Published in the September 2011
Political Observer print edition.
--------------------------------------
See Parts I, II & III on Page 2

PARKING CITATIONS IN
LANCASTER DOWN 89%
 ------------
For Not Parking in a Single Space
------
A Victory for The People
--------
A Black Eye for Lancaster City Hall
----------------------------------
The Power of The Press
----------------------------------
The Political Observer’s
Investigation Into Lancaster
Parking Enforcement’s
Modus Operandi
------------------------
Part VII
------

LANCASTER – Good news! Citations issued by Lancaster Parking Enforcement for not parking within a single space were down 89% in Fiscal Year 2010/11 when compared to Fiscal Year 2009/10.

     When the figures are calculated after The Political Observer first broke the story exposing Lancaster Parking Enforcement’s racket, citations are down 96%. The City of Lancaster’s Fiscal Year runs from July 1 to June 30.

     The Political Observer’s investigation into Lancaster’s Parking Enforcement Modus Operandi began in June 2010, and was first published in the July 2010 Political Observer.

     Below is the month-by-month breakdown of citations, followed by the e-mail from the City official who once supervised parking enforcement acknowledging the Political Observer’s role in ending the citation racket.

     Citations for not parking within a single space for Fiscal Year 2009/10:

July 206

Aug 114

Sep 124

Oct 86

Nov 48

Dec 55

Jan 69

Feb 281

Mar 261

April 211

May 158

June 156

Total FY 2009/10: 1,769 citations.

FY 2010/11:

July 125

Aug 38

Sep 18

Oct 2

Nov 5

Dec 1

Jan 1

Feb 0

Mar 0

April 2

May 3

June 0

Total FY 10/11: 195.

   Total FY 2010/11 after The Political Observer broke the story in July issue: 70.

                  
                    -------------------- 

Subject: RE: Political Observer Newspaper
From: “Edwards, Monique” <medwards@cityoflancasterca.org>
Date: Wed, September 08, 2010 4:59 pm
Cc: “Boswell, Barbara” <bboswell@cityoflancasterca.org>

  
   Hello Mr. Fitzgerald,

  
     In late July, a fellow employee shared with me the article published in the Political Observer. After reading the article, I began investigating the claims regarding the size of the parking spaces at the courthouse and immediately directed staff to suspend issuing citations at the location until further notice. 
     
    A few weeks ago, I read the August edition of your publication regarding similar concerns at Costco and advised staff to suspend issuing citations at that location also until I was able to determine whether the size of the stalls were in compliance with city requirements. 

   As the courthouse is county property, I am awaiting the receipt of information to determine whether or not the size of the stalls at the courthouse meet compliance with county standards. 

   I am scheduled to visit both locations in the near future with a city inspector to determine the actual size of the stalls. Once a determination has been made as to whether or not the size of the stalls at each location meet city or county standards, it will then be decided whether or not the issuance of parking citations at these location will resume. 

   Attached are reports containing data for the number of citations issued by violation for fiscal years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010.

Monique L. Edwards, MBA
Management Analyst II
City of Lancaster
44933 Fern Avenue
Lancaster, CA 93534

                
                   --------------------

    
     Edwards is no longer charged with supervising parking enforcement and is now serving in a different capacity. According to a source within City Hall who wishes to remain anonymous, her transfer is the result of dissatisfaction by a superior for her willing cooperation with The Political Observer, specifically her communications via e-mail – leaving a written record.

     According to this source, City workers are strongly discouraged from answering e-mails with any message other than an acknowledgement of receipt and a request to communicate by telephone.

     Communication by telephone allows City employees to question the accuracy of quotes and the veracity of information published on the conversation, thus providing wiggle-room to discredit the authenticity of reporting not to their liking, our source informed The Political Observer.

     This claim held true during The Political Observer’s recent investigation into the over-sized, non-permitted signs announcing the future home of Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris’ law firm hanging on three sides of the old McMahan’s Furniture building on 10th Street West.

     E-mails to the city manager and deputy city manager on Parris’ signs were consistently met with a refusal to answer questions and instructions to telephone to discuss the issue. An e-mail to the mayor requesting an interview on the matter has gone unanswered.

     According to The Political Observer’s source inside Lancaster City Hall, current parking enforcement supervisor Lee D’Errico has instructed parking enforcement officers to understand the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law when issuing parking citations.

     Our source informs The Political Observer that parking enforcement officers, under direction from D’Errico, are to no longer cite vehicles not parked within a single space unless the violation is of an egregious nature, and to give violators a break if they display a pleasant demeanor and ask for the opportunity to re-park their vehicle within the space.

     Regarding the issuing of citations at the courthouse for not parking within a single space, our source tells The Political Observer that the parking enforcement officer who patrolled the courthouse was known within parking enforcement as being overly aggressive in carrying out their duties and not representative of other officers.

Origin of Investigation

     Following is a play-by-play of The Political Observer’s trials and tribulations interacting with deputies, courthouse employees and security personnel while conducting our investigation into Lancaster Parking Enforcement at the Antonovich Courthouse located on Avenue M.

     For some, Jury duty is an obligation that is frowned upon. For others, it is a call to conduct one’s civic responsibility. For the editor of The Political Observer, notification of Jury duty led to our newspaper’s investigation into Lancaster Parking Enforcement’s Modus Operandi.

     The discovery something was not right with parking stalls at Antonovich Courthouse came about as soon as your editor exited his vehicle after parking. Noticing the passenger side tires were atop the parking stall divider line, and not wanting a citation for not parking within a single space, your editor pulled forward and re-docked.

     After doing so, the driver’s side tires were now on the divider line. Repeating this exercise numerous times, your editor was finally able to maneuver the vehicle to fit within the parking space without any tires touching the white stripes on either side.

     Once legally parked, opening the door wide enough to exit the vehicle without hitting and damaging - door ding - the car parked besides was quite the challenge.

     After parking successfully, your editor made his way to the courthouse not giving the issue a second thought. Until the Juror’s briefing. This briefing included an admonition to prospective Jurors that Lancaster Parking Enforcement patrols the parking lot and issues citations to vehicles not parked within a single space.

     After the briefing, the briefer offered we, the assembled prospective Jurors, an opportunity to return to our vehicles to examine if any of us had improperly parked and if so, to correct the problem. “Lucky me,” thought I, to myself silently. Due diligence had allowed me to remain in the courthouse and thereby avoid going through the security hoops to re-enter the building.

     After waiting a few hours in the Jury room the briefer informed prospective Jurors that the case we were there for had been plea bargained and our services would not be needed that day. “Too bad,” thought I, to myself. “Maybe next time.”

     Your editor was disappointed because it was my desire to serve on a Jury adjudicating a drug case in order to practice a little Jury Nullification against our nation’s un-Constitutional and failed “War on Drugs.” But it was not to be that day.

    Making my way back to the car, the thought crossed your editor’s mind that knowing gub-mnt’ as I do, there must be some rule, some regulation, or some guideline governing parking space sizes. This answer was to be found in Lancaster’s Municipal Code.

     After a little research, the facts were in fact found within Lancaster Municipal Code 17.12.230 – Design Requirements: Size and Marking of Spaces. There, code mandates a minimum dimension of nine feet wide by 20 feet deep for 90 degree parking stalls for standard spaces. For spaces labeled “Compact” the minimum dimension is eight feet wide by 16 feet in length.

Play-by-Play Chronology

     Armed with this knowledge, it was back to the courthouse with measuring tape, pen and notebook, and camera in hand. Once there, it was discovered that standard spaces measure seven feet wide - two feet too narrow - and compact spaces measure six feet and six inches – one foot and six inches short of Code.

     After photographing and documenting the parking stalls, your editor decided to stick around the courthouse to witness parking enforcement issue citations and snap a few photos of the injustice in progress.

     The intent was to question the parking enforcement officer to determine if the gub-mnt’ employee was either ignorant - did not understand the law he was charged with enforcing – or corrupt – knew full well parking spaces were not to code but issued citations anyway figuring victims would pay the fine, no questions asked, thereby padding city gub-mnt’ coffers and in the process finding favor from supervisors for such outstanding work.

     Your editor did not need to wait long. As sure as the sun rises in the east, along came parking enforcement. After snapping a few pictures of the parking enforcement officer driving through the parking lot, your editor, on foot, chased after the gub-mnt’ worker’s patrol vehicle anticipating he would stop and exit his vehicle to write a few citations, which is when your editor planned to ask a few questions to get to the bottom of the matter.

     However, this did not happen. Being photographed appeared to spook the gub-mnt’ worker, who, instead of patrolling for victims, hastily skedaddled, and quickly exited the lot, driving away down Avenue M.

     Having documented the necessary information and photos for the story, and being a pleasantly mild and sunny morning before the high desert’s midday summer’s heat set in, your editor decided to make the most of the opportunity while there by distributing the Political Observer to citizens entering and exiting the courthouse.

     EDITOR’S NOTE: The courthouse proved to be a distribution gold mine. Hundreds of copies were distributed within a few hours. For those with a message and who wish to engage in pamphleteering, the Antonovich Courthouse comes highly recommended. 

     Doing so would also provide a chance for your editor to warn citizens that if they were to be cited for not parking within a single space, that the citation is bogus and a form of extortion, because parking stalls there are not striped to code. Disseminating this information did not please law enforcement and this is where the story gets interesting.

Making-Up The Law

     While distributing copies of The Political Observer on the steps outside the courthouse, and engaging in conversation with the fine citizens of the Antelope Valley that day warning them of Lancaster Parking Enforcement’s racketeering, a deputy named Kirkpatrick approached and attempted to inform your editor that distributing The Political Observer at the courthouse is prohibited.

