SACRAMENTO – A Bill has been proposed to once and for all end the illegal sale of a non-government approved drug. But under this proposal, the demise of the drug dealer’s lucrative, income and sales-tax free, cash-only kingdom will not come by way of the traditional pre-dawn serving of a search warrant and an arrest warrant delivered courtesy of Kevlar-clad paramilitary local lawmen. 

   If Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is to have his way, the end of illegal marijuana sales in 2010 will mirror the end of illegal booze sales in 1933: through government regulation, to include the imposition of a user-tax.

  

    Ammiano’s legislation, The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act - AB390 - would delegate regulation of non-medical marijuana to the Department of Alcoholic Beverages and permit taxed sales to adults while prohibiting the sale to, or possession by, any person under 21-years-old. Medical marijuana would be exempt from fees and regulations imposed by AB390.

 

   After his Bill was first introduced in 2009, Ammiano said of his proposed legislation, “The move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense.  This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the State, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes.”  

  

   With enactment of AB390, California would become the first State in the Union to implement a “smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana,” added the Northern California Democrat.

 

   Under current California law, the possession, sale, transport, or cultivation of marijuana - with very few exceptions - is a crime.  AB390 would legalize the personal possession, use, and cultivation of marijuana by those 21 and older, and secondly, provide for regulation of commercial cultivation, and wholesale and retail marijuana sales.

 

   As originally introduced in 2009, personal use, cultivation, and possession would immediately become lawful under AB390, but the commercial cultivation and resale, through government regulation – the establishment of a marijuana marketplace – was to placed on-hold until federal law was amended to permit the practice - something political observers believe would not come about until Congress removed cannabis from the list of Schedule I, or most dangerous, drugs.

 

   Under Ammiano’s 2010 version, States’ Rights are invoked and a marijuana marketplace regulated by the Department of Alcoholic Beverages would be established absent any change in federal law, as permitted under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (See bottom of page 10).

 

 

AB390

 

   AB390 would make lawful under California law the personal use and possession of cannabis in the home and on any private residence, to include outdoors upon such premises, for any person at least 21-years-old, when not smoked in view from any public place or neighboring property.

 

   Home cultivation would be lawful for those at least 21-years-old with a crop limited to no more than six mature plants, and if planted outdoors, plants must not be able to be viewed from a public place. Ammiano’s 2009 version of AB390 allowed for up to ten plants.

 

   A licensed nursery would be permitted to cultivate seedlings for sale to any person 21-years-old and over, but any plant unsold by time of maturity must be destroyed.

 

   The Health and Safety Code would be amended as part of AB390 to prohibit the display of drug paraphernalia for sale other than within a separate room or enclosure where minors are not permitted to enter unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.

 

   Marijuana for resale must be kept behind a counter in an area not directly accessible by any customer and stored in a locked case in between sales.

 

   A commercial cultivator’s license would also be established with an application fee not to exceed $5,000 for the initial application, and half that amount for the annual renewal.

Commercial cultivator applicants would undergo a background check to include summary criminal history information provided by the Attorney General, and any local law enforcement agency.

 

   Each licensee must provide a detailed crop security plan that protected against unauthorized access to the marijuana crop at all stages of cultivation, harvesting, drying, processing, packing, and delivery to licensed sales outlets or wholesalers.

 

   Employment at a commercial cannabis cultivator would be regulated to prevent any person under 21 from having access to marijuana during cultivation, storage, drying, packing, or at any other time, and no person under 21 would be permitted to transport marijuana on behalf of a commercial buyer or commercial seller.

 

   The use of marijuana on the premises of a commercial cultivator would also be prohibited, and an inspection and tracking system would be implemented to ensure all marijuana produced and sold by the cultivator was also assessed for taxation in accordance with the Revenue and Taxation Code.

 

   In support of State sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, under AB390 State and local agencies, to include law enforcement, are prohibited from supporting the prosecution of any federal crime related to marijuana if the alleged crime was in conflict with California marijuana law.

 

 

On The Record Support

 

   Upon introduction in 2009, Board of Equalization Chairwoman Betty Yee concurred with the intent of Ammiano’s Bill, and said, "This common sense measure effectively prioritizes State resources during these times of fiscal constraint.  Prioritizing law enforcement to control the most serious drugs while raising new revenues from casual marijuana use directed to treating serious drug addiction is a prudent use of limited resources.”

