Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - Policy A-6, Censuring, Use of Seal - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed August 11, 2015 Item No. 20 From: Bill Becker <freedomxlaw @gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2015 11:36 AM To: Peotter, Scott; Curry, Keith; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; edselich @newportbeachca.gov; Brown, Leilani; Dixon, Diane; Harp, Aaron Subject: Resolution to Censure, etc. (second corrected version) Attachments: fnl.8- 9- 2015.peotter (5).pdf To the Clerk: With apologies (it is Sunday and I am out of state on vacation without a computer relying on gotomypc.com), please find attached a second revised version of our letter submitted regarding the agenda item on Tuesday re: Councilman Peotter. Please discard the two previous versions and make this version part of the official record. Thank you! All for His glory! 1 Corinthians 10:31 Bill Becker President/CEO /General Counsel x Your donations are tax - deductible. 11500 Olympic Blvd., Suite 400 1 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel: (310) 636 -1018 1 Toll Free: (866) 649 -6057 1 Fax: (310) 765 -6328 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §J 2510 -2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, or please call the sender at (310) 636 -1018 and then delete this email from your system. Thank you. FREEDONIX w p1 ^.kc- asseAVentthxeaUxwsaftmmxa. a�maaym WWW.F REEoomXLAw.WM B ill@ FreadomnLaNSGOm August 7, 2015 Ha E -mail Attachment Only Mayor Edward D. Selich and Members of the City Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Resolution to Censure Councilman Scott Peotter and Criminal Investigation Dear Mayor Selich and Council Members: We write to protest the Newport Beach City Council's consideration of punitive action against Councilman Scott Peotter over his use of the city seal on a constituent newsletter addressing the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial same -sex marriage ruling. We request this letter be made part of the official record at the appropriate council meeting. By way of introduction, Freedom X is a tax- exempt non - profit public interest law firm and advocacy center dedicated expression. to protecting our freedom of religious, political and intellectual Councilman Peotter did not act unlawfully by using a photograph of the city seal in his communications with constituents. Nor is a proclamation of censure well - advised.[ Indeed, we question the wisdom of even contemplating such measures over an elected government official's right to address issues of the day with or without a city seal. We submit that: (1) Councilman Peotter's remarks on same -sex marriage were expressions of opinion grounded in his religious faith and protected under the First Amendment; (2) the storm over use of the seal is pretext for stifling dissent that political activists oppose; and (3) the proposed resolution amending the seal use ordinance and public statements made by the council represent strong evidence of unconstitutional content- and view - point -based discrimination. We provide you with our analysis of the issues, which incorporates and supplements the valuable legal reasoning already submitted to the council by the Pacific Justice Institute and attorney Craig P. Alexander. I These actions were introduced by Kevin O'Grady, an activist, and supported by Councilman Keith Curry. 11,500 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD SUITE 400 - LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 - (310) 636 -1018 µms' ' FREED0Ii4 Mayor Edward D. Selich and City Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 8, 2015 Page 2 I. Summary Of The Alleged "Offense" Councilman Peotter uses the mass e -mail platform "Constant Contact" and social media to connect with his constituents. On July 6, 2015, he exercised his First Amendment right and civic duty as an elected representative of the people to address a matter of profound public concern rending the nation and cormnunities like Newport Beach. Councilman Peotter, joined by many residents of Newport Beach, believes the Supreme Court's 5 -4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges2 represents a radical transformation of our nation's moral laws and the subversion of the God - ordained institution of marriage (or "holy" matrimony).' The court has unfortunately, but not unforeseeably, deepened hostilities between the religious faithful and sexual orientation/gender identity ( "SOGI ")4 activists. ' In Obergefell, four Supreme Court justices issued dissenting opinions finding there to be no constitutional right to same -sex marriage. Applying the reasoning of those calling for Councilman Peotter's censure, four of the Supreme Court justices are bigots, homophobes and hatemongers, who would incite rampant bullying and bigotry leading to psychological scarring, especially felt by children. 'Councilman Peotter relies on Genesis 2:18 -24 for his belief that marriage is the union between one man and one woman: The Lord God said, "It isn't good for the man to live alone. I need to make a suitable partner for him." So the Lord took some soil and made animals and birds. He brought them to the man to see what names he would give each of them. Then the man named the tame animals and the birds and the wild animals. That's how they got their names. None of these was the right kind of partner for the man. So the Lord God made him fall into a deep sleep, and he took out one of the man's ribs. Then after closing the man's side, the Lord made a woman out of the rib. The Lord God brought her to the man, and the man exclaimed, "Here is someone like me! She is part of my body, my own flesh and bones. She came from me, a man. So I will name her Woman!" That's why a man will leave his own father and mother. He marries a woman, and the two of them become like one person. (CEV) ' The acronyms LGBT, LGBTQ and other variations are frequently cited inconsistently. As short- hand for various sexual categories, they omit many others. Each acronym has one commonality: heterosexuality is excluded. Our preference, for the purpose of clarity, is to identify membership in the non - heterosexual universe of sexual categories as the "sexual orientation/gender identity" ( "SOGI ") movement, a term adopted by the American Bar Association, the United Nations, LGBT s Mayor Edward D. Selich and City Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 8, 2015 Page 3 Councilman Peotter made statements regarding the Obergefell rulings in a mass e- mailed newsletter bearing a banner with photographs depicting a portion of city hall, what appears to be the edge of a dock, and a facsimile of the city seal attached to a wall behind an American flag. He wrote: I know, The Supreme Court (that would be 5 out of 9 guys in black robes) decided 10 days ago to overtum 5,000 years of Judeo - Christian tradition, by redefining and allowing gay marriage. All of a sudden, a lot of the "important stuff' of the city didn't seem so important. I like how the White House is really quick on the "important' stuff like this rainbow lighting. I do find it interesting that the homosexual movement adopted the rainbow as their symbol, as it was God's symbol that he wouldn't destroy the world by flood again.... Maybe they are "wishful thinking..." These statements appeared below a color photograph of homosexuals kissing and celebrating out- side a White House bathed in the rainbow colors of the SOGI movement. None of these statements constitutes "hatred," "bigotry" or "homophobia:' They are observations that question (1) the validity of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, (2) the council's priorities, and (3) the use of the rainbow to celebrate sexual orientation. A particular segment of the community found reason to invoke outrage over these statements, using every rhetorical trick in the book to sway council opinion.6 Apparently, Councilman Peotter didn't get the memo stating that any expression of opposition to "marriage equality" is per se homophobic.' But according to whom? The phenomenon of tarring an individual with the afore- mentioned labels is part of a widening culture of profane, reflexive and unreflective outrage in which being "offended" constitutes serious injury. The SOGI movement, including the protesters rights groups and other organizations. 