      Your editor kindly informed Kirkpatrick that he was in error, that public property is precisely the place where distributing information is permitted, as opposed to on private property where the property owner’s consent is required.

     After haggling back and forth I suggested to Kirkpatrick that he go inside and talk to a supervisor or someone else who knew the rules, because he obviously did not. Kirkpatrick diligently followed my instructions and walked back into the courthouse. Your editor followed.

     Kirkpatrick went into an office just behind the front desk where he remained for a brief moment before returning to tell your editor what I, and perhaps he, already knew: that I had every Right to be there distributing The Political Observer. Kirkpatrick was either making up the law to suit his needs - corrupt - or was woefully ignorant.

     EDITOR’S NOTE: The following exchange was captured by digital recorder and is on file at The Political Observer.

      Upon exiting the office, Kirkpatrick said, “You can’t pass out papers in the atrium. You can’t pass them outside of the door because you can’t block the door, but you are welcome to pass them out in the parking lot.”

     Kirkpatrick was asked for his LASD business card, to which Kirkpatrick replied he did not have one to give. When asked next for his badge number, Kirkpatrick said, “196131.” Your editor wished Kirkpatrick a good day and returned outside and resumed distributing The Political Observer on the platform between the courthouse steps and the entrance to the atrium while not blocking the door; not in the parking lot as erroneously instructed.

     While distributing, your editor noticed many non-back and white police vehicles parked along the curb in the red zone. Curiosity being the driving force behind investigative journalism, your editor decided to inquire if the practice is legitimate and approached a detective Mark Round, who had just parked in the red zone and was exiting his vehicle.

     As Round made his way to the courthouse entrance, with digital recorder rolling, your editor introduced himself and asked Round why he parked alongside a red curb. Round ignored the friendly entreaty and continued walking. Your editor followed and continued to ask.

    
     After repeating the question, Round answered, “Because that’s a good place to park and we’re allowed to park there.”

     Learning quickly of the local lawman’s proclivity for making up the law to suit their needs, I asked, “Is that by law, or is that the law you’re making up?”

     Round remained silent, prompting your editor to ask for his business card or badge number.

     Round replied, “Have a nice day,” and entered the courthouse. Your editor followed but to no avail. Round remained silent and refused to answer any more questions.

     While in the atrium a security guard behind the desk inquired into your editor’s activity. Your editor informed the security guard as to the nature of the investigation and a chat ensued, which was captured on digital recorder a few moments into the conversation; once your editor determined the security guard was not there to be helpful.

     While covering his name tag on his jacket throughout our dialogue, the security guard said to your editor, “You’re paranoid.”

     “What’s paranoid mean?” asked I, playing dumb. Your editor knows what the “authorities” consider to be paranoia is actually nothing more than a heightened state of awareness into how things really work; that there are two worlds: the world of what is, and the world of what isn’t.

     “I’m asking you if you know what paranoid is,” replied the security guard.

     “I don’t know what paranoid is,” said I.

     “Well, O.K. That’s the problem. You need to find out,” said he.

     “Would you like to tell me?” asked I.

     “No,” said he. “You misread everything. You’re a (inaudible).”

     What’s your name?” asked I.

     “Johnny Cash,” said he.

     “Johnny Cash?” said I.

     “What? You want some cash?” replied the security guard sarcastically. “You’re trying to be confusing me (sic). I’m going to ask you to leave.”

     Your editor asked again for Mr. Cash’s real name, reminding him that he was an official representing the gub-mnt’, thereby, an employee of The People. To which Mr. Cash asked, “What are you?”

     “I’m a journalist,” answered I. “And I’m here on business.”

     “Why don’t you conduct your business then?” inquired Mr. Cash.

     “I am,” said I.

     “What is it?” asked Johnny Cash, still covering his name tag with his right hand.

     “I’m talking to you right now,” said I. “I’m in the business of information. I’m trying to find out your name but you refuse to give it to me.”

     Johnny Cash then asked why your editor possessed a camera, notebook and digital recorder, and Cash was informed that these items are tools of the trade - journalism. Then once again, Johnny Cash was asked for his real name. But Johnny Cash still wouldn’t provide it.

     “Is photography permitted in here?” asked I.

     “No,” answered Johnny Cash.

     “Is there a regulation you can show me that says that?” asked I.

     “You can get permission if you go through the proper channels,” explained Johnny Cash.

     “Who would I speak to about that?” I inquired.

     Johnny Cash then said I needed to enter through the weapons screening area and then go down the hallway to a specific office. Playing dumb, your editor asked which way down the hall. Cash then removed his right hand from his name tag in order to point me in the right direction. Bingo! Name tag exposed!

     I then said to Johnny Cash, “S-C-H-R-A-M-M. Yes?”

     Realizing he’d been had, Schramm, a.k.a. Johnny Cash, then said, “You know how to type. And you keep interrupting.”

     “I’m sorry,” said I. “I’m sorry, Schramm.”

     At this point, realizing he had been outgunned and outsmarted, Schramm picked up a phone and called for help from a deputy. As he did so, a citizen who had been observing your editor’s actions that morning informed your editor that while I had been talking to Schramm, the lawman named Round who your editor had questioned previous about parking alongside a red curb had gone out and moved his police vehicle to a parking spot.

     It was then that a deputy named Mott approached and asked, “What can I do for you?” to which your editor replied, “Nothing.” Mott then attempted to conduct an interrogation by asking why your editor was standing at the security desk. Your editor then explained the desire to learn the rules for photography at the courthouse.

     Mott explained photography in the atrium is prohibited, but, he said, since your editor is a journalist, photography in the courtroom is permitted with a judge’s permission. Mott was asked for something in writing and he complied by providing a copy of the General Order governing photography in the courthouse.

Shooting Fish in a Barrel

     After the engagement with Mott, it was back outside to see what wrong could be discovered next, and it was violations a-plenty by those with badges charged with sticking it to The People for their violations.

     The first badged scofflaw was a deputy named Pearson who, like Round, parked his non-black and white police car in the red zone. When asked why he parked in a red zone, Pearson replied repeatedly with “I have no comment.”

     Next up were Hunt - badge number 2572 - and Mahoney - badge number 3944. These deputies parked their non-black and white police vehicle in an area explicitly marked “RESTRICTED PARKING. Black and White Police Vehicles Only.”

     When questioned about their parking, Mahoney took offense at the thought of being questioned by a mundane and then explained to your editor that the “little red light” by his rear view mirror made his car a police car, and thereby eligible to park in the spot clearly reserved for black and white patrol cars.

     Hunt then nervously asked, “Are you enforcement for the county?” to which your editor replied, “No, I’m a journalist.”

     From there, your editor noticed a black and white patrol car idling without any deputies inside. There was no telling how long the empty car had been there idling. By this point in the afternoon, the temperature was approaching 100 degrees on this summer’s day and your editor assumed deputies had left the engine running to keep their air conditioner on so they would not be burdened with getting into a hot vehicle after they finished their business at the courthouse.

     Stationing myself beside the empty and idling vehicle waiting for the responsible party to return to question them on the practice of wasting taxpayer-financed resources – gasoline - over 30 minutes elapsed before two deputies - Madrid and Speed - approached the vehicle.

     “I want to know why you left your car idling for over a half an hour,” your editor inquired.

     Neither Madrid nor Speed had an answer. Instead, they remained silent and quickly got into their police car and drove off.

Courthouse Employee Parking Lot

     Learning that the courthouse was a distribution gold mine, The Political Observer returned throughout the summer to distribute newspapers to the citizenry. Many a citizen informed The Political Observer that they too had received a citation at the courthouse, and elsewhere in Lancaster, for not parking within a single space, so naturally, the stories were met with great interest by The People.

     The July 2010 issue broke the story at the courthouse. The August issue broke the story of the same thing happening at COSTCO on Avenue L beside Highway 14, in addition to the discovery that courthouse employees parked occupying two spaces without fear of being cited since their parking lot was gated and not accessible to Lancaster Parking Enforcement.

     On September 7, 2010, The Political Observer returned to the courthouse for follow-up to see if courthouse employees were still flaunting their ability to ignore code while The People were being cited for the same infraction.

     As your editor went about his journalistic responsibilities – photographing, fact-gathering, documenting and note-taking, I noticed a man closely noticing me. This same man had previously been observed entering the courthouse employee parking lot in a pick-up truck.

     After parking - occupying two spaces - he was observed standing beside his vehicle closely observing your editor’s actions.

     This man exited the employee parking lot on foot and then positioned himself at the corner of the security gate separating gub-mnt’ employee parking from general public parking and continued to closely monitor as your editor continued to fact-gather.

     Approaching the man for an interview, your editor asked him his name and he replied “Tony Cruz.”

     Profiling the man – short hair parted on the side, mustache, puffy checks indicating possible steroid usage, blue jeans, and a keen awareness and intense interest in my activity – your editor asked Cruz if he was a lawman, and in response Cruz violently shoved your editor and then turned and began to walk away toward the courthouse entrance.

     Following closely on his heels, your editor asked Cruz why the aggression, and if Tony Cruz was in fact his real name. As The Political Observer attempted to maneuver into position to snap a photograph of Cruz’s face for identification before he entered the inside of the courthouse – where, as outlined in the General Order provided by Mott, per Local Rule 4.1(c) and California Rule of Court 1.150, photography is not permitted without prior approval - a fellow courthouse employee noticing the commotion joined-in to assist Cruz.

     His gub-mnt’ cohort shadowed and hollered instructions to Cruz warning from which side The Political Observer was approaching so Cruz may have a better chance of concealing his face from the camera as he made his way to the court entrance. After Cruz successfully made his escape, your editor returned to the far north end of the parking lot where my car was parked.