 

   Marijuana Policy Project California policy director Aaron Smith added, “It is simply nonsensical that California's largest agricultural industry is completely unregulated and untaxed. With our State in an ongoing fiscal crisis - and no one believes the new budget is the end of California's financial woes - it's time to bring this major piece of our economy into the light of day.”

 

   Support for Ammiano’s Bill also came from an elected lawman, San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey, who said, “I support this legislation because I feel this issue should be the subject of legislative and public debate.”

 

   Support from retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James P. Gray was included in the Bill’s 2009 press release. Gray said, “Assembly member Ammiano is to be applauded in addressing this critical issue honestly and directly.”

 

 

Public Safety Committee Hearing

 

   AB390 was first proposed early in 2009, but the committee hearing was cancelled at the request of the author. The Bill was reintroduced with changes in the legislature’s second session and a hearing was held in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on January 12, 2010.

Among the numerous intents of AB390 are:

 

   1. To remove all existing civil and criminal penalties for persons 21 years of age or older who cultivate, possess, transport, sell, or use marijuana, without impacting existing laws proscribing dangerous activities while under the influence of marijuana, or certain conduct that exposes younger persons to marijuana;

 

   2. To regulate marijuana in order to more effectively limit access to marijuana by minors; to deprive the criminal market of revenue derived from the cultivation, smuggling, and sale of marijuana; to reduce the violence associated with the criminal market for marijuana;

 

   3. To prevent the environmental degradation that results from the production and eradication of marijuana associated with the criminal market;

 

   4. To address the overall failure of marijuana prohibition to protect the public health and safety;

 

   5. To raise funds and to discourage substance abuse by the imposition of a substantial fee on the legal sale of marijuana, the proceeds of which will support drug education and awareness;

 

   6. To impose a set of regulations and laws concerning marijuana comparable to those imposed on alcohol; to impose substantial fines for violations of the noncommercial regulations and laws concerning marijuana;

 

   7. To prevent state and local agencies from supporting any prosecution for federal or other crimes relating to marijuana that are inconsistent with those provided in this bill; and,

 

   8. To encourage the federal government to reconsider its policies concerning marijuana, and to change its laws accordingly.

 

   Ammiano, also the chair of the Public Safety Committee, opened the hearing and said the intent of his Bill was to legalize marijuana “for recreational purposes” for adults 21-years and older and cited the Board of Equalization estimate that marijuana legalization would generate $1 billion in annual revenue for California government.

 

   Before introducing his witnesses, Ammiano said, “The drug wars have failed. Prohibition has fostered anarchy in the marijuana market. Legalization would allow regulation and regulation would restore order.”

 

   Aaron Smith, California Director for the Marijuana Policy Project, testified that at $14 billion in annual sales, marijuana is in fact the State’s number one cash crop. Smith described Prohibition as an “insane policy” and said AB390 presented an opportunity for the government to institute a strict regulatory scheme similar to the regulatory structure governing the more dangerous drug of alcohol.

 

   “Just as under alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s, many of the enterprising criminals seeking to make profit in the vast underground market of marijuana are willing to go to any lengths, even kill, to protect those profits,” said Smith, who added there’s no coincidence that Mexican Cartels aren’t killing each other over the beer trade, or growing wine grapes in our National Forests.

 

   Traditionally, California has led the other 49 States in many public policy decisions, and it made sense that through AB390, California was poised to become the first State in the Union to “get out in front” on this issue, Smith testified.

 

   Steven Gutwillig, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said whether anyone liked it or not, marijuana is a widely-used recreational drug and its wide use necessitated government regulation as wise public policy.

 

   Gutwillig said enforcing marijuana Prohibition was not a smart use of limited police resources and shared that 78,000 Californians were arrested in 2008 on a marijuana offense.

 

   “Marijuana is not a harmless drug, but we can’t arrest our way out of those problems,” said Gutwillig, who added people who aren’t hurting anyone else should “be left alone” by the law.