5 The statements are copied here verbatim, including typographical errors. 'These include labeling (bigot, homopbobe, heterosexist, misogynistic, bully), fearmongering (loss of commerce, boycotts, divestments; promoting bullying, psychological harm, distrust, lack of personal safety, division, stigmatizing), ad hommem, threats, hyperbole, misdirection ... to name a few. MarkJoseph Stem, "Yes, Opposing Gay Marriage Makes You a Homophobe," Slate, 12 /16/2015. http: / /www. slate.com/blogs /outward/ 2013/ 12/ 16/ gay_marriage_opponents_homopho- bic_does opposing_gay_marriage_make you_a.html Mayor Edward D. Selich and City Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 8, 2015 Page 4 at the July 14, 2015, special session, tries to justify its outrage on the specious and emotionally - charged claim that mere expression of dissent is harmful to children.s Yet from our review of the video posted on the council's website of the hearing, public opinion is decidedly mixed. Some members of the community claimed to take offense, while others threw their support behind Councilman Peotter's expressive rights and viewpoint. Quite evidently, there is no community consensus to warrant any action to punish him. Nor is there a national consensus. A recent poll found that voters, by a four to one margin, support protecting religious liberty over protecting gay and lesbian rights.' As most Newport Beach residents went about their daily routines, teams of militant SOGI activists devoted to pounding a postmodern version of morality into mainstream acceptance descended on city hall to engage in a blistering series of attacks on Councilman Peotter. These SOGI activists, including "proud" parents of gay children, paid mere lip service to the cherished backbone of freedom, the freedom to express unpopular opinions without fear of government censorship or reprisal. Under their warped reasoning, Councilman Peotter is "entitled," but just not free, to ex- press his opinions. If he does express a view they oppose, as one bellicose man put it, they will not hesitate to exact a "pound of flesh." In spite of having to endure attacks on his personal integrity and constitutional rights, Councilman Peotter offered apologies and removed the seal from his newsletters and Facebook page. II. Councilman Curry's Remarks The city's response to the shrill chorus showcased on July 14 should have been to lower the temperature of public dissent. After all, no person receiving Councilman Peotter's newsletter (sent to a private list of recipients) could reasonably be "confused" over the unofficial nature of his comments. Nor could a reasonable person find in his remarks signs of bigotry, hate or "homophobia." 8 "To oppose gay marriage is to help prevent loving couples from visiting each other in the hospital, from raising a child together, from enjoying the most basic facets of a fulfilling life. And just as perniciously, in the words of the Supreme Court, opposition to marriage equality 'humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same -sex couples' by telling them their parents don't deserve the dignity and respect afforded to straight couples. Those who oppose gay marriage drive the laws that inflict this daily humiliation unto gay couples and their children. That, put simply, is homophobia." Id. 'Paul Bedard, "Poll: Americans, 4 to 1, choose religious freedom over gay rights," Washington Examiner, 8/5/2015. http://www.washingtonexaminer.coin/poll- americans- 4 -to -l-choose- religious-freedom-over-gay-rights/article/2569587. Mayor Edward D. Selich and City Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 8, 2015 Page 5 Yet rather than lower the temperature, the council turned up the heat by pandering to a thuggish crowd imposing an unconstitutional "heckler's veto.s10 Councilman Curry was particularly heated in his remarks. Because he is responsible for calling for additional action intended to make an example of Councilman Peotter, it is necessary to unveil the flaw in his logic. Councilman Curry's performance, especially his statement that Newport Beach is an "inclusive" community, conveyed the impression that Councilman Peotter is opposed to promoting inclusiveness and diversity within Newport Beach. But Councilman Curry should consider his own affiliations and whether the same broad brush could be used against him. Councilman Curry is a staff member and director of Concordia University Irvine's Center for Public Policy." Concordia describes itself as "a Christian educational institution operated by The Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod [LCMS].. "12 Concordia operates "in compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, [and] employs only those applicants who meet the religious membership requirements established by the university." 13 This is the official doctrine of the LCMS relating to same -sex marriage God gave marriage as a picture of the relationship between Christ and His bride the Church (Eph. 5:32). Homosexual behavior is prohibited in the Old and New Testaments (Lev. 18:22, 24, 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9 -20; 1 Tim. 1:10) as contrary to the Creator's design (Rom. 11 "It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys." Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995). Indeed, the government may not "impose special prohibitions on those speakers who ex- press views on disfavored subjects" or on the basis of `hostility—or favoritism — towards the underlying message expressed." R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377, 386 (1992). "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Police Dep't of City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972). " Councilman Curry' s profile page at Concordia's website states: "In October, 2011, Keith Curry was named Director of the Concordia University Center for Public Policy. The Center is dedicated to promoting civil dialogue, encouraging public engagement and serving as a forum for research and discussion on public policy issues facing Orange County and California." He has been assigned a Concordia telephone number and e-mail address: (949) 214 -3200 and keith.cury @cui.edu. http: / /www.cui.edu/centers- institutes /center- public - policy /index /id/22050. z http: / /www.cui.edu/hr /index /id/3684. s hrtp: / /www.cui.edu/hr /index /id/3688. fREI;DOM Mayor Edward D. Selich and City Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 8, 2015 Page 6 1:26 -27). The LCMS affirms that such behavior is "intrinsically sinful" and that, "on the basis of Scripture, marriage [is] the lifelong union of one man and one woman (Gen. 2:2- 24; Matt. 19:5 -6)" (2004 Res. 3 -05A). It has also urged its members "to give a public witness from Scripture against the social acceptance and legal recognition of homosexual `marriage' " (2004 Res. 3 -05A). (Emphasis added.) Based upon Concordia's mission statement, 14 and following the tortured reasoning of SOGI activists, Councilman Curry's association with Concordia and would be considered no different than if he were associated with the Ku Klux Klan. According to such logic, Councilman Curry should be censured for his association with Concordia. If Councilman Curry's views on what qualifies as a "diverse" community excludes Lutherans or others who share the LCMS position on homosexuality and same -sex marriage, the public has a right to know. This is especially true if he intends to proceed with his goal of punishing Councilman Peotter. 