     EDITOR’S NOTE: The following exchange was captured on an audio digital recorder.

     Very soon thereafter, a man with a badge named Harvey approached The Political Observer and asked if photographs were being taken. Your editor informed Harvey he was speaking with a working journalist conducting an investigation.

     Harvey directed your editor to place the camera on the hood of the car and then asked if I had anything in my pockets. He then told me to turn around and face the car and put my hands behind my back. Harvey then placed your editor in handcuffs. 

     “I’ve looked at your paper before,” said Harvey, which proves he was aware who I am and also a member of the working press. In addition, your editor’s vehicle has Press Photographer license plates, which clearly identifies your editor as a member of the press.

     “So you’re familiar with it (Political Observer),” said I to dipity Harvey.

     “Yeah, yeah,” answered Harvey. “I was wondering why you’re taking pictures.”

     Though taking still photographs in public is not a crime, Harvey said courthouse employees were complaining about being photographed. Asking if it was Tony Cruz who complained, Harvey said it was “more than that.”

     I explained to Harvey that Cruz had assaulted me, but Harvey did not care and refused to take a report. Harvey asked what I was doing at the courthouse and I explained to him – again - I was a member of the press and was working on an investigation.

    “What are you doing? What are you working on?” asked Harvey, yet again, revealing his short-term memory problem.

     I directed his attention to a few copies of The Political Observer that were on the hood of my car and told Harvey, “There’s my story right there and I’ll let it speak for itself.”

     When Harvey cuffed your editor, being the professional sadist thug that he is, Harvey induced severe pain on your editor’s shoulders by violently pushing upward on your editor’s hands while they were clasped behind my back.

     As your editor screamed in pain, Harvey conveniently turned off your editor’s digital recorder, which he had placed on the hood of the car.

     EDITOR’S NOTE: The following chronology of events is from the notes written immediately upon returning back to the office after being released.

     As I stood cuffed beside my car, Harvey took the keys and searched the car and trunk. As he did so, a man with a badge in plain clothes drove by and offered to help Harvey. This dipity, who I attempted to engage in conversation as he stood beside me, said his name was May.

     May said he did not have a first name and did not know his badge number. 

Bullies With Badges

    After a short while, a uniformed man with a badge named Navarro - badge number 5260 – replaced May. Looking into Navarro’s eyes, I knew I was in serious trouble because knowing that the eyes are the window into one’s soul, looking into Navarro’s eyes, your editor saw pure, unadulterated evil.

     As Navarro was holding the handcuffs, he began to twist them and dig them into your editor’s wrists. Navarro was asked to cease inflicting pain since your editor was not resisting. Navarro – also being the sadistic professional liar he is - denied twisting the cuffs into your editor’s wrists.

     Navarro and your editor went back and forth until Navarro finally admitted he was twisting the cuffs into your editor’s wrists but claimed he was doing so to get your editor to stop moving. I told Navarro I was moving because of the pain induced while he twisted the handcuffs.

     Navarro then told your editor, “Shut up and deal with the pain.”

     As Navarro stood holding the cuffs, he began to finger through your editor’s notepad and read the notes. I informed Navarro that I was a member of the working press and the notes he is reviewing contained privileged information. Navarro ignored the admonishment and continued to finger through and read the notes.

     Being a Political Observer, and an astute one at that, your editor understands the machinations of power and decided to play a little game in order to see where, and with whom in Lancaster, the buck stopped.

     To Navarro, your editor then said, “Hey dipity Navarro. Inside my notebook, there may be some privileged information. And this information may be from Lancaster Mayor Rex Parris. And it appears after I leave here today, I may need to contact Parris to inform him that the sensitive information he provided has been compromised by Navarro, badge number 5260. So unless you want to have some explaining to do, I’d suggest you immediately close the notebook and look no further into what is none of your business.”

     As the last word left my lips, Navarro immediately closed the notebook.

     Navarro and Harvey then began to fiddle with my 35mm camera. Unfortunately for them, it was not digital thus preventing them from reviewing and deleting photographs. Navarro and Harvey were not happy I used a 35mm film camera and began to mock and ridicule.

     “What’s wrong?” said Navarro. “Too poor to afford a real camera? A digital camera.”

     EDITOR’S NOTE: Your editor employs a 35mm camera instead of a digital camera for a reason. In the event any person wishes to question the authenticity of a photograph, suggesting it has been photo-shopped, photos taken with a 35mm have a negative to prove the validity of the photo.

     Continuing with his unprofessional demeanor, Navarro asked if the newspaper on the hood of the car was mine and I said, “Yes,” and then asked if he was familiar with it, as was Harvey. Navarro said he doesn’t read at all and only likes looking at picture books.

     EDITOR’S NOTE: Although it was clear Navarro possessed the natural ability to lie, on his claim of an inability to read and understand the written word, and only liking “picture books,” and judging by his inferior I.Q., his statement is believable. Experience gleaned from interacting with other men with badges at the courthouse over several months leads your editor to no other conclusion than intelligence seems not to be a requirement to wear a badge. Instead, all that appears necessary are: a lack of empathy, an ability to follow orders without question, a sadistic willingness and desire to inflict pain on another human being, and the capability to lie with a straight face. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to believe all that is necessary to qualify for the job these days are two box tops, three proofs of purchase, a G.E.D, and 50 cents, all mailed to L.A.S.D. Headquarters with a self-addressed stamped enveloped inside for return mailing to receive the badge.

     Continuing with their harassment, Harvey then said if I wanted a real story, I should go to the Lancaster sheriff’s station, climb atop the wall and look into the employee parking lot and take some pictures. I asked him why, but he wouldn’t answer. It was obvious that Harvey was attempting to set me up for trouble.

     Looking at my vehicle’s registration, Navarro noticed a second name on it and asked, “Who is Kaleen Davis?”

     “None of your business,” I answered.

     Navarro, not liking not having his questioned answered then asked again in a loud, demanding and authoritarian voice,” I SAID, WHO IS KALEEN DAVIS? ANSWER ME!”

     “None of your business,” said I, once again.

     EDITOR’S NOTE: This your editor promises: to pay any price and bear any burden to protect Kaleen Davis from this disgusting human being named Navarro – badge number 5260.

     After a short while, more uniformed men with badges approached the scene including one bubble gum chewing and smacking dipity Frank Huelga, who replaced Navarro holding my cuffs.

     As your editor did with Navarro, I also took a good long look into Huelga’s eyes in attempt to size up this idiot with a badge. What your editor saw was not reassuring.

     Huelga had a vapid and vacuous look. Not too bright, like Navarro, but not evil either. Rather, literally, crazy. The lights were on, but clearly, nobody was home.

     Huelga appeared to be the sort of psychopath that also has no empathy and as a matter of routine was capable of busting my head open the first chance he got, write a false report claiming I assaulted him, then go home and sleep like a baby as a matter of routine; all in a day’s work.

     Not wanting to endure more pain at the hands of L.A. County’s “finest,” I informed Huelga that Navarro had been twisting my cuffs and inducing pain, and said I’d appreciate it if he would refrain from doing the same.

     Huelga then threatened, “I will take you down and show you pain!”

     I informed Huelga he is speaking to a member of the press and everything he said is on the record and I intended to report on every word he said. Looking at my audio recorder on the hood of the car, Huelga said, “You’re not taping anymore. You can say I said whatever you want to say I said. If I say I didn’t say it, then I didn’t say it.”

     Huelga then asked if the newspapers on the car hood were mine. I said they were. With my camera sitting atop the newspapers, Huelga reached over and violently pulled a copy out from underneath my camera, causing the camera to crash down against the hood. I explained it was an expensive camera and would appreciate it if he wouldn’t damage it.

     “I never touched your camera,” said Huelga, technically not lying. Huelga merely pulled the newspapers from below it.

     Soon, a black and white patrol car arrived driven by one Deputy Grajales, who placed me in the back seat. As your editor did with other men with badges that day, I took a long hard look into the eyes of Deputy Grajales, but this time saw decency.

     EDITOR’S NOTE: My apologies to Deputy Grajales. The following chronology of my conversation with him will expose him as a decent human being; the type of professional police officer all civilized citizens wished was the norm. The facts that follow are sure to not win him friends in the department and may – God forbid – subject him to ridicule, taunting, and not being trusted. Your editor prays for Deputy Grajales’ safety, and perhaps this story will make Deputy Grajales reconsider his choice of employment and encourage him to find a profession better suited to his intellect, common decency and integrity.

    While seated in the back of the patrol car with Grajales in the front seat, your editor struck up a conversation. I informed Deputy Grajales that what was happening to me that day was wrong; that the other dipities had no right to detain me and search my vehicle.

     Deputy Grajales advised your editor to remain cool because I’d be released shortly and had nothing to worry about. I asked why all the commotion and Deputy Grajales informed your editor that Harvey is attempting get your editor charged with wiretapping if he could prove that any of the recordings on my digital recorder were made surreptitiously – without the knowledge of those being recorded knowing they were being recorded.

     I informed Deputy Grajales that at all times when recording, my digital recorder was in plain view, never once hidden, and I also identified myself by name and publication and as a member of the working press before asking any questions. Grajales repeated his statement that I had nothing to worry about and to stay cool and calm because I would be released soon.

     Looking out through the back window, I noticed Huelga holding the recorder to his ear reviewing the audio. After each recording Huelga would look at the recorder to press a button to play the next clip, and then return the speaker near to his ear.  

     
     After having their fun, Deputy Grajales was instructed to remove me from the back seat and release me. While doing so, the other dipities, except Harvey, quickly left the scene.

     Once out of the car, I informed Harvey that Tony Cruz had assaulted me, Navarro had twisted the cuffs to digging them into my wrists, and Huelga had threatened me and I wanted to file complaints against each.

