Greg Diamond, “counsel” to CATER
Back in September, Anaheim’s notorious and fickle gadfly Cynthia Ward announced “the incorporation of the entity that will raise funds to take action against the council majority’s corporate subsidies.”
Now we know the name because, according to sources, her little group has filed a complaint with the Anaheim City Clerk alleging a Brown Act Violation by the Anaheim City Council. Her group is called Coalition of Anaheim Taxpayers for Economic Responsibility or CATER — as in CATERing to the narrow political agenda of some very squeaky wheels.
The complaint was penned and filed by — you guessed it — CATER “counsel” Greg Diamond. This explains why the letter is confused, confusing and far, far longer than it needs to be. Fair warning: down a Red Bull or some hi-octane coffee before attempting to read Diamond’s opus, or risk falling asleep.
When you boil it down, the complaint claims the city staff’s recommendation to adopt the Angels negotiations MOU and the Anaheim City Council’s 4-1 vote to do so on September 3 all hinged entirely on a report by the consulting firm Convention, Sports and Leisure (CSL) about the positive economic impact of having Angels baseball in Anaheim. The clear implication of Diamond’s assertion is that none of this would have happened absent the CSL report.
But that’s just an opinion. Where’s the Brown Act violation? It’s a very convoluted letter, but it comes down to when Cynthia Ward was able to get a copy of the CSL report. Diamond also says the Public Records Act was violated because the CSL report given to the city council on September 3 was allegedly different from the version that was provided later to Ward.
The complaint doesn’t state exactly which sections of the Brown Act and the Public Records Act were violated (unless those specifics are buried somewhere in the eight dense pages). Despite several references to the CSL report being altered — “…a later copy of the report…appears to have been edited to remove at least one factual error…” — but Diamond never says exactly what was edited or what the supposed factual error was. Was it a substantive change? Who knows? Diamond clearly implies that it is, but never tells us what it was. His omission of the sinister edit/alteration makes it hard to seriously consider Diamond’s implication that the council might have acted differently but for the mysterious “edited” information from the “first” report “upon which the Council based their decisions at the September 3 meeting…”
Several times, Diamond states the CSL was mentioned in the agenda staff report, and even starts referring to the CSL report as the “Staff Report Attachment.” In actuality, the agenda staff report doesn’t talk about a CSL report, but rather a determination by CSL. In the second paragraph, it says:
Convention, Sports & Leisure, a leading advisory and planning firm specializing in providing consulting services to the convention, sport, entertainment and visitor industries, that has completed over 1,000 market research assignments, has determined that the annual direct economic impact of having Angels Baseball in Anaheim is over $120M and combined with the indirect spending generated, this amount increases to $213M. This economic impact relates to real dollars being spent in Anaheim due to Angels Baseball. Should Angels Baseball relocate, the dollars associated with the economic impact would also relocate.
Other than that, the 6-page staff report makes no mention of a CSL report, and Diamond’s terming it the “suppressed Staff Report Attachment” is an appellation of his own invention.
The complaint itself is a tedious, tortured tour de conspiracy. Much of it is just Diamond re-hashing to the mayor and City Council his opinions and arguments about how he thinks the city should be negotiating with the Angels — as if that has anything to do with the Brown Act.
Finally, near the end of the complaint, Diamond arrives at his “cure” for the imagined Brown Act violation. His demands include having the city council to void its September 3 actions regarding the Angels and then vote separately on each and every deal point in the MOU; and, in true progressive style, submitting the final Angels agreement to a city-wide vote.
Another of Diamond’s (or, more properly, CATER’s) cures amounts to a fishing expedition, demanding “each member of the Council to disclose any discussions they have had with representatives of the Angels, of Pringle and Associates, of Pacific Coast Investors LLC, with permanent or temporary City Staff, with representatives of other interested commercial or lobbying interests including the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and SOAR…”
I get the feeling Diamond also believes there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza.
Who Are CATER?
What do we know about CATER? We know it i a 501(c)(4) of which Cynthia Ward is president, and for which Brea resident Greg Diamond is “counsel.” Remember, Ward and Diamond are self-styled champions of transparency. They continuously demand it of others, in both the public and private spheres.
In that case, we should expect them to walk their talk and disclose who their members are and who their donors are.
Will they live up to their own standards? Or concoct some exemption for themselves. My bet is on the latter.
In the meantime, the council election is coming up and CATER has mud to make.
Here you go. Search time grand total: 5 minutes, 32 seconds.