111. Legal Analysis A. Censure is Not Warranted Our review of Newport Beach's city ordinances and policies fails to turn up any language establishing a basis for government censure of a sitting council member. Without such a formal policy, it is difficult to see how any formal action taken by the council would not be ultra vires and thus unlawful and actionable. The City of Stockton does have a censure policy that provides some useful guidance: Censure is a formal Resolution of City Counsel reprimanding one of its own members for specified conduct, generally a violation of law or of City policy where the violation of policy is considered to be a serious offense. Censure should not follow an occasional error in judgment, which occurs in good 'faith and is unintentional. Censure carries no fine or suspension of the rights of the member as an elected official but a censure is a punitive action that serves as a punishment for wrongdoing. (Emphasis added.) Censure, generally, is a formal, public reprimand for an infraction or violation. Has Councilman Peotter committed a "serious" offense, infraction or violation by publishing his views on a court decision and the use of the rainbow by the SOGI movement using the city seal? 14 See "Lutheran Higher Education at Concordia University: Belief and Application. http://www.cui.edu/aboutcui/heritage/index/id/20789. 4tZITIREFDONIX Mayor Edward D. Selich and City Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 8, 2015 Page 7 There is no evidence that Councilman Peotter has objectively committed a serious offense, an infraction or violation of Newport Beach's city ordinances. Igniting the wrath of intemperate SOGI activists who show up with cudgels to city council meetings shouting "Kill the beast!" is not a serious offense. It is politics. Indeed, as a matter of public record, the city attorney has already stated that he believes section 1. 16.050 (Use of the City Seal) to be ambiguous in that it is unclear what is meant by the temr "city purpose," and therefore he has chosen not to enforce it until such time as the council has approved a new ordinance. Accordingly, no serious offense, infraction or violation could possibly have been committed. Censure is also unwarranted because Councilman Peotter's statements said nothing about his attitude towards gays, lesbians, etc., but merely reflected his opposition to the Supreme Court's same -sex marriage ruling and use of a Biblical symbol for purposes of SOGI activism. There is no community consensus relating to the ruling, and objections based on religious viewpoints are no basis for punishing speech. Indeed, the First Amendment prohibits government hostility towards religion. Censure is also unwarranted because it appears to be politically- motivated and therefore not in the city's best interest. Finally, censure is unwarranted because Councilman Peotter has already been subjected to a lengthy harangue, has apologized and has removed the city seal from his private communications. Censure thus accomplishes nothing other than to allow political rivals to enjoy a sense of self - satisfaction. B. A Criminal Investigation Is Not Warranted As already discussed, the city attorney has found the seal use ordinance to be ambiguous and ceased enforcement of it prior to Councilman Peotter's statements. A criminal investigation is thus unwarranted if the ordinance was not being enfrced. Calling for one only reveals political opportunism. C. The Proposed Revised Policy Regarding Expressions Of Official City Position Or Policy Is Defective And Could Subject The City To Potential Legal Action. The proposed revised policy regarding "Expressions of Official City Position or Policy" states in pertinent part: Any City Council Member who wishes to make a statement or opinion regarding a matter Ajw y.` FREED0Nt4 Mayor Edward D. Selich and City Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 8, 2015 Page 8 which the City Council has not taken an official position on shall ensure that said statement or opinion cannot be construed by the public as being an official position or policy of the City of Newport Beach. How can this reasonably be enforced? It requires a council member to read the public's mind. What is a member to do to "ensure" other people will not misinterpret his other communications? How exactly does a member control how others perceive his or her statements? As written, the proposed policy supplies no objective enforcement mechanism nor even a legal remedy. More directly, it allows for arbitrary application, which is "inherently inconsistent with a valid time, place, and manner regulation because such discretion has the potential for becoming a means of suppressing a particular point of view." Forsyth Cmy., Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 130 -31 (1992), citing Hefron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 649 (1981). D. Unless Resolution No. 2015 -63 Is Stricken, Any Law Or Policy Adopted Under It Will Become Evidence Of Content- And Viewpoint -Based Censorship In Violation Of The First Amendment. By referencing Councilman Peotter's statements, Resolution No. 2015 -63 demonstrates that the regulation arising from its recitals is based on the content of Councilman Peotter's statements and the viewpoints he expressed. A regulation that by its terms singles out particular content for differential treatment is content- based. Berger v. City ofSeattle, 569 F.3d 1029, 1051 (9th Cir. 2009). However, a facially content - neutral regulation having as its "underlying purpose" the goal of suppressing particular ideas is also content - based. Id.; see also Ctr. for Bio- Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sher ff Dep't, 533 F.3d 780, 787 (9th Cir. 2008) (content - based if the main purpose of the regulation is to suppress or exalt speech of a certain content); Tollis Inc. v. San Bernardino Cry., 827 F.2d 1329, 1332 (9th Cir.1987) (content -based if the regulation is predominantly aimed at the suppression of First Amendment rights). Although a statute "does not indicate an intent to suppress speech of a certain content ... [t]hat lack of purpose ... does not render application of the statute to the Committees' speech content - neutral." Ctr. for Bio - Ethical Reform, 533 F.3d at 787. "It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys." Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995). "The First Amendment does not permit [the government] to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects." R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391 (1992). And the Supreme Court has held time and again that the mere fact that someone might take offense at the content of the speech or the viewpoint of the speaker does not provide Mayor Edward D. Selich and City Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 8, 2015 Page 9 a basis for prohibiting the speech. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 491 (1989). ( "If there is a bed -rock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."): Erznoznilc v. City of'Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 210 (1975) ( "[T]he Constitution does not permit government to decide which types of otherwise protected speech are sufficiently offensive to require protection for the unwilling listener or viewer. "); Street v. New York, 394 US 576, 592 (1969) ( "It is firmly settled that ... the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers. "); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 26 (1971) ( "[W]e cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words [or pictures] without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process. Indeed, govermnents might soon seize upon the censorship of particular words [or pictures] as a convenient guise for banning the expression of unpopular views. "); see generally Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 1219 (2011) ( "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. "). Indeed, a listener's reaction is not a legally sufficient basis for restricting speech. See Forsyth Cnty. v Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134 -35 (1992) (noting that speech cannot be "punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob "). Ashlee Kendall, a former city code enforcement officer who appeared during the public comment session on July 14, cited the case of Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994) as authority for the proposition that the Constitution permits punishing official speech that disrupts an "agency's" operations.15 Waters is inapposite here, and Ms. Kendall has misread it. Waters is an employment law case involving government employee speech, not speech of an elected official. It holds that employers may restrict employee speech, not privileged speech or speech expressed as a private citizen. It is therefore unsuitable to the facts presented in this matter. If Councilman Peotter could properly be said to have acted as an official when he published his remarks, then his statements are absolutely privileged and immune from liability. If his statements constitute private speech, they are non - actionable. � s We wish to observe that Ms. Kendall incorrectly made a big point of stating that Justices Scalia and Ginsberg joined in the majority opinion. Although Justice Scalia wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, he did not join the majority opinion or its legal reasoning. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Souter and Ginsberg, did jointhe Sandra Day O'Connor - authored majority opinion. Mayor Edward D. Selich and City Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 8, 2015 Page 10 E. If Newport Beach Is An Inclusive Community, Respectful Of People Of Different Faiths, It Must Respect Councilman Peotter's Constitutional Rights. Resolution No. 2015 -63 states that Newport Beach "is a diverse community comprised of people ofdifferentfaiths, races, nationalities, ethnicities and sexual orientations" and that the city wishes to "reaffirm its commitment to a diverse community that actively protects the rights of people of different faiths, races, nationalities, ethnicities and sexual orientations." (Emphasis added.) Is that only sometimes? Is that only when SOGI activists abandon their demand, as one gay man told the counsel, for acceptance and not merely tolerance? Is the city now in the business of protecting speech that favors sexual orientation over religious conviction? Councilman Peotter draws his beliefs from his faith. Under the ciVs policy, he is legally entitled to as much respect as any citizen who comes to the council chambers with beliefs different from his. That means respect for Councilman Peotter's viewpoint however offensive it may be to some members of the community. To quote Waters: "The First Amendment demands a tolerance of 'verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance,' as `necessary side effects of ... the process of open debate[.] "' Waters, U.S. 661 at 672, quoting Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24 -25 (1971). (Emphasis added.) That means both sides of the debate are free to give as good as they get. Councilman Peotter needs your support, not your condemnation. His actions demonstrate that he is not trying to silence SOGI activists. Indeed, he patiently and respectfully endured some two hours of vituperative insults. But they wish to chill his right to freely express his opinions on matters of public concern because they have a political agenda they wish to succeed. At least two citizens who addressed the council in July represented that they are directors of Democratic LGBT caucuses. More than a few were social workers or involved in other SOGI political activism (e.g., PFLAG). IV. Threats Of Boycott, Divestment Or Sanctions Should Not Interfere With The City's Duty To Respect Religious Speech. The fear of boycott, divestment or sanctions ( "BDS ") cannot be used as a cudgel to chill free speech and public expressions and opinions on issues that merit debate. Otherwise, the city will become captive to the special interests of activists pushing agendas that may not serve the city's best interests. By submitting to fearmongering, the city only emboldens those who cannot win political change legitimately. What is needed by civil leaders is clarity and boldness of expression. In this case, members of Mayor Edward D. Selich and City Council CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 8, 2015 Page 11 the council have already publicly reproached Councilman Peotter and made a record of the city's policy on "diversity" and "inclusiveness." Fueling public anger by going further to make an example of Councilman Peotter will not relieve the city of BDS threats. In reality, the zealots won't be satisfied until Councilman Peotter leaves office. No civic interest is served by stirring up a hornet's nest over political and religious statements that, while they may have been poorly expressed, have done no provable harm to the city or its citizens and pose no future threat of harm. Now is the time for cooler heads to prevail. The sensible thing to do would be to leave it behind and move forward. V. Conclusion Councilman Peotter must be allowed to exercise his judgment to "freely speak, write and publish his ... sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right." Cal.Const. Art. 1, § 2. He is free to express his disagreement with court opinions, as well as his moral views on sexuality and marriage. He can express these views in e- mails, on Facebook, on television, on radio, in council chambers and elsewhere. Punishing him for offending some people would reflect badly on the city, leaving the impression that homosexuals are welcome but Christians who follow scriptural admonitions regarding sexual behavior outside of a one - man/one -woman marriage are not. If the city council decides to adopt the threatened punitive measures, we would not hesitate to initiate legal action against the city to protect free expression and religious liberty in Newport Beach. cc: City Clerk; Leilani Brown LBrown@ncwpoabeachea.gov City Attorney, .Aaron Haip aharp @newportbeachca.gov All for His Glory! I Corinthians 10:31 Freedom X William J. Becker, Jr. President/CEO /General Counsel Councilman Tony Petrol TPetros @NewponBeachCa.gov Councilman Kevin Muldoon KMuldoon@NewpoaBeachCa.gov Councilman Scott Penner S Peoner@NewportBeachCa.gov Councilman Keith Curry curryk@pfin.com Mavor Pro Tem Diane B. Dixon Councilman Ed Selich Councilman Duffy Duffield DDixon @N'ewportBeachCa.gov EdSelichgroadrunner.com DDuffieldgNewportBeachCa.gov Received After Agenda Printed August 11, 2015 Item No. 20 From: Craig Alexander <cpalexander @cox.net> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 2:26 PM To: Dixon, Diane; Petros, Tony; Duffield, Duffy, Muldoon, Kevin; Selich, Edward; Peotter, Scott; Curry, Keith Cc: Kiff, Dave; Harp, Aaron; Brown, Leilani Subject: RE: The City of Newport Beach's new Prior Restraint "Rule" and the Proposed Censure of City Councilman Scott Peotter Attachments: 7 -20 -15 Itr to City of Newport Beach.pdf Dear Mayor Selich and Members of the City Council, I attach (again) a copy of my letter to you of July 20, 2015 on the subject of a proposed censure of Councilman Scott Peotter and potential referral to the District Attorney's office. I note this issue is on your council's agenda for tomorrow night. At this time I am not sure I can attend tomorrow night's