     Harvey responded by saying Cruz never assaulted me, Navarro never twisted the cuffs into my wrists and Huelga never threatened me, and then he turned and walked back to the courthouse, leaving just myself and Deputy Grajales.

     Once un-cuffed, Deputy Grajales and I engaged in pleasant conversation. Deputy Grajales said I was not permitted to distribute at the courthouse to which I disabused him of his false notion by explaining, as I had to Kirkpatrick, that public property is precisely the place where distribution is permitted.

     I then asked Deputy Grajales if he remembered the oath he took upon becoming a deputy sheriff, which puzzled him.

     Answering my question in the form of a question, Deputy Grajales said, “To uphold the law?”

    “No,” said I. “You did not take an oath to uphold the law. Try and remember. It’s important.”

     “To enforce the law?” Deputy Grajales asked.

     “No, deputy,” said I. “You took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights.”

     Moving on in our conversation, I explained to Deputy Grajales about the assault against me by Tony Cruz, the actions of Navarro, and the threat of violence by Huelga, and said I wanted to file a complaint.

     Deputy Grajales pleaded with your editor not to do so, saying, “Be smart. Let it go. Please. For your own good.”

     I asked Deputy Grajales why he thought I should not pursue some Justice, and Deputy Grajales repeated his advice to “Be smart and let it go. And please go home,” adding, “I’ve been instructed to stay here and watch you until you leave.”

     Realizing I had lucked out and finally had a decent human being with a badge to deal with, I continued by saying I choose not to go home but instead go right back to gathering information for my investigation and then go to the courthouse steps and resume distributing The Political Observer.

      To this, Deputy Grajales pleaded with your editor not to do so because it would not be a wise choice. Inquiring, I asked why it would not be a good idea, to which Deputy Grajales repeated his plea for me to be wise and forget about everything that happened that day and just go home, for my own good.

     I then informed Deputy Grajales about Harvey’s suggestion that I go to the Lancaster Sheriff’s station and hop atop the wall and take photographs of the employee parking lot, and then asked why he thought Harvey would suggest I do such a thing and what he, Deputy Grajales, thought would happen to me if I did so.

     Grajales did not have an answer, but instead requested again that I go about my business and forget what happened that day, again, for my own good.

     Appreciative of Deputy Grajales’ demeanor and professional conduct, your editor figured it best to not cause any trouble for him and honor his request to leave the courthouse. Before doing so, I thanked Deputy Grajales for his decency and reminded him of his oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and suggested he get a copy of it, along with the Bill of Rights, and become familiar with them.

    Before parting ways, Deputy Grajales thanked your editor for cooperating and said he had learned a lot from our conversation; specifically that pamphleteering at the courthouse is permissible, and that he swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I Shall Return!

     Approximately one month later, your editor returned to the courthouse to speak with a dipity Melville, the person who your editor had been informed was the supervisor over courthouse dipities. It was late in the afternoon and the courthouse parking lot and atrium were deserted.

     Arriving at the security guard desk, luckily, Schramm was not present. Instead, there was a security guard who had never seen your editor before. Prior to asking to speak with Melville, your editor figured it best to inquire about Tony Cruz, the courthouse employee that had committed the assault.

     With a friendly smile and demeanor, pretending to be an acquaintance of Cruz, your editor asked the security guard if Tony was working today.

     “Tony who?” asked the security guard.

     “My bad,” said I. “Tony Cruz. He works in…uh…darn, I forget which department Tony works in.”

     “Oh, Tony Cruz,” said the security guard. “Tony works as a clerk at the window where people pay their fines. Would you like for me to see if I can reach him by phone and ask him to come up front here?”

     Having obtained all the info I needed on Tony Cruz, I said to the security guard, “No. You’ve been very helpful. How about Melville. Is he here now?”

     “Deputy Melville?” asked the security guard.

     “Sure, that’s the guy. I’d like to see Melville. How about you calling him up front for me,” said I.

     “You mean DEPUTY Melville,” said the security guard, with emphasis on the word “Deputy.”

     “Whatever,” said I. “You can call him deputy. I’ll call him just plain ol’ Melville. I want to see Melville. Get me Melville.”

    With this, a cross look came upon the security guard’s face, revealing the fact he finally realized something was up, out of the norm.

     When dipity Melville – badge number 1210 – arrived, as is always the case when dealing with the police, your editor took a good, long, deep look into his eyes. It was determined that Melville is cut from the same cloth as the other psychopaths working the courthouse circuit. Melville has the same evil eyes as Navarro.

     Your editor knew a conversation with this sadist would go nowhere, but had to be done.

      “Hello,” said I to Melville. “My name is Thomas Fitzgerald, I’m a reporter with The Political Observer and I was involved in an incident with a few of your dipities last month where I was detained and…”

     Interrupting, Melville said, “You’re that guy with camera taking pictures in the parking lot.”

     “No,” said I, correcting Melville. “I’m the working journalist who…”

     Interrupting again, Melville said a bit louder, “You’re that guy with camera.”

     “No,” said I. “I’m a working journalist with the Political….”

     Interrupting yet again, this time talking louder, Melville said, “You’re that guy with the camera.”

     “No,” said I yet again. “I’m the working journalist…”

     Interrupting yet again, this time hollering, Melville said, “YOU’RE THAT GUY WITH THE CAMERA!”

     EDIOTR’S NOTE: Perhaps now with the publishing of this story in 6,000 copies of The Political Observer, distributed in Santa Clarita, Canyon Country, Saugus, Acton, Lake L.A., Littlerock, Palmdale, Lancaster, and Quartz Hill, Melville will realize that he has erred in characterizing your editor, and will learn the hard way that Thomas Fitzgerald isn’t just “that guy with a camera,” but rather, an actual journalist and member of the working press. In addition to the aforementioned communities, copies of this issue will be distributed at the courthouse and in addition, sent to L.A.S.D. Headquarters in Monterey Park for Melville’s bosses to read. And for good measure, also to the local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Justice in Washington D.C. too.

     Realizing this was going nowhere fast, your editor decided to get to the point and attempted to begin explaining how Navarro had twisted the cuffs into my wrists while I was detained and told me to deal with pain, but as soon as I said Navarro, Melville interrupted once again and said, “DEPUTY!” insisting I refer to Navarro as “Deputy Navarro.”

     Ignoring his non-lawful command, your editor once again attempted to explain and yet again, when your editor mentioned Navarro’s name absent the prefix “Deputy,” Melville interrupted and said, “DEPUTY! DEPUTY NAVARRO!”

     Your editor toyed with Melville a bit by refusing to refer to Navarro as “Deputy.” Back and forth we went, until your editor said, “Anyway, while detained, he kept twisting the cuffs into my wrists for no good reason.”

     This prompted Melville to say Navarro did no such thing, prompting your editor to ask how Melville knew Navarro did no such thing since he wasn’t there. Melville then informed your editor that Navarro could not have possibly done such a thing because if he had, he would have been required to fill out a report stating he did so.

     Moving on to Huelga and Harvey brought the same reaction from Melville who would interrupt with “DEPUTY! DEPUTY HARVEY. DEPUTY! DEPUTY HULEGA” along with the statement that if anything your editor said was true, it would be backed up by a report filed by Harvey and Huelga admitting they had done as I accused them.

     Then the mind-blower came. Melville then asked your editor, “What do you think we are here? Gangsters?”

     Of course I knew the answer was a resounding and emphatic, “Yes,” because I know that there are two types of gangsters in this world: smart ones and stupid ones, and the difference between the two is that the stupid gangsters spend time in jail and the smart ones get paid to guard the jail.

     But your editor did not attempt to explain this to Melville. Instead, I ignored the foolish question and continued on with the story.

     Throughout the conversation, Melville repeatedly looked at his watch, and after doing so each time would say, louder and louder, “I don’t have time for this. I don’t have time for you and your games.” Over and over and over again.

     Melville also repeatedly said, in a loud voice that echoed off the atrium walls, “You’re a joke! You’re rude! I don’t take you seriously! Nobody takes you seriously!”

     Realizing Melville was the joke, not I, and having wasted enough time with this gangster clown, it was time to leave, which your editor did. It was clear Melville represented more of the same nonsense as displayed by dipities Navarro, Harvey, Huelga, and courthouse employee Tony Cruz.

Hollow Words Falling on Deaf Ears

     When Lancaster Sheriff’s Station Commander Captain Axel Anderson retired earlier in the year, the AV’s only local daily newspaper, The Valley Press, ran a feature on Mr. Anderson in their Monday, March 14, 2011, edition.

     The article reads, “Some of the most important lessons Anderson has learned throughout his career that he hopes other deputies will adopt as their own are the ability to have an unrelenting sense to do right, to do your best work and work hard, do what’s expected of you and treat people the way you like to be treated."

      The 33-year veteran lawman Anderson is then quoted as saying, “The way we treat each other in the department and the way we treat people who we are in contact with in the community, this gives us the credibility that we need to do our jobs.”

     This begs the questions: Why would the commander of a station, “hope” deputies treat citizens the way they wished to be treated?

     Doesn’t the commander have the power to ensure deputies treat citizens with respect?

     Does this statement reveal that even the captain realizes too many deputies fail to treat citizens with respect?

     What does this say about the nature, mindset and demeanor of the rank and file dipities?

                 editor@tavpo.com

Published in the November 2011
Political Observer print edition

Broadcast of
Non-Agendized
Public Comment
Remains Under
Government-Imposed
Blackout

~
New Media,
YouTube Fill Void

~
Mayor Censors
City Council Meetings
~
Part II
~

LANCASTER – Citizens wanting to watch a city council meeting in its entirety must now make the trek to City Hall every second and fourth Tuesday of the month to do so because the Revolution in Lancaster is no longer being televised.