I really don’t think it was that hard to figure out. You certainly don’t have to agree with it, but let’s not leap onto the grassy knoll just yet.
(a)Notwithstanding Section 6255 or any other provisions of law, agendas of public meetings and any other writings, when distributed to all, or a majority of all, of the members of a legislative body of a local agency by any person in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at an open meeting of the body, are disclosable public records under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1), and shall be made available upon request without delay. However, this section shall not include any writing exempt from public disclosure under Section 6253.5, 6254, 6254.3, 6254.7, 6254.15, 6254.16, or 6254.22.
**START HERE**
(b)(1)If a writing that is a public record under subdivision (a), and that relates to an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, is distributed less than 72 hours prior to that meeting, the writing shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to paragraph (2) at the time the writing is distributed to all, or a majority of all, of the members of the body.
(2) A local agency shall make any writing described in paragraph (1) available for public inspection at a public office or location that the agency shall designate for this purpose. Each local agency shall list the address of this office or location on the agendas for all meetings of the legislative body of that agency. The local agency also may post the writing on the local agency’s Internet Web site in a position and manner that makes it clear that the writing relates to an agenda item for an upcoming meeting.
**END HERE**
– See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/GOV/1/5/d2/1/9/s54957.5#sthash.ssFtx5mk.dpuf
I think Matt’s point was if you’re making a complaint to the city claiming a Brown Act violation, you ought to be specific, not just say “I think it violates one of these code sections here,” which is basically what Diamond’s letter does.
Even so, Diamond doesn’t make a very convincing case. This looks more like the start of a harassment campaign.
Free advice for CATER: get a new lawyer. It’s hard to follow Diamond’s meandering narrative partly because he lards his opinions in with the relevant facts, such as they are.
Diamond’s letter says Cynthia Ward asked the City Clerk for the CSL report on Friday August 30 (he doesn’t say whether her request was by e-mail or over the phone), and then again on Thursday, September 5.
Ward never went down to the City Clerk’s office to look at the actual binder. She only lives half-a-mile from City Hall and can walk there in a few minutes. If this report was so damn critical, why didn’t she get her behind down there to read it before the council meeting?
Another thing: the agenda item makes no reference to a “Staff Report Attachment.” Diamond is making that up, like Matt said. The CSL report was never an official agenda item and so the city was not required to post it 72 hours before the meeting.
And if, as Diamond claims, the CSL report was distributed to the Mayor and the Council on the morning of Tuesday, Sept. 3, then Ward could have gone to the Clerk’s office and read it herself. But she chose not to make the effort.
Furthermore, the document was provided to Ward within Brown Act time requirements. So where’s the violation?
And why does Diamond avoid explaining the difference between the two version of the CSL report (assuming this is even true)? He keeps talking about an altered report in his letter, but he avoids saying what exactly was altered. Why?
Is this the same guy the same Democrat that ran for State Senate against Bob Huff?
Looks like the Democrats are behind this silly letter. Cynthia Ward again is trying to help Lorri Galloway.
These two have no credibility, but they are kinda entertaining. Let’s research other the “clients” Diamond and Ward have, I have no doubt that would full of interesting information.
I think I read that Cynthia Ward’s business is charging cities and homeowners for things such as “historic” homes evaluations in order to get property tax breaks – translation: tax scam.
Yes, it is the same guy.
Greg Diamond is also Vice Chair of the Democratic Party of Orange County.
Pretty lame, everyone knows Cynthia is a Tait loyalist who has it in for Galloway. And how does fighting this fight help either Galloway or Tait in particular? I guess this comment, in a blog frequented by “Republicans,” is an attempt at guilt by association. Who could imagine that both a Republican and a Democrat could care about fiscal responsibility and transparency?
1. I’m somewhat surprised at your decision to give CATER grist for any fundraising efforts for potential future litigation, Matt — but many of your ways are mysterious to me.
2. As I’m operating in my professional capacity here — I prefer the term “General Counsel” to “Counsel,” by the way, as it clarifies that I may decide to choose another attorney as Litigation Counsel if need be — I’m not going to take up most of the details of your critique, nor those of the various pseudonymous Matt-Like-Creatures offering comments.
3. (Please be honorable and let the commenters know that, in the event of litigation over the underlying matter, CATER may conceivably be able to discover their identities. Under some circumstances, such as if any commenters had any agency relationship with the City, I might be ethically bound to pursue it out of loyalty to my client. So, with my apologies to them for the inconvenience: any commenters who aren’t actually you should bear in mind how the legal system operates.)