meeting. Therefore I ask that this letter be made a part of the official record on this issue. Since sending you this letter, I have learned that Councilman Curry, who newspapers report is the main driver of the move to censure Councilman Peotter, is the Director of the Center for Public Policy at Concordia University Irvine —a Lutheran collage (http: / /www.cui.edu /centers- institutes /center - public - policy). According to the web page for the Center it states that its purpose is: "Welcome to the Concordia University Center for Public Policy. A program of the School of Business, the Center brings together diverse points of view within Orange County to focus on critical issues confronting our future. These issues include fiscal sustainability, pension reform, workforce development, government efficiency, social services, public safety, environmental policy, and economic development. Through the Center, Concordia University works with elected officials, labor, business groups, public sector managers and local residents to find solutions to difficult problems and serve as a forum for discussion and dialogue." Has Councilman Curry decided to resign as Concordia's Director of this Center? His actions do not speak of one interested in fostering respectful dialogue of persons with "diverse points of view within Orange County to focus on critical issues confronting our future." His wish to censure Mr. Peotter would seem to be out of character for someone associated with Concordia's deep Christian heritage which includes commitment to traditional marriage. If Mr. Curry does not resign from his directorship as a result of this action, either he is, in my opinion, practicing hypocrisy or petty political "gotcha." I urge Councilman Curry to stand down and get back to the business of the City of Newport Beach. So the City Council needs to ask itself a question: Does the City value its citizens (and all citizens) who have a traditional viewpoint about marriage? Are religious rights subservient to homosexual marriage rights and opinions in the City of Newport Beach in the eyes of the City Council? If so, you should have the political courage to make that statement clearly and loudly to your voters —or celebrate the "diversity" and "tolerance" you claim to be upholding by acknowledging Councilman Peotter's right to speak his mind on an important issue and drop this censure motion and referral to the DA's office. One final thought about the use of the City Seal — I have reviewed the city's own ordinance on this issue. The ordinance is vague at best and it is my understanding that Mr. Peotter a. used a picture of the Seal taken with American flags in the background not the official image of the seal itself and b. he has already agreed to stop using this photograph of the City Seal. He never used the City Seal for any commercial or monetary gain. This is hardly a "violation," if any occurred at all, or criminal offense. I ask that this e -mail also be added to the City's official record on this matter. Thank you, Craig P. Alexander, Esq. From: Craig Alexander [mailto:cpalexander(obcox.net] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 9:42 AM To: 'DDixon @NewportBeachCa.gov'; 'TPetros @NewportBeachCa.gov'; 'D Duffield @NewportBeachCa.gov'; 'KMuldoon @NewportBeachCa.gov'; 'EdSelich @roadrunner.com'; 'SPeotter @NewportBeachCa.gov'; 'curryk @pfm.com' Cc: 'dkiff @newportbeachca.gov'; 'aharp @newportbeachca.gov'; 'Ibrown @newportbeachca.gov' Subject: The City of Newport Beach's new Prior Restraint "Rule" and the Proposed Censure of City Councilman Scott Peotter Dear Members of the City Council of Newport Beach, Please see the attached letter. Prior out of state travel plans prevent me from attending your next City Council meeting of July 28" Very truly yours, Craig Alexander 949- 481 -6400 Confidentiality Note: Please note that the information in this email is confidential and may be privileged and is intended only for the use of the named addressee(s). If you have received this information in error, please notify us immediately by reply email, at cpalexander @cox.net, or by calling (949) 481 -6400. Please destroy this transmission, all attachments to it, and any copies that have been made. Law Offices of Craig A Alexander 24681 La Plaza, Suite 250 Dana Point, CA 92629 Office: 949-481 -6400 Facsimile: 949- 242 -2545 E-mail: Walexancter�acox.net VIA ELECTRONIC MARL AND U.S. MAIL July 20, 2015 Mayor Edward Selich and Honorable Members of the City Council 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: The City of Newport Beach's new Prior Restraint "Rule" and the Proposed Censure of City Councilman Scott Peotter Dear Mayor Selich and Honorable Members of the City Council, I address this letter to you as a concerned citizen, not as legal counsel for anyone involved in this matter. It would appear the City of Newport Beach City Council is on its way down the road of censorship and government mandated speech, or in this case, prohibited speech. There is absolutely no question that the statements made on Councilman Peotte 's private e -mail, using his private e -mail account, on his own time, involved the critical right of freedom of Speech. It was what the Courts call Religious Speech and Ideological Speech which are types of speech entitled to protection under the lit Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. i have reviewed the new "rule" your council passed at the hastily called City Council meeting of July 14, 2015. It is vague and full of ambiguity - the very type of thing that invites subjective judgments about what is "proper" communications and "proper subject matter" under the council's policy. Something that likely violates a Council person's First Amendment rights under the Constitution. Having also read the e -mail Mr. Peotter sent out I can find no reason to censure him -- his only expression was his own opinion on a controversial issue. It simply expressed his sincerely held religious and free speech protected beliefs that the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding homosexual marriage was wrongly decided. It should be remembered by the Council that only a few years ago a majority of voters in California voted to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman. It was a single Federal Court judge that overturned millions of California voter's Yes votes on Proposition 8. Also, the vast majority of states in the United States passed laws either via their legislatures or directly via voter initiatives, some with passage rates of over 70 %. It was only in the last two years that Federal Court judges overturned millions of Americans votes for traditional marriage. Many of those voters live, work and vote in the City of Newport Beach. I suspect most of those voters have not changed their opinions about marriage, any more than people's opinions on the abortion issue were changed by the Roe v. Wade decision. The legal citations of Matthew McReynolds of the Pacific justice Institute' in his letter of July 14, 2015 are entirely accurate. Mr. McReynolds' cited the case of American Family Association v. City and County of San Francisco 277 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2002). It would be helpful if the City Council noted that the Court stated in that decision: We agree with the host of other circuits that recognize that public officials may criticize practices that they would have no constitutional ability to regulate, so long as there is no actual or threatened imposition of government power or sanction. [Emphasis added]. Am. Family Assn, Inc. v. City & Cam. o£ San Francisco, 277 F.3d 1 1 14, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) Here the City seeks to impose restrictions upon a City Council persons' ability to give his or her own opinions not only about matters before