   This has been the case since the October 11 meeting when Lancaster Mayor Rex Parris imposed a blackout - censorship - of the Non-Agendized Public Comment portion of city council meetings. In the mayor’s quest to control content - behaving more like a newspaper editor rather than a mayor - it appears Parris may have failed to properly survey the terrain upon which he chose to fight.

    Halting broadcast of the council chamber feed is not synonymous with successfully halting the dissemination of events occurring at Non-Agendized Public Comment (NAPC). To thwart Parris’ attempt to keep a lid on things one Lancaster resident and Parris critic, Scott Pelka, has established the YouTube channel “TheLancasterCouncil” and has been recording and uploading censored segments of city council meetings.

   For how much longer Parris plans on maintaining his blackout on the government feed, the mayor isn’t saying; at least he isn’t willing to discuss it with The Political Observer. Parris balked at our several interview requests, choosing instead to explain himself to local press he deems more friendly.

   According to an e-mail from Lancaster Communications Manager Joe Cabral, the decision to censor NAPC was made by the entire council, not the mayor. “The City Council has decided not to televise the non-agendized portion of the City Council meetings. As a result, the city will not be televising the non-agendized portion of these meetings until otherwise instructed by the City Council,” wrote Cabral.

   When asked when and how the council came to this decision - by vote at a council meeting or by agreement made behind closed doors amongst themselves perhaps - Cabral referred The Political Observer to the October 11, 2011, meeting where Parris’ made the announcement to censor NAPC.

   At the October 11 meeting, near the beginning of the meeting, after reading the speaker’s card rules, Parris said, “The non-agendized items will not be televised in light of the racial slur that occurred at the last meeting. I don’t see any reason in the world why we should be giving people free television time to behave in that fashion.”

Enter David Grajeda

   At the April 26, 2011, city council meeting the third public speaker under NAPC was newcomer David Grajeda who expressed his solidarity with the council’s opposition to Palmdale’s proposed hybrid power plant, planned to be built just south of Avenue M – the demarcation line between Lancaster and Palmdale. The power plant had been discussed earlier in the meeting as an agendized item.

   Grajeda explained that his motivation for coming to the meeting and speaking under NAPC was to address the aggressive nature of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) deputies toward “regular people.” Grajeda told the council he has been detained and placed in the back of a sheriff’s car three times over the previous four months, adding, “They wear a badge and they feel like they can just pull people out of the car for a broken tail light and throw them in the back of a squad car,” said Grajeda. 

   Grajeda told Parris that as mayor he is the appropriate person to hear a citizen’s concern with law enforcement and explained that his going to the sheriff’s department to try and end the harassment has thus far yielded no results.

Those Who Would
Sacrifice A Little Liberty…

    When Grajeda’s time expired Parris thanked him for his comments and said, “You’re right, I am the mayor, and they’re [deputies] being as aggressive as I want them to be. In fact I’d like them to be more aggressive.”

   Revealing prior knowledge of Grajeda, yet mispronouncing his name when called to the dais, the mayor began chastising him. Parris explained to Grajeda that he is familiar with his many chronicled encounters with local deputies, having viewed them personally on the on-line at Grajeda’s YouTube channel – americaspolitics - and then added, “You are taking their time that they do not have. We are short-staffed. We have significant crime problems in this valley. And yes, sometimes they question people who are innocent and did nothing wrong, but that is the price we all pay.”

   Grajeda, who had not returned to his seat but stood a few feet away from the speakers’ podium as Parris delivered his rebuttal, stepped back to the microphone and told Parris in response, “It’s not a price we should pay.”

   “It is a price we will pay in Lancaster as long as I am mayor,” replied Parris, who went on to explain his philosophy that Americans need to learn to sacrifice some Rights along with a little Liberty at the hands of government in exchange for the promise of government-provided safety.

   Parris said, “We are going to have a safe City where people can walk their neighborhoods at night without fear and all of us are going to have to sacrifice a little to make that happen. And as long as I am mayor we will support the sheriff’s department in that level of aggression.”

   After calling for a short recess – the extensive discussion of Palmdale’s proposed power plant had the meeting at over two hours at this point – upon the council’s return and resumption of NAPC, the first speaker called by Parris was his antagonist David Abber.

   Abber, shown from his right and rear by a wide angle shot throughout his comments, took issue with what he perceived to be the current council and mayor’s failure to appropriately oppose the power plant as the project navigated the permit process.

   Abber noted, in his opinion, the only person deserving to be excluded from his criticism was Councilman Marvin Crist, who, according to Abber, has been the only council member putting up the good fight against the proposed power plant. Abber ally Lyle Talbot was called next but declined to speak prompting the mayor to call that evening’s final NAPC speaker David Paul.

   Paul was broadcast from his right and front as he spoke on a wide variety of issues ranging from the weekly television series “60 Minutes” to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and President Obama’s birth certificate. Paul closed by suggesting the path to a better future is by people loving one another and working together to find solutions to society’s problems. 

Smith Rules

   Parris did not attend the May 10, 2011, city council meeting, chaired by Vice-Mayor Ron Smith. The second speaker called by Smith under NAPC was David Grajeda.

   A request by Grajeda to speak later in NAPC was denied by the vice-mayor who explained that when he runs the meeting in the mayor’s absence his policy is to call speakers forward in the order their cards appear in front of him – as handed to him by the city clerk.

   Grajeda, not yet relegated to the Abber/Talbot camera angle, was broadcast from his right and front as he addressed the Antelope Valley’s poor economic climate and scarcity of jobs before moving on to speak against overly aggressive tactics by city code enforcement and law enforcement both. Grajeda suggested the City’s motivation for issuing citations and collecting fines is local government’s insatiable lust for revenue.

   Grajeda was followed by David Paul who quoted iconic American writer Mark Twain’s apt characterization of members of congress as idiots. Paul then expressed his faith in local government, which he said filled him with hope and has “great integrity and interest in making things right,” as opposed to the follies of the county, State and federal governments.

   Following Paul was NAPC regular Michael Rives. The politically ambitious Rives was broadcast from his right and front as he spoke in opposition to the salary and benefit package awarded to the new director of the Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA), an agency with two Lancaster city council members serving on the board of directors.

   After Rives the vice-mayor called Abber who began his comments with praise for city staff who had recently assisted him in resolving an un-named concern. Abber, broadcast from his customary right and rear camera angle next took issue with what he perceived as the council’s lack of interest in the assistance offered by his friend Talbot to fight Palmdale’s proposed power plant.

   Abber criticized Lancaster’s council meeting prayer policy along with Mayor Parris’ inconsistency in enforcing the speaker card rule – specifically, Parris’ proclivity to allow some people to address the council under NAPC even though they failed to submit a speaker’s card in time while arbitrarily denying other speakers the same courtesy.

   Lyle Talbot was called after Abber and broadcast from his right and rear as he read a poem he authored honoring first responders who lost their lives in New York City on September 11, 2001. After Talbot, the final three speakers were broadcast from their right and front

   At the May 24 meeting one speaker was called by Parris prior to the mayor calling Grajeda, who wrote his name as “David G” on his speaker card. Grajeda, broadcast from his right and front as was the previous speaker, spoke about an incident between the sheriff’s department and local residents.

   According to Grajeda, after receiving a noise complaint, deputies arrived at a home where those inside elected to not answer the door after deputies knocked. According to Grejada, whose version of events on this specific accusation is supported by video of the incident taken by a person inside the home, and posted at Grajeda’s YouTube channel “americaspolitics,” deputies entered the back yard - private property - uninvited, attempting to interface with persons inside the home.

   “The sheriff’s had no Right whatsoever to be inside the property, let alone harassing them,” Grajeda told the council.

   Acknowledging the Lancaster sheriff station’s high number of arrests but questioning whether deputies were arresting “the wrong people,” Grajeda closed by saying, “I have no qualms about you being tough on crime…when you have a criminal violating the law, serve him his Justice. But when you’re too aggressive with us and when you’re too aggressive with normal people, just off of a noise complaint of all things, having twelve squad cars at the house that is just uncalled for.”

   When Grajeda’s time expired Parris offered no rebuttal, thanked him for his comments and called for the next speaker.

   The evening’s final speaker as called by Parris was David Paul who began speaking on goodness, knowledge, and change, before sharing with the council some news out of San Jose about that City’s new approach to address citizen complaints against police, a concept Paul said he recently recommended to Lancaster’s Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) for consideration. Paul also informed the council that San Jose recently reported collecting $290,000 in one month - nearly $4 million on an annual basis - from tax levied on medical marijuana.

Smith Rules II

   The June 14, 2011, city council meeting was chaired by Vice-Mayor Smith in the mayor’s absence – the second missed meeting over the previous three for Parris. Prior to calling for speakers under NAPC, Smith clarified the rules, specifically, the topical parameters from within which each speaker may not stray.

   As stated on the agenda, NAPC is limited to comments “on any item not on the agenda regarding City/Agency business,” prompting Smith to declare, “This is the time for you to give your comments on anything that has to do with the City,” said Smith. “It’s not about the vacation you went on last week or what you did in school and high school. Try to keep it germane to what we do as a governing body to make decisions.”

   The first two speakers called by Smith were David Paul and Michael Rives, both broadcast from their right and front. After a third speaker, Grajeda was then called. Using his clothing to make a political statement, Grajeda wore a white T-shirt emblazoned with the message “R Ex mayor” across the front.

   Grajeda then criticized what he believed to be the council’s pattern of downplaying citizen input, and the lack of council discussion on items before voting on them.