 

 

Prohibition: The Law Enforcement
& District Attorney’s Office
Full Employment Act

 

   Among the numerous government agents employed in law enforcement speaking against the Bill was San Mateo Police Chief and drug warrior Susan Manheimer. The President-elect of the California Police Chiefs’ Association said the numerous problems associated with the already legal drugs of tobacco and booze created enough trouble for society, and suggested legalizing marijuana would only compound those problems.

 

   Ignoring the steadily-declining rate of tobacco smokers in America over the past several decades, Manheimer equated the legalization of a product with an automatic increase in use among our population, and then called the effort to decriminalize marijuana as “naïve” and “dangerous.”

 

   Chief Manheimer said revenue collected by California through a marijuana tax would be “blood money” in her opinion, and to support a marijuana tax to help balance the State budget was an argument she found “mind-boggling, to say the least.”

 

   Marijuana use created a proclivity to violence in the user, said Manheimer, who disputed claims that marijuana made the user “mellow.”  She cited an unnamed 2002 British study that claimed marijuana users were more violent than their non-marijuana smoking counterparts in society.

 

   Manheimer said the ‘War on Drugs’ has not been a failure and added she found arguments to the contrary to be appalling.

 

   Bob Cook, past president of the California Narcotics Officers Association, after testifying that “tobacco actually kills people,” went on to suggest if revenue for California was the goal, in his professional opinion, “it may be safer just to bring back cigarette vending machines.”

 

   Cook told the committee he found the idea of legalizing marijuana to generate revenue as “deeply offensive” and amounted to “trading human misery for tax dollars.” The narcotics officer said people who find their way behind bars for simple possession “earned that right” and were to be considered “criminals.”

 

   After Cook, a parade of representatives from law enforcement agencies, associations, fraternal orders, and leagues, took to the microphone to state their name and organization, and their opposition to AB390. Some implored the committee to oppose AB390 for the children, others for public safety.

 

   After the final speaker, Assemblyman Ammiano cautioned against the alarmist rhetoric as espoused by many in opposition, and said many of the arguments heard that morning against AB390 were similar to the illogical arguments made in the film Reefer Madness.

 

   Democrat Assemblyman Jared Huffman said he was opposed to marijuana use but added current marijuana law was a “failed criminalization policy” and suggested a rational way to deal the issue was in order.

 

   The motion to approve and to pass-on AB390 to the Health Committee was agreed to on a 4-3 vote. The four yes votes were cast by Ammiano and fellow Democrats Jerry Hill, Nancy Skinner, and Jared Huffman.

 

   The three dissenting votes were cast by Republican Assembly members Curt Hagman, Danny Gilmore, and Democrat Warren Furutani.

 

   Video of the January 12 Public Safety Committee hearing on AB390 is available at: www.calchannel.com.

 

 

Marijuana = Heroin, Since 1970

 

   According to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 established five classifications, or schedules, for drugs. The most dangerous drugs - according to the federal gub-mnt’ - are classified as Schedule I, and the least dangerous as Schedule V.

 

   Schedule I drugs meet three criteria, according to the federal DEA, and they are: “The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse; The drug…has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug…under medical supervision.”

 

   Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, along with heroin, morphine and LSD.

 

   Schedule II drugs: “The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse; The drug…has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions; Abuse of the drug…may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.”  Cocaine is classified as a Schedule II drug.

 

   Schedule III: “The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs…in schedules I and II; The drug…has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; Abuse of the drug…may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.”

 

   Schedule IV: “The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs…in schedule III; The drug…has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; Abuse of the drug…may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs…in schedule III.”

 

   Schedule V: “The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs…in schedule IV; The drug…has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; Abuse of the drug…may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs…in schedule IV.”

 

 

One For The Road

 

Booze, tobacco, and caffeine are exempt from classification as a “controlled substance.” 

 

    According to data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there are 79,000 deaths in the United States each year attributed to excessive alcohol use.  CDC data also showed there were 1.6 million hospitalizations, and over four million emergency room visits for alcohol-related conditions in 2005, the latest year data was available.  CDC data also revealed 443,000 tobacco-related deaths in the United States each year.

 

   Political Observer staff searched CDC on-line and was unable to uncover data on marijuana-related deaths and illness in the United States.  We contacted the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, and were informed by Senior Press Officer Karen Hunter at the main press office, after having researched our inquiry, she concluded there was no CDC data available for marijuana-related deaths, illness, or visit to a hospital emergency room.