the City but other matters not before the City which are of public interest. The California Supreme Court in Gerwin Farming, Inc. v. Lyons, issued rulings on Constitutional Free Speech protections that are instructive here: In terms, the First Amendment's free speech clause prohibits the legislative branch of the government of the United States from making any "law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." (U.S. Const., 1 st Amend.) In effect, it also bars the executive and judicial branches from taking any action with similar consequence. (New York Times Co. v. United Statcs (1971) 403 U.S. 713, 715 - -717, 91 S.Ct. 2140.29 L.Ed.2d 822 (cone. opn. of Black, J.); see Hudiyens v. NLRB (1 976) 424 U.S. 507, 513, 96 S.Ct. 1029, 47 L.Ed.2d 196 [stating that "[i]t is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee ... against abridganent by government," including the "federal" "government," and not merely its legislative branch].) Initially, the First Amendment's free speech clause constrained only the United States and its government. (See Barron v. Baltimore (1.833) 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 247 -250, 8 L.Ed. 672.) Today, through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, it also constrains the several states and their governments. (E.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n (1995) 514 U.S. 334, 336, fn. 1, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 ' I note the irony that Brad Dacus, President of the Pacific Justice Institute, has been an invited speaker at the Orange Coast Christian outreach Week (lit p:, =a, ,'i �., }:: c ah, �itr ), an event organized for many years by a N.B. City Councilman's spouse. L.Ed,2d 426; City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994) 512 U.S. 43, 45, fn. 1, 114 S.CL 2038, 129 L.Ed.2d 36; Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 U.S. 697, 707,51 S.Ct. 625.75 L.Ed. 1357; ** *482 Gitlow v. People of State of New York (1925) 268 U.S. 652, 666, 45 S.Ct. 625, 69 L.Ed. 1138; see Hudgens v. NLRB, supra, 424 U.S. at p. 513, 96 S.Ct. 1029 [stating that "[i]t is, of course, a commonplace that the constitutional guarantee of free speech is a guarantee ... against abridgment by government," including "state" "government," and not merely its legislative branch].) Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons, 24 Cal. 4th 468, 484, 12 P.3d 720, 730 (2000) As f noted above, Mr. Peotter's statements were both political speech and ideological speech entitled to 1st Amendment protections. The Court in Gerawan found: By contrast, "political speech" is speech that deals with " `governmental affairs"' (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, supra, 435 U.S. at p. 777, 98 S.Ct. 1407), and "ideological speech" (Schad v. Hount Ephraim (1981) 452 U.S. 61, 65, 101 S.Ct. 2176, 68 L.Ed.2d 671) is speech that apparently concerns itself with "philosophical," "social," "artistic," "economic," `literary," "ethical," and similar matters (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, supra, 431 U.S. at p. 234, 97 S.Ct. 1782 [considering the First Amendment's right to "fireedom" of "association," which is evidently embraced by its right to freedom of speech] ). The First Amendment's right to freedom of speech protects political speech. (Schad v. Xfouni Ephraim, supra, 452 U.S. at p. 65, 101 S.Ct. 2176.) It likewise protects ideological speech. Ybid) Gerawan Farming, inc. v. Lyons, 24 Cal. 4th 468, 486 -87, 12 P.3d 720. 732 (2000) Thus the City is walking on some rather thin ice Constitutionally speaking with its new policy that appears to force an independently elected City Councilman / woman to obtain approval prior to malting a statement on matters that are before the Council and not before the Council. Does the City of Newport Beach really need more litigation costs from this hastily adopted and poorly written new "policy" or "rule" restraining Councilmember's speech? Does the City of Newport Beach wish to be known as the San Francisco of Southern California? Our country has a robust tradition of allowing all persons to exercise free speech on many, many topics - including political, ideological, religious, moral and a vast number of other subjects. This includes speech that is not "popular" or put into today's terminology, is not "PoliticaIly Correct." A person who is elected to a City Council does not trade away his First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech just by being elected to office. Only the Brown Act restricts speech in very limited closed session circumstances. I offer you these quotes about Freedom of Speech and Religion from famous Americans: To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. Frederick Douglass Freedom of speech means freedom for those who you despise, and freedom to express the most despicable views. It also means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorize and which to prevent. Professor Alan Dershowitz In justice, too, to our excellent Constitution, it ought to be observed, that it has not placed our religious rights tinder the power of any public functionary. Thomas Jefferson I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Miller To those who cite the First Amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and everyday life, may I Just say: The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny. Ronald Reagan, Address to Alabama State Legislature The City of Newport Beach should rescind its very suspect "rule" about a City Council person obtaining prior authority for one of its duly elected members from making a statement. It is the voters at an election who pass judgment on a council member's speech, not each other. Finally this censure motion you will be considering looks like nothing more than political "gotcha" from a majority of the Council. It is no secret that Mr. Peotter and some of the other council members ran on a reform platform. Some of the remaining councilpersons have been the subject of criticism by Mr. Peotter and other newly elected City Cou ncilpersons on the subject of budgeting, the new City Hall cost over runs, staffing, fire rings and other matters. Thus this censure motion looks like nothing more than political payback. The entire Council should raise above these shoddy tactics of "gotcha" and focus on the problems facing the City of Newport Beach. That is what the voters of your city expect of you and deserve from you. You should also consider that instituting these types of policies to try and restrain others on the council (I doubt you will obtain that desired affect) may "feel good" but political winds blow back and forth all the time. You may find yourself at the short end of a vote on the Council with these same "rules" and standards being applied about something you speak out about. That action against those who vote for this "rule" and a censure will be no less wrong for the very reasons I cite above. However, if you leave these poorly drafted, vague, and ambiguous rules in place and give into the temptation to make some small (I would argue very, very small) political points by censuring Mr. Peotter, you not only demean your office and yourself, butyou setyourself up for future problems with a future counsel majority - where you are the minority. I urge you to rescind this new "rule" or "policy" of July 14, 2015 that is likely an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech and to vote no on this foolish political censure motion against Councilman Peotter. Thank you for considering my views on this subject. Very truly yours, Craig P. Alexander Received After Agenda Printed August 11, 2015 Item No. 20 From: Walter Myers III <walter.myers.iii @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 11:49 PM To: Dixon, Diane; Duffield, Duffy, Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith; Petros, Tony; Muldoon, Kevin; Peotter, Scott