4. At the time you published, every single copy of the letter under my control (whether on paper or electronic) was either still in my sole possession or had been delivered, both by hand and by U.S. mail, to the City Clerk’s office. I am of course interested in how and from whom you obtained this letter — whether it was sent to you directly or whether you were informed that you ought to make your own Public Records Act request for it.
5. My interest in part is because CATER has tried to keep this process out of the public eye to make things easier on the City. (You will notice, for example, that CATER has not yet held a public press conference — in the interests of facilitating any negotiation that might take place with the City.) Such matters are also usually addressed by the City in closed sessions of the City Council. I’ll write you (and City Attorney Houston) separately about this, to explore whether, by this leak, some agent of the City may have waived the City’s ability to address this matter in closed session. That may be a pity, if so, but I do have to act in the best legal interests of my client.
6. I do want to address the last couple of comments preceding this one. Yes, I am a Vice-Chair of the Democratic Party of Orange County. However, this activity has nothing to do with my official role there and I am definitively not acting on DPOC’s behalf. (Party officials are allowed to maintain their businesses, as I’d think you’d know.) Both some involved in the DPOC and some involved in CATER would surely want me to stress that the former is not involved with this — so I shall.
7. I do have a brief question for you to clarify, if you can. On page 7 of the letter, just before the heading entitled Appropriate Remedies,” CATER states the following:
“For additional background, please consider the contents of
the prior cure and correct letter, regarding donations to the
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, to be incorporated in this
letter by reference.”
I realize that that’s sort of cryptic. Do you have any idea as to what CATER is referring to here in the document you leaked by “prior cure and correct letter”? Do you know what the effect of “incorporated … by reference” would be? I’m not inclined to discuss this in public, but given your critique you — and the person who photocopied this for you — probably would have had some idea, right?
8. Finally, a note that may be of benefit to whoever is retaining Matt in this manner and/or leaking him stories. For reasons that can by now probably be easily inferred, your operating this way is a very bad idea. I generally try to approach legal negotiations in the spirit of trying to arrive at mutually satisfactory conclusions whenever possible. But, if an opposing party makes a grave error, it is my professional responsibility to my client to do what I can to capitalize on it. Let’s all hope that this is the last such error we see in the matter at hand. If not — that’s your problem, not CATER’s.
Gregory A. Diamond, Esq.
Greg, take your silly threats and go pound sand.
“CATER may conceivably be able to discover their identities. Under some circumstances, such as if any commenters had any agency relationship with the City, I might be ethically bound to pursue it out of loyalty to my client”
But you protect the identities and IP addresses of the anon commenters on OJ even if asked for directly…stay classy Greg
Yes I do, Dan. Because (1) it’s not my decision because it’s not my blog, (2) your thirst for vengeance doesn’t outweigh the promise made to people of privacy insofar as is possible, and (3) you don’t have a viable lawsuit, such as one involving a possible agency relationship between a blog’s funding being channeled (if not laundered) through a non-profit by a City Council majority, that could get at that information.
I know that the existence of these differences must frustrate you — as if my arguing with your buddy Matt in the first place wasn’t enough.
I like the Ron Burgundy reference — it really works for you. (Say, do you usually read this blog or did someone send out a distress signal asking you to ride in to the rescue?)
Dan, you read it here: Greg Diamond threatening to file a lawsuit that would be based on his overactive imagination.
As I commented on LiberalOC – if it were Adam Elmahrek who received the CATER letter and wrote a story about it, Greg Diamond de le Brea wouldn’t be threatening legal action to out the identities of Voice of OC commenters. Greg would instead be mooning over his man-crush for noticing him.
What an adorable couple you are! Get a Chamber, you two!
Oh boy, you’re a real card, you are!
At least you think you’re funny.
why don’t you go have a few beers with Vern, like Tom Tait does
I think when the Anaheim city attorney responds to the letter, they should use finger puppets in response to Mr. Diamond to explain why he’s wrong
I’ve never seen Anchorman, and I’m weary of the Ron Burgundy commercials for Anchorman 2; I think the last good movie Will Ferrell did was Elf. I read just about every OC blog Greg. #3 on your list strikes me as very Conspiracy Theory stuff. That was a Mel Gibson/Julia Roberts movie. Matt can hold his own; can you explain how you were selected by this client when it doesn’t appear to be your area of specialty when it comes to practicing law? And how much money do you expect the taxpayers of Anaheim to pay you for writing an unreadable letter?