   With one minute remaining in his time the camera angle switched to Grajeda’s rear as he speaks against the numerous parking citations issued by Parking Enforcement, suggesting the increased number of parking citations is an underhanded revenue grab by the City.

   Following Grajeda, the final three speakers were all broadcast from their right, front.

Smith Rules III

   At the June 28, 2011, city council meeting, NAPC was held last, after closed session, at the direction of Parris. Upon return from closed session - three hours into the meeting and now past 10p.m. - Parris was absent, leaving the vice mayor to chair NAPC. Smith, as he did the previous NAPC he chaired, reminded speakers their comments under NAPC must be limited to City business.

   Following the first speaker was semi-regular commenter and frequent Parris critic Roxi Patterson who was broadcast from her right and front as she took issue with Lancaster’s plan to construct a Roundabout at Lancaster Blvd and 10th Street West, dubbing the project the “Parris Wheel.”

   The next several speakers - including David Paul - were no longer present, leading to Smith calling for David Abber. Abber, broadcast by a wide angle from his right rear, called for Mayor Parris’ resignation.

    When Smith called Talbot he spoke on the alleged physical altercation between Parris and Abber the previous year at a local fitness center, and claimed the Valley Press, the AV’s only local daily print publication, refused to publish his letters to the editor on the incident. Talbot was broadcast from his right and rear throughout his speech unlike the next speaker, that evening’s last, Victoria Zavala, who was broadcast from her right, front.

Leave Your Seat, Lose Your Turn

   The first person called by Parris under NAPC at the council’s July 12 meeting was David Abber who had stepped outside thus forfeiting his turn at the lectern by not being present. The next five speakers were all shown from their right and front.

   The sixth speaker called by Parris was Talbot, broadcast from his right and rear by a wide angle throughout his three minutes as he spoke about the environment and Lancaster Blvd. Talbot opined that Vice Mayor Ron Smith is getting too much credit for the project.

   Parris offered no rebuttal, thanked Talbot, and then called the next speaker, Michael Rives, who addressed the proposed traffic circle along Lancaster Blvd while being broadcast from his right and front.

Bad Moon Rising

   Following Rives was Grajeda, called as “David G.” Grajeda did not wear his anti-Parris T-shirt, but at this council meeting, for the first time, and for each meeting hereafter, Grajeda joined Abber and Talbot as the only three speakers not to be afforded a camera angle showing their face.

   After addressing the proposed Roundabout, Grajeda took issue with the salary of some City employees, claiming some “have lost touch with the community” and are “out for their own personal gain,” in his opinion. Grajeda then turned his attention toward the staff table to his right and said to City Manager Mark Bozigian, “You have a $244,000 a year salary, base minimum. Correct? And it can range.”

   Interrupting, Parris directed Grajeda, “Please direct your comments to the council and not to staff. Thank you.”

   Ignoring Parris’ request, Grajeda continued, returning his attention toward the staff table, this time directing his comment to Deputy City Manager Jason Caudle, saying, “You have a $10,447 a month base minimum, and it can all the way up to $17,000 a month.”

   Grajeda focused the remainder of his time targeting City spending, identifying and questioning expenditures he uncovered through a review of the official “Check and Wire Register” – a public document available to all - as approved by the council as a consent calendar item.

   “Bicycle helmets for $2,900. Nineteen of them. I want to see what a $150 helmet looks like,” asked Grajeda. Taking aim at the Valley Press, Grajeda said, “The AV Press, from the beginning of the month to now we’ve spent in ads $53,000. No wonder the AV Press isn’t really that critical of this council.”

   With this last comment Grajeda’s time expired and Parris called the evening’s final speaker, David Paul. After extending his customary greeting and salutation to the council, Paul, alluding to the tenor of NAPC said, “What a joy it is to see democracy in action,” prompting Parris to sarcastically rebut, “Is that what that is?”

   Broadcast from the right and front, Paul shared his belief in the “duality of man,” and then attributed a quote to Winston Churchill, who Paul said once said, “The strongest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average person.”

   Whether by clairvoyance or by having the wisdom to recognize from which direction the political wind is blowing, Paul prophetically warned the council about bad times ahead.

   “There’s trouble coming,” cautioned Paul. “I can feel the tension that exists and now we need to love each other more than ever to help mitigate some of this harm that’s coming down the pike.”

   At the July 26, 2011, meeting, the first speaker Parris called under NAPC was Grajeda who had left his seat and did not hear his name called, forfeiting his opportunity to speak.

   Next called was frequent Parris critic Darlene Peterson who was broadcast from her right and front as she criticized the landscaping on the redesigned Lancaster Blvd, specifically, the lack of colorful plants and flowers. The following ten speakers, to include David Paul, were all broadcast from their right and front.

New Rule

   The first speaker called by Parris under NAPC at the August 9, 2011, meeting was Darlene Peterson, who, after being greeted by Parris with, “Good evening, Darlene,” replied with, “Good evening. For you, maybe, we’ll see,” prompting chuckling from some in the audience.

   While broadcast from the right and front, Peterson, took issue with Parris’ latest edict that a speaker’s three-minute time limit begins when their name is called, not when they reach the dais and begin speaking.

   Peterson, the feisty orator, told Parris every individual is entitled to three minutes of speaking time, “not three minutes of walking and speaking.”

   Reading from prepared notes Peterson characterized Parris’ diktat to start the clock when the speaker’s name is called as an “attempt to discourage some citizens from taking part in a public meeting,” a tactic Peterson described as “an insult to the democratic process.”

   Peterson then said to Parris, in her take-no-prisoners speaking style, “Of course we may annoy you but keep in mind a lot of times you annoy us, We, The People, that you’re elected to represent.”  

   Continuing, Peterson told the mayor that the few extra seconds of time saved by the new policy is not more valuable than a citizen’s Right to ask questions or express themselves, adding, she does not agree with what every speaker has to say, but believes they have the Right to say what they please.

   Targeting the vice-mayor and what she perceived as less than fair treatment of David Grajeda, whom Smith, as chair, kicked-out of a recent meeting, Peterson said, “I condemn, especially you, Mr. Vice-Mayor, for the shabby treatment given to that young man named David. It was uncalled for. He is trying to understand and begin to learn the political process and it behooves this council to help him. Not hinder him.” 

   The vice-mayor, known for his, at times, haughty and supercilious demeanor, was served a piece of humble pie by Peterson, the spirited senior citizen, when she closed by saying, “With some assistance from you, he may well someday be as perfect as you are. Show some understanding.”

   
   Following Peterson was the subdued and cerebral David Paul who warned the discontent between dissenting citizens and the council has devolved from dialogue into fighting.

   Not yet included as part of our coverage into Parris’ censoring broadcast of city council NAPC, but salient to the political animosity occurring at council meetings as touched on by Paul, is the practice of some, Parris antagonist Grajeda in particular, of exercising their Right to submit a speaker’s card on most all agenda items, forcing Parris to call on and give them their three minutes to speak on each and every individual agenda item they wish to address.

   As a countermeasure to his antagonists’ tactic, Parris imposed another edict, this one on consent calendar items. Previous, a speaker’s card was permitted to be submitted for each individual item on the consent calendar. Current policy is that an individual speaker may submit one speaker’s card on the entire consent calendar and is then given one opportunity to address the entire consent calendar for three minutes.

Special Treatment

   Talbot, instead of being broadcast from his rear, was, this evening, other than his voice, not broadcast at all. Instead, as Talbot spoke, the camera angle used to broadcast the meeting showed only the council and the staff seated to their right, not Talbot.

   Talbot spoke on his participation at one of Lancaster’s “National Night Out” events. To show his support for a crime free society Talbot said he brought along a sign that read, “Is It Safe For Dave Abber To Go Back To The 24Hour Gym?”

   Talbot alleged he had been, “accosted,” “abused,” “harassed” and “threatened with jail” by the City’s public safety officer in retaliation for his exercising his Right to Free Speech, all witnessed, according to Talbot, by City staff.

   Next to be called by Parris was David Abber who was given the same camera treatment as Talbot; none at all. Abber spoke about Parris’ desire for a safe City and a dropping crime rate, and then suggested the mayor apologize for the alleged fitness center incident the previous September.

   “You talk about making us a safe City. You’re the biggest bully and the most dangerous person this City has,” said Abber.

   As Abber spoke, Parris can be seen busying himself, looking down at and shuffling papers and then engaging in conversation with Councilman Marvin Crist. As Abber continues, Parris is seen fiddling with his personal electronic communication device.

Broadcast Exile

   On the notion that there is a conspiracy afoot regarding the selection of the camera angle used to broadcast Talbot and Abber – only from the backside and then evolving into not being shown at all - The Political Observer spoke with Wendy Williams, owner of Visual Image Productions, the company contracted with Lancaster to direct the broadcast and webcast of public meetings.

   Williams said Visual Image Products no longer directs the broadcasting of public meetings, this since August, when her company relinquished the responsibility to City staff who began training under her tutelage in April of this year. 

   Regarding the choice of camera angles reserved for certain speakers – Talbot and Abber – Williams said she was unaware a pattern existed, suggesting the allegation is merely a “perception thing.”

   Williams said there were no demands or restrictions placed on her and she received no instructions on which camera angle to select for the live feed when she managed the broadcasting of public meetings, adding, “I did not get direction from anyone.”

   Williams stressed the control room was a training environment from April until her departure in August and believes any camera angle pattern for particular speakers may well be attributable to either a stuck camera, or an inexperienced trainee in control of the feed choosing a less than preferable camera angle.

   Lancaster Communications Manager Joe Cabral did not return our phone call seeking comment on City staff managing the broadcast of public meetings since Williams’ departure in August.

