Intimidation By Cheesecake???

It has been brought to my attention that a certain establishment of higher learning has had a lawyer write a letter stating that there may have been a violation of the Brown Act by members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.

The letter, minus the author's signature can be found at the bottom of this post.

While it is true that three members of the City Council attended the a meeting at the same time, in the same place, what is not true is that the three members talked together about any city business.

Only one member of the City Council got up to address the attendees of the meeting.

The Brown Act prohibits more than two members of our City Council from talking about city business or issues when outside a legally held meeting of the City Council.

Two members of our five-member City Council can talk about city issues and participate as members of sub-committees. Three or more members cannot.

As it happened, three members attended a meeting at a very fancy resort overlooking the blue Pacific Ocean.

That resort offers desserts that are, to put is as best as I heard, "to die for".

While one Council member remained inside the meeting, one other member left to look at the dessert table and possibly choose a treat to eat.

The third Council member also left the room at a different time than the member who went for a treat.

The Council member who searched for the dessert chose a piece of cheesecake that he found, at first bite, to be something thoroughly enjoyable.

As the dessert enjoying Council member headed back into the meeting and enjoying his treat he was eating, he passed the other Council member who was going in the opposite direction.

The words exchanged by the two dealt with the quality and enjoyment of the cheesecake now heading towards the digestive tract of the pleased Council member. There was absolutely no city business discussed between the two of them even though it would have been legal for them to do so out of earshot or discussion with the third Council member.

And, since I have never read about or got up to speak to the City Council about matters involving cheesecake, I am fairly certain that cheesecake is not something we have seen on any agenda of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council UNLESS some was dropped off a fork onto a document by reason of slippage.

None of that matters of course because an attorney representing or supporting that certain establishment of higher learning saw the two Council members' encounter and wrote a letter stating that there was an inference that a criminal complaint could be filed with the District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles dealing with charges of violating the Brown Act........all because one Council member stated his adoration of his piece of cheesecake.

It looks to me what we have here is a certain establishment's of higher learning may be attempting to use intimidation against our elected officials.

Now for me, when that establishment tries in my opinion, to intimidate my representatives, I am not pleased and I take that as also an intimidation against the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes who elected the members to represent us.

Since that lawyer and supporters of that establishment of higher learning seek to allow themselves the rights and responsibilities to deal with that establishment at they see fit, in my opinion, I guess all of them can eat all the cheesecake they can get their hands on and talk freely, with their mouths full as they talk about their establishment's plan.

Now, it seems to me that this may be a tempest in a teapot or some crumbs over baked goods, but it may also illustrate something very wrong about the establishment, its agents and supporters, and their tactics attempting to get their way...no matter what.

How should some of us respond?

I think this post allows for humor at this point. It also demonstrates that there is information passed around by more than just those directly involved in incidents and activities.

It means that intimidation of any kind will find the light of day to fight against it. This time humor was attempted. Next time it might not be humorous at all.

It also may be illustrative of that certain establishment's agents in how far they might be willing to go to get what they want.

It is still only June and an election with a ballot measure involving that certain establishment of higher learning, will appear on the ballot. Is it nice and responsible for the agents to already try what some have already called 'intimidation' against opponents of their measure?

As far as I am concerned and using assertions I have already posted, I am feeling more secure that those agents are going about proving my assertions without me having to do much besides reporting their evidence of proof.

Thanks! Some agents are possibly doing work I don't really have to do now.

I guess I can work harder trying to find someone willing to debate me about the safety of having up to 250 students, almost all below the age of 23, living above switchbacks along a two-lane hilly road and having the neighborhood where their housing is being planned being totally unsuitable for high density residences in a low density land use area.

I am not afraid that I do not have the luxury to be able to intimidate anyone at that certain establishment. I am not really willing to try that kind of stuff, anyway. I definitely don't need to because they are basically proving all my points and demonstrating some tactics I rather prefer to not have associated with me.

I do like cheesecake, though. But with my new eating plan, only a tiny sliver of that wonderful dessert can pass between my teeth.

I guess I'll just have to offer the rest of my piece to whichever Council member I pass by, But I will make sure they don't talk to me about city matters.

Only cheesecake.

You can click over the images of the letter to enlarge it. But you probably don't really want to read it, do you?