 

   “A marijuana-related visit to the emergency room would be so rare,” said Hunter. “Marijuana is not the drug that would bring people to the emergency room, so there would not be enough people for a sample.”

 

   On marijuana-related deaths, Hunter told AVPO, “Drug overdose by marijuana is also not a common occurrence so there is not a large enough sample size to have statistics.”

 

   Hunter referred The Political Observer to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), as other federal government agencies that may have data on marijuana-related deaths, illness, or visits to the emergency room.

 

   SAMHSA and NIDA are both organizations within the federal Department of Health and Human Services, and the NCHS is an element of the CDC.

 

   The latest SAMHSA data available was from a 2002 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) study from Boston, Massachusetts, that revealed a rate of 16 marijuana-related visits to the emergency room per 100,000 population.

 

   Of the approximately 1.6 million visits to Boston area emergency rooms in 2002, about one percent (17,965) were related to drug abuse, with alcohol and cocaine the top two drugs. 

 

   Total marijuana-related emergency room visits in 2002 were numbered at 4,273 but an asterisk beside the per population figure warned 67% of marijuana-related ER visits involved use of an additional drug.  For the 2002 Boston sample, this meant of the 4,273 ER visits classified as marijuana-related, one-third – or 1,410 - were marijuana-only ER visits.

 

   DAWN is a data program reporting system operated by participating hospitals and the federal government.

 

   The Political Observer contacted SAMHSA and spoke with press relations officer Brad Stone and asked for data on marijuana-related deaths, illness, and a description of a marijuana-only related problem that would bring a person to the emergency room, and requested examples.

 

   We cited as an example, for booze, a drunk’s life could be in jeopardy due to an over-abundance of alcohol consumption, which had developed into acute alcohol poisoning, or secondly, a drunkard may have stumbled and lost his balance, fallen, and suffered a deep, bloody gash on their head that required immediate medical attention.

 

   Stone forwarded our request for specific information related to marijuana-only deaths, illness, and ER visits, to an official agency statistician.

 

   Soon-after, The Political Observer received a call from Carrie Ainsworth, also from the SAMHSA press office, to clarify the information we sought on marijuana-related deaths, illness, and visits to the ER.

 

   Ainsworth, like Stone, recommended The Political Observer contact CDC for marijuana-related information. The Political Observer informed Ainsworth, as we did Stone, that CDC claimed instances of marijuana-related death, illness, and ER visits were so rare, no data existed in the CDC database.

 

   Days later, The Political Observer received a return call from Ainsworth in response to our specific request, and she forwarded data that stated there were 68,151 marijuana-related ER visits reported by hospitals participating in the DAWN program in 2005.

 

   The data forwarded by Ainsworth of 68,151 marijuana-related ER visits in 2006 is equal to 1.7 percent of the number of alcohol-related ER visits in 2005 - four million - cited by CDC.

 

   Neither SAMHSA, NIDA, CDC, NCHS, nor any agency of the federal government contacted by AVPO was able to provide data on marijuana-related deaths, or specific data on a marijuana-only related illness, or a marijuana-only related symptom that required a visit to an ER.

 

   Early in 2008, The Political Observer spoke with the three Republican candidates for the 36th Assembly District – then Palmdale Councilman Steve Knight, then AVC Trustee Steve Fox, and Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford - as part of a conversation series leading up to the June 08 Republican Primary Election.

 

   In our interview with Knight, then an activity-duty Los Angeles Police Office, The Political Observer brought up the “War on Drugs” and sought the veteran lawman’s perspective.

 

   We asked the seventeen-year-plus police officer if he thought the “War on Drugs” could be won by the government, to which Knight said, “I don’t know that it could ever be won.” 

 

   Knight quickly added he did not condone drug use, and said when a community had rampant illegal drug sales, “that area tends to go downhill, quickly.”

 

   Knight continued, “If someone told me the federal government should take over marijuana sales, or even rock cocaine, or whatever they want to do, it doesn’t change the fact that the people who do drugs have to have a mechanism, they have to get money to buy their drugs.  It doesn’t change that.  If the federal government sells rock cocaine, I still have to go burglarize your house to get enough money to buy my rock.”