   At the August 23, 2011, meeting, the first four speakers, all non-regulars, were broadcast from their right and front, until that evening’s fifth NAPC speaker, David Grajeda, who joined Talbot and Abber as being the only public speakers not shown by the camera - not broadcast at all, other than by voice.

   Once Grajeda is at the speaker’s dais the camera angle switched, showing only the council and staff seated to the council’s right. Grajeda accused the mayor of conspiring with the captain of the local sheriff’s department to blackmail him into no longer speaking at council meetings, claiming to have audio and video evidence to support the allegation. See Grajeda’s YouTube channel, “americaspolitics.”

   “I have a First Amendment in this country and it’s being violated,” said Grajeda. “I had a blackmail deal from the captain of the sheriff’s department saying if I don’t come to these meetings and speak anymore, they weren’t going to press charges against me on two cases that are pending.”

   Earlier in the month, at a black tie, red carpet affair celebrating the opening of Laemmle BLVD Cinema on Lancaster Blvd, Grejada was arrested, jailed and charged with disturbing the peace.

   Grajeda told the council he had a court date on the matter the day before but did not need to attend because charges were dropped as part of his accepting the deal.

   Grajeda challenged the mayor to prove him right by having the charges reinstated in retaliation for his back-dooring the sheriff’s department by appearing at council and speaking under NAPC that evening despite agreeing not to do so.

   Throughout Grajeda’s three minutes, Parris is shown paying no attention to him, rather, is seen flipping through speaker’s cards until Grajeda’s time expires.

   As the next speaker, Talbot, made his way to the podium, the camera switched from the council to Talbot…until he began speaking. The camera then reverts back to the council as Talbot read a poem he penned honoring the sacrifices made by Allied troops on June 6, 1944 – D-Day.

   After Talbot, Abber was called, and like Talbot and Grajeda before him, Abber too was shown on camera approaching the speaker’s dais, until he begins speaking, which is when the broadcast switched off Abber and onto the council. Abber delivered a litany of complaints against the mayor and council.

Getting Hot In The Kitchen

   At the council’s September 13 meeting the first NAPC speaker was Roxie Patterson, who, on this occasion, came with praise for the City for placing pianos on the Blvd, and for the Celebrate America and September 11 remembrance events held over the previous weekend.

   The next speaker, like Patterson, was broadcast from his right and front, as was the following speaker, David Paul, who also spoke on the previous weekend’s events.

   One of the following speakers did not turn in his speaker card in time yet was permitted to address the council by Parris after the mayor explained an exception will be made for the man this one time because it was his first time attending a meeting and was presumed to not be familiar with the rules.

   Called next was David Grajeda. When Grajeda reached the podium the camera switched to showing only the council and staff. For the second time, Grajeda wore his “R Ex mayor” T-shirt.

   This is discernable only because Grajeda positioned himself in the audience to the left of the speaker’s podium, a few rows back, forcing the camera to capture him when broadcasting any speaker from the speaker’s right and front.

   Grajeda attacked Parris on a host of issues, first on the mayor’s resigning from the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) to avoid a conflict of interest and then nominating an employee at his law firm to replace him on the RDA.

   The employee, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, also serves as the City’s deputy mayor, a ceremonial, non-voting position agreed to be created by the council at the behest of Parris.

   On Szeto’s appointment to the RDA, Grajeda said, “There’s got to be a conflict of interest somewhere in between there.” Grajeda questioned if Szeto were to vote in opposition to Parris’ wishes, “will she get fired?”

   Interjecting, Parris replied, “I can assure you she tells me no frequently.”

   Revisiting the Laemmle’s BLVD Cinema incident, Grejada told Parris, “Congratulations to myself since I got a D.A.’s [District Attorney’s] reject on the incident that happened at the Blvd. I know I didn’t do anything, but the mayor knows he did something.”

Calumny

   Getting personal, Grajeda invoked Parris’ self-admitted, past struggles with addiction, and said, of himself first, acknowledging his own transgressions against the law, “It sucks being a convicted felon, since you like making light of that, but you know what? You were also a drug addict…I feel maybe you relapsed. If you need to go to rehab, maybe the City should cough up that dime since we’re spending money on all sorts of goodies that you like.”   

   Grejada’s reference to Parris’ referencing Grajeda having a felony conviction in his past stems from discussion and back and forth between the mayor and a few speakers – Grajeda included – earlier in the evening when the council entertained an agenda item accepting the resignation of Councilwoman Sherry Marquez and discussed appointing her replacement.

   Readers may access this meeting as archived at the City of Lancaster’s website at www.cityoflancasterca.org.

   When Grajeda’s time expired Parris engaged him. As Parris began to speak, he got but a few words out before stopping and ordering Grajeda to “Sit down!”

   This because Grajeda, as is his habit, did not return to his seat as his comments were being rebutted, but rather stood a few feet from the podium until his political opponent had completed their polemic.

   In response, Grajeda is heard telling Parris from off-camera, “I want to get front row for this,” prompting Parris to reply, “Good!”

   Having had his fill of Grejada, Parris said, “We all find this guy amusing but he is a convicted felon. And the fact of the matter is he does stalk members of the staff and members of the city council. He likes to get up real close to them and glare at them.”

   Parris then referenced a recent scare at City Hall when two suitcases left unattended led to the evacuation of the building, adding, on Grajeda, “These people are dangerous. They’re dangerous to me; they’re dangerous to our democracy. There are places I do not go because of the people like this. They are nuts. They are convicted felons.”

   The mayor next mentioned Grajeda’s preference for often seating himself a row or two behind Parris’ mother, adding, “It’s not just me he threatens, it’s my own mother that he threatens.” Parris said he found it “abhorrent” that he felt the need to hire personal security to protect himself from “mentally unstable people,” adding, “I have been told that this man is dangerous.”

   Parris said in this day and age something needed to be done to ensure security for elected representatives, then compared his situation with Grajeda to the tragedy in Arizona in January when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot by a mentally deranged assailant named Jared Loughner.

   “Every public official in America today sits in those seats under threat of these whack jobs,” said Parris, who then called David Abber to the dais.

   To be continued in the December Political Observer.

   EDITOR’S NOTE: Next month’s report to include coverage of the outcome on David Grajeda’s November 22 hearing at Antonovich Courthouse seeking to have the restraining order prohibiting his contact with City Hall, physical or otherwise, lifted.

   Grajeda is charged with disturbing a public meeting stemming from his actions at NAPC at the October 12, 2011, Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) meeting.

   As of press time, the NAPC portion of the October 12 CJC meeting has been censored and is not available as part of that meeting’s archived video.

   Grajeda was placed under arrest for the incident outside City Hall as he attempted to enter council chambers before the council’s November 7, 2011, meeting.

   A trial is to be set on January, 12, 2012.

  Readers may access archived public meetings at the City website: www.cityoflancasterca.org.

Published in the October 2011
Political Observer print edition

Mayor Censors
Public Meetings

LANCASTER – Elected representatives would be wise to understand that in our Constitutional Republic, politics is a contact sport. The People do not yield their sovereignty to those they elect.

  
     To Political Observers, local politics, when contentious, captures the essence of human drama. Unlike stage plays whose actors rehearse and memorize lines, political theatre dialogue is spontaneous; it adheres to no script.

   
     As is in every compelling drama so too is it also true at Lancaster council meetings that there must be the protagonist – the more strong-willed and powerful the personality the better - and his antagonists – the more numerous and persistent the characters, the more compelling the plot.

    
   The protagonist in Lancaster’s political theatre is Mayor R. Rex Parris, or to his friends and foes alike, “Rex.” Parris, a rags-to-riches, ambitious, wealthy and well-connected local attorney finds himself in the hot seat serving in this, his second year of second two-year term as mayor.

    EDITOR’S NOTE: This version corrects the print edition article where The Political Observer erroneously reported that Mayor Parris is serving in his first two-year term.

     Parris’ main antagonists are Lyle Talbot, David Abber and David Grajeda. These three men are opposed to Mayor Parris for disparate reasons.

     Using the Non-Agendized Public Comment (NAPC) portion of the meeting as their soapbox, Talbot, Abber and Grajeda dissent against policy, object to the mayor’s manner in running a council meeting – often citing Parris’ proclivity to not equitably impose the rules - question City expenditures, and at times take issue with Parris’ alleged personal conduct against them in the community away from City Hall.

     Regardless the subject matter on which they speak, it is these three men more so than other Parris dissenters – of which there are many - who most irk the mayor.

     This judging by the mayor’s emerging pattern over the course of 2011 of engagement - sniping return comments, either by interruption, or after the speaker’s time has expired - in contrast to his practice early in his term of more often ignoring criticism rather than responding.

     But as time marched on, council meeting after council meeting, month after month, comments from these three men began to wear on Parris, eventually culminating with his decision at the October 11 meeting to take his ball and go home by censoring broadcast of Public Comments on non-agendized items.

     Parris’ decree extends to all televised public meetings.

     Parris cites what he perceives to be a racial slur by Grajeda, who questioned RDA member Kitty Szeto’s ability to speak and understand English at a recent meeting, as his justification for censoring NAPC.

     Later equivocating, Parris was reported in local press claiming censorship will have the added benefit of encouraging more residents to speak now that they need not fear being televised live while doing so.

     As a result of Parris’ censorship decree, it would appear the only way for The People to continue observing this portion of meetings is to begin attending the meeting itself.

     But not in this, the age of the personal camera phone. One day after the first censored council meeting at the Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) meeting, at least one member of the public recorded the censored NAPC, later posting it at YouTube and on a local political Blog, thus thwarting the mayor’s censorship campaign.

     Political Observers anticipate this practice to continue at city council meetings, planning commission and at CJC until Parris reverses his decision.