Cc: Kiff, Dave; Brown, Leilani; Harp, Aaron Subject: Comments on Proposed Censure of City Councilman Scott Peotter Dear Newport Beach City Council, It is very odd to me that you would seek to censure councilman Peotter for simply exercising his First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of religion. Even though you have attempted to complicate this matter by the fact that Scott had the seal of Newport Beach on his communications to his constituents, no reasonable person would have mistaken this as an official position of the City of Newport Beach. Just as the those who protested at your last meeting had a right to express their views on same -sex marriage, Peotter retains the equal right to be in support of traditional marriage and should be able to do so without any worry of reprisal. Think for a moment of what you are doing here. In effect, you are saying that in a country founded on free expression of religion, particularly in the public square, you will no longer allow or respect that free expression. To restrict a person from expressing their faith outside their home or place of worship is nothing more than modern day tyranny. If Peotter cannot be informed by his Christian faith when it comes to matters of public policy, which are invariably moral in their underpinnings, then can you please inform us on what basis do you expect him to govern? Is it atheism? Or is it some set of man-made values that have "evolved" over time such as to become standard for morality? If it is the former, then I don't see any reason why it would be preferable over Christianity, and if atheism is true, then all we would have left is the latter, man -made values. Indeed, if the values are man- made, then there is no particular imperative for adopting these because man-made values are in no way objective and thus offer no moral imperative for any given person to adopt. Indeed, I would argue, the very notion of objective morality rests on their being a common moral imperative that is universal across all peoples at all times. This is what we call the natural law, on which our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are based. The natural law itself is based on there being a law giver. So if you all, with the exception of Peotter, believe there is no law giver, then I truly pity you all as you are making moral judgments against Peotter without knowing from whence they come. The last thing I would like to say is that it is obvious you people have not thought very deeply about what same - sex marriage means, as I would expect city council members to bring some level of scholarship to their decisions instead of pure emotion. If you haven't thought about it yet, marriage is ultimately about children, not just deeply held feelings. There is only one way to naturally make children and continue our species. That's why marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman in societies far more permissive than ours (such as in ancient Greece). It has never and still isn't discriminatory, but is based on nature. And when it comes to children, those who support same -sex marriage need to consider why anyone would intentionally deny a child the right to the complementarity of a natural mother and father. Two men or two women cannot offer the same thing to a child as a man and a woman who naturally complement one another. There will always be a third party involved, and children will always want to know who their biological parents are. Yes, things do go wrong in traditional marriage where this is divorce, infidelity, and a variety of situations. But these are cases where something has gone wrong against the design, and are not intentionally placing a child in a less than ideal environment. It's part of the fallen world that we live in, but we should not be supportive of the notion of making a conscious and intentional decision to place a child in a situation that is not best suited to their growth and development. Regards, Walter Myers III Received After Agenda Printed August 11, 2015 Item No. 20 From: Fred Karger <fred @fredkarger.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 3:00 PM To: Dixon, Diane; Petros, Tony; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Selich, Edward; Peotter, Scott; Curry, Keith Cc: Dept - City Council; Kiff, Dave; Finnigan, Tara; Brown, Leilani; Rieff, Kim; Harp, Aaron Subject: Censure Scott Peotter Vote Attachments: Ahmanson Peotter Flier PDF.pdf Attached is a handout that we would like you to read before tonight's vote. Thank you very much. Fred Karger President Rights Faual Rights 949 - 494 -4750 cell 310 -666 -9119 Don't Let Howard Ahmanson Wreck Newport Beach Howard Ahmanson Councilman Scott Peotter Billionaire ,-d nh�;on� nt ovr =r C'.Ot7fi to elect Scott Peotter Marshall Duffield, and Kevin Muldoon to the Newport Beach City Council last November. Recently Councilman Peotter illegally used the city seal in fundraising mailings and to express his outrage over the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of gay marriage. kr r e;� a �? 5 i.Y —1111i on 3s N( po_mon d in California, which stopped gay marriage here in 2008, the 2nd largest contribution behind the Knights of Columbus. He told the Orange County Register that he "no longer considers it essential to stone people who are deemed to have committed certain immoral acts." MM Councilman Peotter should be held accountable for his illegal actions and divisive language. Send a message to Scott Peotter and Howard Ahmanson on Tuesday, August 111h that Newport Beach does not tolerate hate and discrimination. IR ighls� tri 3,i 2t5._o'm Received After Agenda Printed August 11, 2015 Item No. 20 From: Wetherholt, Drew <Drew.Wetherholt @marcusmillichap.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 3:20 PM To: Dept - City Council Cc: Kiff, Dave; Brown, Leilani Subject: City Council Meeting 8/11/15- Resolution Censuring Peeotter & Disapproving of Comments Attachments: VENEZIA ARTICLE DAILY PI_001.pdf Mayor Selich & Councilmembers: Scott Peeotter is an ignorant, destructive embarrassment to our community and I would encourage you to demand that he resign from Council. His behavior, speech and actions are grossly unacceptable for a representative of the City of Newport Beach. He continues to be a disgrace and a liability to our community. Clearly, Peeotter has been a train wreck from the day he was elected by only 200 votes. The potential negative economic impacts from Peeotter's statements are also very significant if the financial fallout damages Newport's image, businesses, restaurants and the tourism industry. Barbara Venezia's recent article does an excellent job addressing these possible impacts (see attached article). Peeotter's recent statements are certainly not in line with the best interests of either the residents or the City. I also find him to be disrespectful and an embarrassment to Christianity. Using faith to attack and discriminate against people different than oneself is extremely disgusting and disturbing. This is certainly NOT the God I know! Peeotter has made no effort to apologize to anyone- whether it be the residents of Newport Beach, it's employees, the businesses, or the LGBT community. Mayor Selich and Councilmembers, you have a responsibility to at the very least censure Peotter and ask for his resignation. He cannot continue to be allowed to be destructive to our residents, visitors, and our City. Thank you, Drew Wetherholt Newport Beach Resident Veaiezia: Newport's reputation and Coancitman Peolter- Daily Pilot tin: p:% lwww, dailypilotcomlepinionitn- dlit -me- 0807- bari;arz- venezia -.. dailypilotcanvepinioidfn- dpi- me -0SIi7- 6arban:- venezia- column -2QI SU8Cti.0, ?265215sktry• Bally Pilot Venezia: Newport's reputation and Councilman