 

   Knight said he considered marijuana a “progressive drug” for some, “but not for everybody.”   Knight added, “A lot of people smoke marijuana, and it doesn’t have any affect on how they live life or anything.  And I don’t think marijuana is the devil.”

 

   The current Assemblyman, and then-Palmdale City Councilman, said the anti-marijuana bias in contemporary society is cultural.  He used as an analogy German culture, and harkened back to his days stationed in Germany while in the U.S. Army where he discovered German youth held their liquor better than he did as an adult at 19 years-old, because, Knight said, the German youth had grown-up with alcohol as part of their culture, and may have had wine with dinner as a teenager, where in American culture, alcohol consumption was for adults only.

 

   “I think if you change marijuana from being illegal to legal, you’re going to have a lot of people that are going to smoke marijuana that are going to use it for a different reason, other than a social drug,” said Knight.

 

   The Political Observer asked Knight how advocates for marijuana-legalization differed from the alcohol-industry’s (Anheuser-Busch, Jack Daniels, etc,) professional lobbyists.

 

   “I think it’s hypocritical,” said Knight.  “And that’s my only excuse [in support of cannabis prohibition] is there’s culture; that we are against marijuana, but we’re for drinking.  But if you went out and had twelve beers and drove, or if you smoke a joint, you would drive better after smoking a joint.  And I’m not saying you should drive on either.  It’s a little hypocritical; we talk about drunk driving so much.”

 

   The Political Observer asked the lawman if he thought it a wise-use of jail space and tax dollars to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders (i.e., those arrested for possession, under the influence).

 

   “No,” answered Knight.

 

   The Political Observer remarked, “That’s not a very conservative value.”

 

   “It isn’t, it isn’t,” said Knight.  “I want people that are directly [criminally] affecting your life behind bars.”

 

   Knight said in his opinion, the worst crime in the world, beside the crimes that hurt or kill a loved one, like rape and murder, was residential burglary.  The residential burglar that stole family heirlooms, a treasured wedding ring handed-down over generations, or other precious irreplaceables in order to buy drugs deserved to be “locked-up” before the individual that bought drugs with honest money, and was arrested on an [non-DUI] under-the-influence charge only.

 

   “I have to be pragmatic about this; I have to say, ‘We only have so much space.  Who do we want in there?’”

 

   Knight said police officers do a lot of “11-550 arrests” – under the influence – and the arrestees “take up space in jail.

 

   On under-the-influence-only arrestees, Knight said, “Fine them.  Do something to them that would penalize them, but leave the jail space for this [expletive] burglar.”

 

   The Political Observer reiterated to Knight how out-of-step he was versus the conservative party-line in his “War on Drugs” philosophy, then AVPO asked how much of that was due to his experience as a police officer, to which Knight responded, “Probably 100% of it.”

 

   Knight said in his over seventeen-years as a lawman, he had arrested roughly 20 burglars, “and none of them are in jail today on any of those crimes.”

 

   EDITOR’S NOTE: An audio recording of the Steve Knight interview on 21 April 08 is on-file at The Political Observer.

----

 

 

 

Case Closed!

 -----

City of Palmdale Agrees to Dismiss Two Lawsuits
Against AVC

 --

In Exchange, College Board
Amends Policy on Public Speakers

   ---- 

AVC Agrees to Joint Study Session
& One-Time Presentation
to Palmdale Development
Advisory Board

  -- 

Annual Presentation on Status
of Permanent Palmdale Campus

PALMDALE - Citing the uncertainties and cost of litigation, along with the desire to cooperate in expanding higher education opportunities for Palmdale and South Valley residents alike, the City of Palmdale and the Antelope Valley Community College District have entered into a “Settlement Agreement” to end litigation on two Palmdale-initiated lawsuits.

 

   Agreement language declares that Antelope Valley Community College District (AVC) and Palmdale still “dispute one another’s claims,” and “admit nothing by way of this agreement,” but nonetheless share the common desire to establish a permanent campus in Palmdale, if and when certain conditions are met.