I’m shocked that you haven’t seen Anchorman — and that you have so little appreciation for the pride of Irvine, Will Ferrell.
#3 on this list is a legal argument, Dan. As a layperson, it’s not surprising if you don’t understand it.
What a cheeky question!
Ideally, they will cure and correct their errors as requested, rendering a claim for costs and fees moot.
But really, Dan, fining them is the only way that they stand to learn. That is, it would be if they cared about paying legal fees, which they seemingly don’t. But that will eventually upset the public enough that they might reform.
Anyway, tell me: are you against ALL public interest litigation that may impose fees on municipalities for their wrongdoing? Or are you just highly selective in finding this to be an outrage?
Try “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” an amazing film and one that’s almost painful to watch; brilliant filmmaking. In regards to your last paragraph, no I’m not.. I just think you fail to make a case here.
Careful Dan – Diamond is about to explode in nuclear holocaust of nauseating stomach-churning condescending self puffery – non of us can withstand that onslaught. I’ve seen it before and it is not a pretty sight.
“But you protect the identities and IP addresses of the anon commenters on OJ even if asked for directly…”
Of course Greg does, Dan. That’s because he likes and generally agrees with the little gaggle of OJ commenters who actually read his interminable posts. But Greg doesn’t like or agree with the commenters here, so he’s using shyster threats to try and intimidate them into silence.
This is politics. Greg isn’t concerned with being consistent.
I’ve explained myself already. We’ll settle this elsewhere.
Too bad nobody believes you.
Wait a moment, let me check something….
Well, if you’ve polled your readership, “nobody” is a pretty good approximation.
But enough fun here, Matt. You’ve gotten enough mileage off of one leak — and there’s plenty of time to address it. You’ll have to wait.
You’re just like Art Pedroza and his obsession with traffic and constant need to proclaim relevance.
I could always change the name of this blog to a popular breakfast drink and dupe search engine users into visiting it!
I’m not proclaiming our relevance. I’m proclaiming your irrelevance.
Greg — those are world wide figures and they matter considerably less than people in Anaheim you read any blog. It isn’t “mass media” anymore, it’s targeted micro media.
Yes, the thing that is impossible to check is often presented as being the really important one.
Well, it looks like a dozen or so have read it over the past few days, minus all but one of however many of them are Matt himself.
You’re a good friend to Matt, Dan. It’s touching.
“Yes, the thing that is impossible to check is often presented as being the really important one.”
sort of like the claims in your letter right?
That’s something that I’ll address, if need be, in the proper venue — which, and you may find this amazing, isn’t this.
Yes I do protect commenters’ identities, Dan, while (look it up!) directly discouraging their pseudonymous attacks. Here’s why:
(1) The decision about revealing identities is not mine to make, because it’s not my blog.
(2) Your personal thirst for vengeance doesn’t outweigh the promise made to commenters to preserve their privacy insofar as is possible.
(3) As we both know from your previous impotent fulminating threats, you don’t have a viable lawsuit against OJB. If you had one that could survive an demurrer, you could then do appropriate discovery. You might be subject to a seal of confidentiality, though — and it would be interesting to see if you’d abide by it.
(4) In contrast, I’m exploring the possibility of a claim hinging on a possible agency relationship between Matt and the City Council majority — or, put otherwise, between a blog’s funding being channeled (if not laundered) through a non-profit by a City Council majority, that could get at that information. I expect that such a suit would get past a demurrer if brought. (As a PR professional, you might not be bothered by that sort of arrangement; for all I know, it’s considered ideal.)
I know that the existence of these differences must frustrate you — as if my arguing with your buddy Matt in the first place wasn’t enough.
I do like the Ron Burgundy reference — it really works for you. (Say, do you usually read this blog or did someone send out a distress signal asking you to ride in to the rescue?)
did you post this twice?
Didn’t seem to take the first time. In retrospect, it looks like it posted a version that was only partially complete.
Is this Greg Diamond clown serious? He’s threatening to use legal action to try to learn our identities? What a tool. Tom Tait is really surrounding himself with some class acts nowadays.
Matt, I hope that you will understand that in this interaction I’m not acting as a blogger but as an attorney. Check your inbox by noon or so.
“Anaheimster,” if I truly wanted to be nasty I wouldn’t explain this to you in the hope that fewer people will enmesh themselves in the process — as you yourself have just done — but I don’t want to entrap people. So, to review:
Someone who received information from the City Clerk’s office passed along that information to Matt. They’ve also done so selectively and for the purpose of discrediting a legal claim that otherwise would have been quite unlikely to come to public attention (unless someone got lucky with a blind stab of a Public Records Act request.)