Peotter By BubEna Vencirs I L02 PM PDT, August G, 2N5 Will die NewportlBcach City Council voter to censure Co,mciinoua Scott PeotPer 7ltesdap, as was discussed at the July Id special concil meeting? Readers may remember the .July meeting was called to deal with lice coutreversy surrounding at email sent by Peetter. Ia it he expressed opposition to the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage and questioned all 1'C31,31, mavement'as use of the rainbow Ilog. File email tired a photographed image of the city seal, giving it file color of asalat ity. Blurring the fines between personal opinions zed those of the city's oonunues to be the real issue here — not Pootter's fnaedotu of specch, right,, as some have suggested. blsyor Ed Sclich made it clear at that Juiy meeting that the city is welcoming to all people, and Peottc'stated his opinions were his own, not thosc of ai city. But even thnuglt i'codec agg ed net to use the city seal again, and remove it from his wobsuc, it) cyber gnaw notiong ever really disappears. Peotter's original email ati; I can be found with lire seal m place, as can his turn- gay - marriage message, failing a step back for a mmnent, is there a bigger public relaticm picture here that this council shmild be considering when it &,tides whether to censure him? I'he a;d of censu -u,, a council member doesn't have teeth. It ., i. ;i:. ;_ii %1, l •. - r r., - t. ..� p,,, - ,.. ; , says City Manager'Jave Kiff i think there are bigger reputaGonal issues for the city, as a wl ole n, rl +wrt- Id i ,t n:eda ,- .r �, �i . •n - -.y ,. ! + . , e, t,!l. i ,¢fr. ,,. _ ,. - yP .. aKi.. .,i „uaerr i.. ,. .. ... -a a ;-rr r t ii ,ITT '. s.. -:t, 1, 'i,. J, 21in r.f a. s..� i a�w . Sinc • the Saprenw Court ruling on gay rnarri poo, Sk,rwar says his office has received many calls tinm couples looking to plan weddings in Newport. Ave are a destination open to all and always considered ourselves a gay - friendly community", says sherwin. T! Vi, -e,.it , .: at, ... ' ".'arc .,_,i 3c(It eathez, t a,xil; n, a, l', ; ci = -,>tl, .. , .. -d,�; i I A v .� „,. ,.i . . in, .L, t .,. l.. _- 'IY31 a15 1t i i ; II- - ol, All, re Many felt that mersurr permuted gay discrimination on religious grounds, and though an amendment was hastily icvised, "When it comes to the stare's travel and tourism irdushy. the damage -- at least in a public relations sense —has already been done," according to ar; article in Ail Week, In th t akc of the Indiana travel boycott, "Outright divestitures such as Angt & s List's cancellation of its planned $40 minion expansio;t to Indiunapolu" demonstrated that cvc:n a perceived antl -gay bias is damngh:g, AO YGe::k said. Sidlch tells me the next council muting "will be an opportunity for tic City Council to have. a thoughtful a,d open public discussion on, the issues raised at the July 14 City Council meeting and decide what, if any, action is appropriate." Kevin S. O'Crady, exocutivo director of the LGBT Center of Orange County, says :heir actions must he clear. ...,i j, it , .. tllhi . 11 1, .,.... ..:r. ..., sv ,:uErf:p ,,, ,° _ e. ;'A,�;. cIT' To, :., ,par l;endh r ., p_ _ i x - r. I,- ,..,. , ,,Leaf ... ....... un l r ,. < .. ,, v : ,, .. — s, O'Grady says. Peatter is free to male hateful sraterr ents, just as we 1 of 2 9/12/2015 1:50 PIA Venezia: Newport's ropu.atiomun8Couu;Umau Perron- 'Duik'9ilot h�tT:,i/wn;ndaih/pii/�.coonlopiuiou/iu'dyt-mo-0807'burhura,roursk-., m,*,w,a|av"muum. ;�',mxcooi,nru:'mrn,ill aomc���x"xo/mm,|um,^:«om�ae�u� Oddly ewovmr, The c-utm/x.uamm donations in Pool ter'`omou "n1� LwaT Center nrvrmcrdm show him and others who agree with him that ve can aim his uia»'q air its bead and use hu; name *encourage donations m fight tire very uo"l-rytic ew"u^x,,' says o'uady So far the group line raised %/oo,Donations ar:b^iug made oaho"»tlF_Iuo dou"*z°us Will O'Grady call for o boycott "' Newport Beach, if nacm'`a|v.a, not mmu`ur:pcou",r a^n,uun't say, but m'x"m^i^mm'^^ real possibility. o/ ,, pz/,�mx�,/m�,|�/,�'`m/�.�'u���*�,'�»'. ,|"u^up,uyv"s/*'�u`na.� 2o[2 8V11120151:50 yM City Council Members: Mayor Edwards -S'- ?, 1 Kevin Muldoon Scott Peotter Duffy Duffield Diane Dixon Tony Petros Keith Curry Mr. Mayor and Council Members -* d D - el 1 1/5 Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Larry Smith. I have been a resident of Newport Beach for 44 years. During this time, I have been active in Republican politics and various Jewish and Protestant faith based organizations. Before I get to the resolution to censure Scott, I would first like to praise the City Council for the great work they have done this year. The reform slate that was voted into office last November made specific promises to the citizens during their election campaigns and they have been very good at following through with these promises. You promised more financial responsibility and you are definitely trying and succeeding. The audit of the $142,000,000 expended on the civic center is a step in the right direction. The reduction of the dock tax shows a sensitivity to the needs of our citizens who enjoy our harbor. The return of the word burning fire rings to our beaches shows you care about the little guy and our traditions.. And last but not least, placing "In God We Trust" in Council Chambers shows understanding and respect for our faith based heritage. I can't tell you how many times I have heard people talk positively about what you are doing. It is greatly appreciated. Now let's talk about the elephant in the room. Scott Peotter in a private email which included the seal of Newport Beach expressed his disagreement with the Supreme Court decision overturning traditional marriage and he also made uncomplimentary comments about the President's display of rainbow colors on the White House. I recently read the resolution put forward by Keith Curry to censure Scott for his comments and the use of the city seal. Frankly, I was shocked by the overkill and for a moment there, I felt like I was living in San Francisco or Berkeley. In any event, let's recognize that Scott has agreed to remove the seal from future private commentaries and I am sure all the council members will agree not to use the seal on future campaign literature. Additionally we would all be well served if we recognize that his position on traditional marriage is the same as that contained in the Republican Party Platform. The vast majority of Republican candidates for President and our faith communities have expressed similar views. Your condemnation of these comments is nothing less than a slap in the face to these organizations and the people they represent. How can this possibly be a celebration of diversity? You seem to fear a lawsuit by an employee who might feel that Scott's remarks foster a hostile work enviromnent. This may or may not be true. But one thing that is crystal clear is that your condemnation of Scott's comments which, and I repeat, reflects the position of the Republican Party and most of the faith community. will create a hostile work environment for Republicans and people of faith who work for the city. Imagine the embarrassment both nationally and internationally if you are sued by, let's say, an attractive, articulate Republican Christian Woman with two children who works for the city and who feels that by censoring Scott's comments which reflect her values you have fostered a hostile work environment for her. For the record, I will personally help fund her lawsuit. Think about the damage that could be done to the local tourist industry when Megan Kelly interviews this hypothetical strong confident Christian woman on Fox News. And lastly, we all realize there is a gotcha politically correct agenda here. As you must know, PC thought is no longer fashionable. Please don't damage the city by acquiescing to it. Thank you for your time.