two to speak, you rudely cut him off as he approached the podium, saying he had spoken at the previous meeting.

You also shortened the Oral Communications period where this Brown Act violation occurred, cutting time from the usual three minutes per speaker to two minutes. E-mails disclosed by the first ACLU Public Records Act disclosed that you had prior knowledge of the police surveillance action. Were you afraid with seventy or more angry and concerned members of the community physically in the audience that public discussion of this issue would embarrass you, the police chief, the city manager, or other city staff? This kind of retaliatory behavior also discredits City Council and discourages public attendance.

Your allotment of time here contrasted sharply with what you allowed at the January 24th City Council 7 PM Oral Communications period. Then, you gave additional time to favored business members of the community opposing a proposed Living Wage Law. You allowed one business leader (the first speaker) an unprecedented five minutes as a member of a “group”. We shall see if you give the same latitude to groups you do not favor.

On January 24th, you also took the unusual step of placing an important and controversial item on the afternoon agenda, where far fewer people could attend the meeting. The surveillance scandal, which drew an audience of over 70 people on January 10th, prompted an hour’s discussion by the Council.

But in addition to scheduling the item at a time when much of the community couldn’t attend, you only gave the seven public speakers two minutes each. In addition to this reduction of public speaking time, you first delayed, then interrupted, then attempted to prevent speaker Rico Thunder from testifying--in response to his recognition by Councilmember Tony Madrigal on item #23.

This violated section 54954.3(c)of the Brown Act which guarantees members of the public the right to speak even on issues about which the Mayor or Council members are critical. The same violation occurred when you muzzled Tomasi on January 10th.

We formally demand you correct these Brown Act violations by rehearing item #23 at a time when it can have legal and proper public comment. Please reply to these issues in a timely manner, so we do not have to undertake a legal response.

We also renew our demand that you make public your calender and/or appointment book clarifying who you met with, for how long, and what was discussed--in those meetings you had that were in your official capacity as Mayor. We again ask you that you to provide a copy of all mayoral meetings scheduled with community groups for February and March.


Sincerely,

Bob Patton, John Thielking Human Rights Organization
Linda Lemaster Housing NOW ! in Santa Cruz
Coral Brune, Becky Johnson, Robert Norse HUFF
Valerie Christy, Michael Pentecost SAFE (Society for Artistic Freedom &
Expression/Streetperformers Against Foolish Enforcement)

cc: Shanna McCord, Santa Cruz Sentinel; Terry Franke; First Amendment Coalition , Rico Thunder, Last Night-DIY, David Sweet, ACLU, Terry Messman, Street Spirit homeless newspaper;