If that person is an agent of the City, that may have implications for the City’s ability to treat the matter confidentially. I’m researching that now.
Unless this came over his transom and Matt is accustomed to printing what could conceivably be a fake document (which this isn’t) without checking with its author — which would have its own implications — Matt knows who gave it to him. I can attempt to seek that information from him, in the process of, perhaps, challenging the City’s ability to deliberate about this matter in closed session. If I can ascertain the names of those commenting pseudonymously in reply to Matt’s post, I can assess whether they are agents of the City, and then explore the implications.
One side effect — not the primary purpose — is that I would then know the identities of the pseudonymous commenters and would be bound to pass that information to my client. I’m guessing that you would not want that to happen — after all, you are writing pseudonymously for a reason. So I’ve tried to give a head’s up to people that, as a side effect of formal action I would expect to take, whatever usual expectation of anonymity you have when posting here may be attenuated.
I regret that, despite that polite warning — not a threat, but a “head’s up” — you’ve blustered into the discussion. Then again, if you had also posted using one of the other pseudonyms, it wouldn’t matter.
Tait has had no advance warning of the Brown Act letter and has had nothing to do with this — unless, I suppose, he was the one who send the letter to Matt, which I highly doubt.
I’m going to try to stay out of this conversation, but as I personally DO value the right of people to comment anonymously, even though (with rare exceptions as a joke) I no longer myself comment in ways that would hide my identity, I want to make clear that outing commenters is not my intent here. It’s just a probable byproduct of my serving my client’s interests.
So, everyone other than Anaheimster: head’s up!
In other words, Greg, you (and by extension your client, Cynthia Ward) are making threats to expose people simply because they have expressed an opinion related to your letter, which is public information anyway. You’re making threats in an attempt to intimidate into silence people who have nothing to do with your complaint to the city.
Anaheimster is right. You are a tool, an even bigger one than I had previously thought.
No, I have no desire to expose anyone. But I presume that people don’t even want me to know their identities, right? And, fair warning, I would discover them — even without any plans to expose them. Your not wanting to give people a head’s up is ethically questionable.
(I suppose that you could just say how you got the document and from whom. That may — by itself or in combination with other acts — moot any need I had to sift through your commenters’ identities to determine which might be agents of the City. But you’re not likely to do that, right?)
The action I am now considering would be to block the City’s ability to consider of an item in closed session when its agents had waived its basis for confidentiality. (That also involves complicated questions of whether you — and what I understand you be your patrons at the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, have themselves become de facto agents for the City for some purposes. Agency law is complicated, but the question certainly seems worth exploring in this circumstance.)
After that, I’d have to file legal documents calling for relief that offer supporting evidence for my position. Those legal documents would very likely become available to the public, That’s not a threat, and exposing people would not be my purpose. It’s just how it is — an inevitable consequence of using the legal system appropriately — and I doubt that any court would look askance at it.
If people want to comment pseudonymously despite having been informed of that likelihood, they may — but I think that it’s wrong not to let them know of the prospect. You seem to disagree — and if those asserting that those other commenters are mostly you, then I understand why you’d think it unnecessary.
People can of course comment freely under their own names, allowing me to assess the question of their possible agency for the City directly. (Or, in the case of using cut-outs, less directly — but still conceivably.)
I’ll keep my own counsel regarding anti-SLAPP suits as suggested by one of your learned commenters, but as I do generally suggest to people who ask me that they consult with an attorney before threatening legal action, I can safely and ethically say that to you here.
You are so full of it, Diamond. Your explanation of how you aren’t making threats is one long threat of harassment and intimidation. What a phony.
Your opinion is duly noted.
Matt, you should thank Greg for putting his intent to intimidate down in black-and-white. Hit him with an anti-SLAPP suit if it comes to that.
He’s not claiming to censor you, to stop your posts, or to remove your posts. Anti-SLAPP doesn’t apply.
He’s simply stating that if things escalate (likely or unlikely as that is), your anonymity isn’t guaranteed, which like it or not is true.
Most of us who post a lot know that. Some of you who don’t might not. Every post you make comes with an IP, which may (or may not) be discoverable during a lawsuit. Ditto for your email address.
Greg earns a lot of criticism on his own. Come on people, this one is an honest to goodness attempt at a heads up. He’s not even claiming that it’s likely, he’s just saying it’s possible.
Lighten up.
