It's a right. Government meetings are supposed to be open.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their
representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and
assemble freely to consult for the common good.
(b) (1) The people have the right of access to information
concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the
meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and
agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.
But the Oakland City Government is having none of it.
After an intense day of behind-closed-door meetings Friday, Oakland officials are moving forward with plans to evict Occupy Oakland...
The eviction, which has the blessing of a majority of the City Council and the reluctant concurrence of Mayor Jean Quan, is likely to come sooner rather than later.
I'm sure there's some technical explanation for why such a decision could be taken behind closed doors; how the City Council could effectively vote on such a move without doing so in public. We all know it's bullshit, but we all know that if anyone calls them out it it will be months or years before they are wrist-slapped, even if they really are violating the Brown Act:
For legislative bodies of local agencies, the Brown Act defines a meeting as "any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency to which it pertains."
But the fact that all this has been decided in secret is not even the most frightening part:
According to sources, Quan went into the meeting asking for more time for negotiations with Occupy Oakland...
According to those in the meeting, Quan -- who has been hammered by both her supporters and detractors for her handling of the Occupy encampment -- appeared disengaged.
"It was like she was on another planet," one council member said...
When the meeting ended, Quan agreed to a police sweep if and when Jordan finds one necessary.
OMFG. This is Howard Jordan, the police chief. The same police chief who was in charge when those under his command nearly killed Scott Olsen, and seriously wounded other veterans and reporters. The same police chief who has repeated demonstrated that he cannot control his own police force. The same police chief who got up at the last City Council meeting and blatantly lied that his men "acted with restraint..."
Now Quan, apparently vacationing on Uranus, and the rest of the City Government have given him the authority to sweep the camp when he "finds it necessary."
The only thing stopping Jordan from another rampage might be the lack of cooperation from other, neighboring police forces.
Alameda County Sheriff's Department now wants to be paid... The City of Alameda wants to be protected from any possible lawsuits... Demonstrations at UC Berkeley and Cal State East Bay are likely to tie up UC and Hayward police...
"So we will need to go sooner rather than later..." said another source planning the Oakland eviction.
When Zuccotti Park was threatened with "cleaning" in what seems like ages ago now but was actually only several weeks past, thousands and thousands of the 99% descended on the square in the earliest hours of the morning to defend the perimeter. The powers that be wisely called off their assault.
I honestly don't think Occupy Oakland has the organization or the support, or the weather, to be able to defend Ogawa Plaza / Oscar Grant Park in this manner for any length of time. But they have surprised me before.
If the call were to go out to the entire Bay Area and beyond to descend on Oakland City Center and stay put, who knows where it might lead?
9:24 AM PT:
DALLAS - A federal judged helped the City of Dallas and Occupy Dallas protesters reach an agreement to stay in their present location through the weekend.
Earlier Friday the group asked for a temporary restraining order to keep the City of Dallas from shutting the camp down at 5 p.m. Saturday afternoon.
http://www.wfaa.com/...
No idea of the circumstances involved here, but it seems like someone could make a similar attempt with respect to Oakland. The question is, who would have the authority or standing to seek such an injunction?
9:42 AM PT: Fasinating article on the Mayor's husband role in trying to negotiate with Occupy Oakland
“I want to remind all of you that OO HAS NO NEGOTIATING TEAM. They are the only ones in the country that do not. You need to know how exasperating this has been for this type of encampment to exist in a city with a progressive mayor who is offering to help but nobody to talk to about it.”
and find a way of removing them from the site without violence.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/...
9:53 AM PT:
alyssa011968 Alyssa
Huger march today! Rally starts at 4 PM. Don't miss. Egypt put on huge march 2 show solidarity w #OccupyOakland against police brutality!
Anyone going to be there?
11:21 AM PT:
The decision to move ahead with the eviction began after a closed City Council session this week in which several of the council members said it was time for Occupy Oakland to go.
http://www.sfgate.com/...
From what I've read of the Brown Act, etc, there is simply no way this meeting could have been legal. e.g.
The legislative body must post an agenda for the closed meeting or session at least seventy-two hours beforehand.