The Camera’s Eye

     As Parris’ patience with critics diminished over time, a pattern concurrently emerged regarding the camera angle broadcasting the council’s meeting into peoples’ homes.

     When Parris critics Talbot and Abber spoke, the camera angle chosen to broadcast was from the speaker’s rear - not showing either man’s face.

     This has progressed into not showing the speaker at all.

     According to a document obtained through the city clerk’s office after filing a Public Records Request, The Political Observer has learned that the company contracted by the City to broadcast council meetings is Visual Image Productions, owned by Wendy Williams.

     The Political Observer phoned Williams to discuss the camera angles used to broadcast Talbot, Abber and Grajeda, and to ask if the decision to not show any of these men’s faces is either a choice by Williams, by instruction from City Hall, or a coincidence.

     Williams did not return our call before press time.

     The most recent agreement between Lancaster and Visual Image Productions was executed on May 26, 2011, and calls for payment of $300 for each city council and planning commission meeting televised at 34 meetings per year for a total purchase order worth $11,400 annually.

     The order stipulates any additional hours agreed to by both parties shall be billed at $50 per hour.

     The Political Observer conducted a review of every NAPC portion of every council meeting in 2011.

     Under NAPC rules, any member of the public has up to three minutes to address the council on any City/Redevelopment Agency (RDA) business not listed on the agenda.

      A strict interpretation of the rule as published in the agenda – limiting NAPC to speech “regarding City/Agency business” only – implies the mayor has the power to arbitrarily object to and silence any speaker choosing to not limit their comments to within the confines of non-agendized City/RDA business.

Enemies First?

     The mayor having all speaker cards in his possession has the privilege to call forward any speaker at any time in any order he pleases.

     At the council’s first meeting of 2011 Lyle Talbot was the first speaker called by Parris. The camera angle broadcasting Talbot was from his rear and off to the right. 
  
     While speaking, Parris can be observed with head down, busying himself by looking at paper and taking notes, seemingly ignoring Talbot’s remarks.

     Talbot spoke against the Palmdale Power Plant, a position shared by Parris. He closed by mentioning an alleged physical altercation the previous summer between Parris and Abber at a local 24 Hour Fitness.

     Seeking settlement to the situation “outside the courthouse,” according to Talbot, he suggested Parris and Abber fight one another in a boxing match hosted on Lancaster’s newly redesigned Lancaster Blvd, with all proceeds dedicated to the AV Veteran’s Home.

     “Say $50 for a ringside seat,” suggested Talbot. “Parks and Rec[reation] can promote it as the Bully-vard Brawl, Winner Take All.”

     As the last word left Talbot’s lips the bell sounded signifying his time had expired prompting Parris to thank Talbot for his comments and remind him his speaking time is completed.

     As the bell continued Talbott did not yield the floor but instead continued on, adding, “How about it Rex? Suit up, or shut up! And get Jim Ledford to be the honorary referee,” in reference to Palmdale’s mayor and Parris political nemesis to the south.

     Parris replied, “Mr. Talbot, I appreciate that you’re an elderly gentlemen, but you have to follow the rules just like anyone else. Please have a seat.”

     The camera angle on the next speaker - not a council regular - was from the right front, the same angle used for the next speaker, Parris ally David Paul.

     Paul, as often is the case, opened his remarks by sharing a family anecdote.

     After Paul, Parris announced there is one additional speaker who was late submitting her speaker card in violation of the rules, but would be allowed to address the council anyway.

     At an 8:30 a.m. January 17, 2011, special meeting of the Redevelopment Agency, the only person to address the governing body under NAPC was David Abber who took the council to task for scheduling the meeting in the morning.

     Throughout his speech Abber was shown only by the camera angle placed to his right rear.

     At the council’s regular scheduled meeting on January 25, 2011, the first speaker under NAPC once again was Talbot.

     Telling the council their meeting time of 5 p.m. makes it difficult for residents who commute to Los Angeles for work to attend, his comments were broadcast using the camera positioned directly to his rear, leaving the viewer to look at Talbot’s backside and back of his head.

     This angle held throughout Talbot’s dialogue as he went on to complain about the 2 a.m. time slot for the rebroadcast of council meetings on Time Warner cable.

     After Talbot’s time had expired, Parris suggested to Talbot he get a computer and order internet connection to watch the city council meetings on the on-line at his convenience.

     Following Talbot was Abber, who was shown from behind for the first minute of his three-minute speaking time, up until he began complaining about Parris’ selective enforcement of rules, specifically citing the previous meeting when Parris permitted one speaker to address the council even though she failed to submit a speaker’s card in time.

     With these comments, the camera feed switched to a shot of the council, from the council’s right, with the right margin of the shot ending just short of capturing Abber, eliminating him from the feed. This angle was held for a short time until returning to Abber’s backside.

     The next three speakers were non-regulars, all representing a local non-profit benefiting youth, and all broadcast with a face shot from their right front at an oblique angle.

     Following them was David Paul who began speaking about family before segueing into warnings against bickering, calling-out Talbot personally.

     Paul suggested to Talbot if he delivered his message “kinder, we would get the message a little clearer.”

     Paul, like the following speaker, Victoria Zavala, was afforded a close-in camera angle from their right front.

     At the council’s first February meeting Talbot was once again called by Parris to be the first speaker and spoke against the Palmdale Power Plant while being broadcast from behind with a wide angle shot.

     When Talbot switched his comments to speaking about a planned knee replacement, the camera angle switched to an up-close face shot from Talbot’s right until he mentioned, upon his return after recovery, the council could expect to see him back to, as Talbot said, “kick butt until we stop this power plant.”

     With these words, the camera angle changed to show Talbot in a wide angle from his rear and right.

     This angle remained as Talbot broached the alleged physical altercation between Abber and Parris at a local gym.

     As Talbot asked Parris to apologize, Parris, interrupting, calmly explained an apology would not happen, prompting Talbot to ask Parris not to interrupt during his three-minute speaking time.

     Taking aim at City staff next, Talbot said many appeared to not be paying attention but preoccupied with text messaging.

     Following Talbot was David Paul who was broadcast via close-up from his right side as he praised Parris’ restraint over the previous council meetings while under attack by public speakers.

     After Paul, there were no public speakers and Vice Mayor Ron Smith took the opportunity to defend City staff against Talbot, characterizing Talbot’s remarks as, “caviling and sniping” and “invective-filled diatribes.”

     There were three NAPC speakers at the February 22 meeting, two non-regulars, followed by David Paul, who began by speaking about George Washington and a History Channel episode on our nation’s first president.

     All three were shown with the close-up camera angle from the right front.

Last But Not Least?

     The Tuesday, March 8, NAPC brought out nine speakers before Talbot was called by Parris; eight non-regulars and David Paul.

     Several spoke on the Cedar Center, one against group homes, and one man took issue with City Manager Mark Bozigian’s salary.

     All speakers’ faces were shown from a right front angle, until Talbot, who was afforded his standard wide angle back shot from the rear of the chamber.

     Talbot took issue with Vice-Mayor Smith’s “invective-filled diatribe” characterization of his comments from a previous meeting and said he did not appreciate being treated in that manner.

     After Talbot, Parris called Abber to the dais, and he too received the same wide angle camera shot from the rear as Talbot.

     After sharing about his recent visit to the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Abber brought up the alleged assault against him by Parris at a local gym before turning his guns on Smith.

     Reminding Smith of his comments from a previous meeting labeling Talbot’s speech “caviling and sniping” and “invective-filled diatribes,” Abber said the best word to describe Vice-Mayor Smith is “coward.”

     When Abber’s time expired, Parris, referencing President Reagan’s attempted assassin, said, “Give my regards to Hinckley, would you?”

     At the March 22 meeting, the year’s seventh, the first NAPC speaker called by Parris was Darlene Peterson, a semi-regular public commenter. Peterson was followed by four others who, like her, were broadcast from the right front, until Talbot, the sixth speaker.

     Talbot was treated to his customary backside view but this time with close-up, not the wide-angle.

     This zoom shot placed Parris just above Talbot and was framed by Smith and former councilwoman Sherry Marquez to the left and right.

     After commenting on Parris’ apparent disinterest in his comments, as judged by the mayor’s looking down at papers, Talbot questioned why he is always televised from the back but got no answer.

     Talbot spoke on public business - Census figures, Palmdale Power Plant – until he had thirty seconds remaining, which is when he re-engaged Smith and Marquez, saying, “I’m here to talk about cowards and lady liars that sit on that dais.”

     As his time expired and his microphone was cut off, Parris said only “Thank you,” as Talbot continued on for a few more seconds before returning to his seat.

     Parris next called Abber who welcomed the Lancaster Sheriff’s Station new captain before going on the attack against Smith for a controversial incident occurring in the vice-mayor’s previous employment.

     Shown from the same rear, close-up as Talbot, Marquez and Parris are seen busying themselves through most of Abber’s speech with Smith looking directly at Abber.

     Near the end of his speech Abber’s camera angle switched to a right rear view until his finish, when David Paul, NAPC’s final speaker, was called by Parris. Paul was provided his usual close-in angle from his right and front.

Shuffling The Deck

     At the April 12 meeting, the council went into closed session before holding NAPC. Upon return, Parris was absent, leaving Smith to chair the meeting.

     The vice-mayor first called David Paul who spoke on the cosmos and philosophy.

     Following Paul were a few non-regulars, followed by a call for Abber, who was no longer present.

     Next was Talbot who spoke against the Palmdale Power Plant, praised the City for how good certain neighborhoods look, and then told Marquez he was still waiting for a phone call to discuss the power plant and publicly shared his personal phone number.

   To be continued in the November Political Observer print edition.