Also, Matt– I think Greg offers a pretty fair question there. How did you get a letter hand delivered to the city clerk? Who authorized its release?
“I prefer the term “General Counsel” to “Counsel,” by the way…”
Greg, I’m afraid that’s a conversation you’ll have to have with yourself. I referred to you as counsel because that is how you refer to yourself in the letter.
I didn’t say that you had made a mistake — at least in that respect. I’m just helping you understand my role. Either term is accurate, but outside of how I used it they might have different connotation. And since you put the term in quotes, it seemed that it might be important to you in some way.
“In that case, we should expect them to walk their talk and disclose who their members are and who their donors are.”
CATER will do that as soon as the SOAR PAC does the same Matt. 🙂
Jason:
Get with the program, Jason. CATER is a 501(c)(4). SOAR PAC is just that: a political action committee. Two entirely different things. And in fact, a PAC is more transparent.
However, the real point is this: Greg and Cynthia run around demanding transparency from everyone and everything (with an emphasis on the many people they think are bad). In that case, they ought to practice what they preach. I, for one, am not holding my breath that they will.
As I’ve said, CATER will abide by any law requiring us to do whatever is required. As does CATER’s fellow 501(c)(4) the League of Women’s Voters, I personally believe that the proposed IRS reforms requiring greater transparency are appropriate. Only a fool would unilaterally disarm when not doing so may assist in gaining far more important multilateral concessions. (And only a knave would demand it.)
So, Matt — do you join me (speaking personally, not for CATER, let alone the DPOC) in calling for disclosure of donors to 501(c)(4) funds actively involved in political campaigns, such as Wellspring, which spread around $17 million in anonymously donated funds in the last election cycle? In contrast, CATER intends to focus its efforts on public education and the use of litigation — which isn’t cheap — to force Anaheim’s government and its chums to abide by the law. So, unlike those “social welfare” non-profits that are funneling dark money into political campaigns, we’re focusing on problem solving.
(Does anyone else think that it’s amusing to hear a lecture on transparency from someone who has fought so hard and so long against releasing even the basic information about who pays for this very blog?)
Ok, then I’d love a list of who sits on the SOAR PAC board and I’ll tell you who sits on CATERs. Fair deal?
No, because I don’t know who sits on the SOAR PAC board. Furthermore, they don’t run around accusing anyone they don’t like of having hidden agendas and being part of a big secret conspiracy and then daring anyone they’ve accused to prove their koo-koo allegations wrong. That would be you and your pals, Jason.
You and your buddies love to yammer about transparency. Here’s your chance to put up or shut up.
CATER will disclose what it is supposed to disclose at the time that it is supposed to disclose it.
Meanwhile, did you ever verify who funds this blog?
Dodge and weave, Greg! Dodge and weave! I’ve no doubt your little claque will be a secretive one that will demand of others what it won’t demand of itself.
Saying that you have “no doubt” about something is a pretty low bar, Matt. I’ll make this simple. CATER will demand that the City of Anaheim (and those in league with it) abide by the law. In turn, we shall abide by the law. That you consider that a “dodge and weave” is telling.
which means if you don’t have to disclose you won’t. Isn’t that right Greg?
The Board has not yet discussed this. (We’re new and we’re not yet that big, so it’s not a pressing need.) Perhaps we will try to form a compact with other 501(c)(4) organizations regarding voluntarily exceeding the bare minimums of required disclosure. You’d favor that, right?
Diamond – If everything you allege regarding the document is true – it is not significant in practical or legal terms. You even indicate that the council apparently had their minds made up how they were going to vote – regardless. That may or may not have been a good idea – but it is not a violation of the Brown Act.
You know my identity.
Thank you for your legal opinion. On what case law did you base it? Or is this merely what you as a layperson consider to be “common sense”?
What poltroon dares question the Greatest Living Legal Mind of the city of Brea?! What knave be it, I say? What impertinence!
Matt, I don’t offer opinions second-guessing you when it comes to your area of professional expertise — which for the sake of delicacy I will leave unstated.
actually, that’s not true…you offered plenty of commentary over Matt’s role in assisting the Tilted Kilt in Orange in a post that was changed multiple times as actual facts were posted. Vern must have written it after having a few drinks.
Wasn’t my story. If you assert even more kinship with Matt by saying that what he did in (as I see it) lobbying for the twisted Kilt owners was in “your area of professional expertise,” then I stand corrected and you stand self-abased.
Your letter was actually more readable than your usual claptrap blog postings. It was about 3 pages too long and went off point in several areas.