 

   The three prerequisites to be met before a permanent Palmdale campus is to be built are cited in the agreement as: “if sufficient capital improvement funds become available,” AVC receives “all necessary governmental approvals,” and the AVC board “approves the establishment of a permanent campus” in Palmdale.

 

   The settlement agreement required AVC to liberalize its speaker card policy to allow The People to turn-in their speaker card up until the time the specific subject matter upon which they wish to speak was to be taken up by the board.

 

   The AVC board took action to change the policy accordingly at a November 23, 2009, Special Meeting.

 

   Previous policy gave The People only until the meeting was gaveled to Order to turn-in a speaker’s card and any speaker’s card submitted after that point was not accepted by the AVC board, thus limiting participation to only those having arrived at the beginning of the meeting.

 

   Also part of the agreement, the two governing entities agree to conduct a “Joint Study Session” at the Chimbole Community Center in Palmdale on February 3 at 6pm – one hour prior to the

start of that evening’s regular city council meeting. The joint session is open to the public.

 

   The joint meeting’s format and agenda is to be developed in concert by AVC and City staff and future sessions have not been ruled-out as the agreement allows for continued talks if both parties think circumstances warrant more dialogue.

 

   The purpose of the joint meeting is to “discuss and study issues of joint importance” which are defined as the permanent Palmdale campus, potential use of high school facilities as classrooms, distance education, and “other topics as may be desired” by AVC or Palmdale.

 

   Also defined as an issue of joint importance is a commitment to improve access to opportunities in higher education, where opportunities are classified as being not just academic-focused, but specifically encompass “both curricular and physical” education.

 

   The agreement also calls for AVC to deliver a presentation in January to Palmdale’s Development Advisory Board on the status of a permanent Palmdale campus, and secondly, for AVC and Palmdale both to place an item on their respective agendas each January - commencing January 2011 – also on the status of a Palmdale campus.

 

   By mandate, AVC is required each January to consider their item prior to Palmdale’s consideration the same month, and AVC must send an official representative to Palmdale’s annual meeting on the subject.

 

   The two lawsuits stem from action taken by the AVC board at their November 2008 meeting when they voted to approve over $16 million of Measure R bond funds for the construction of a Theatre at the Lancaster campus; money Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford believed was promised to his City for the construction of a South Valley campus.

 

   In response to the AVC board’s action, the City of Palmdale filed suit against AVC for Declaratory Relief - a judgment which determines the Rights of parties without ordering anything be done or awarding damages.

 

   At that same November 2008 meeting, Palmdale resident Patricia Shaw attempted to address the board but was denied by board President Betty Wienke because she had not filled out a speaker’s card. Shaw requested a speaker’s card upon being informed of the rule, but that request was also denied by Wienke.

 

   Shaw’s grievance served as the genesis of the second of two lawsuits; the Brown Act case of City of Palmdale and Patricia Shaw vs. Antelope Valley Community College District.

 

   As part of the agreement each party agreed to incur the cost of their own attorneys’ fees. According to AVC’s VP of Business Services, Deborah Wallace, the cost to AVC for attorneys’ fees exceeded $93,000. The total cost to AVC tops $100,000 when travel and staff time are factored-in, according to Wallace.

 

   College officials informed The Political Observer no one at AVC calculated the precise staff time dedicated to the issue, but characterized it as significant, considering Palmdale sought extensive documentation from the district even before the two legal actions were filed.

 

   The City of Palmdale was unable to calculate the total cost of the two lawsuits in attorneys’ fees by press time.

 

   Steve Standerfer, AVC Director of Public and Governmental Relations told The Political Observer, “College district officials are relieved that these legal actions are behind us and we can focus on serving our students and serving the community,”

 

   Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford characterized the agreement as a positive development for his City. “We’ve changed how the AVC board does business,” said Ledford, in reference to the college board’s amended speaker card policy.

 

   In addition, Ledford said the requirement for AVC to provide an annual presentation on a South Valley campus each January will promote transparency and better communication between his City and the college.

 

   Brown Act plaintiff Patricia Shaw told The Political Observer, “Lawsuits are tedious, time consuming endeavors but certainly worthwhile in this case. We must remain ever vigilant in protecting our Right of speech to address and/or redress the actions of elected bodies. It's the fundamental mechanism that sets our nation apart from all others.”