The Wal-Mart in Rosemead is open. See here. The real question is will voters oust pro-Wal-Mart council members next week, eventhough the Wal-Mart is open. See previous posts here.
Get free daily email updates
Syndicate this site - RSS
Recent Posts
- Bruce BialoskyIs There a Question Where the Hate Radiates From?
- Bruce BialoskyRewriting Constitution: Can It Happen?
- Bruce BialoskyWhat in God’s Name are Never Trumpers Thinking?
- Ray HaynesKamala Harris's America
- Bruce BialoskyThe Joy Campaign
- Bruce BialoskyLet’s Talk Decolonization
- Bruce BialoskyWho Actually Runs the Biden-Harris Administration?
- Bruce BialoskyThe Coronation of St. Kammy
- Bruce BialoskyA Fascinating Chance Encounter
- Bruce BialoskyThey’re Not Jewish
- Bruce BialoskyProject 2025
- Bruce BialoskyWhere Does All That Defense Money Go?
- Ray HaynesA Fragile Republic
- Bruce BialoskyThe Potential End of the Administrative (Deep) State
- Ray HaynesLet These Vermin Beware - Part lll
September 14th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Why shouldn’t they be ousted? They keep giving us reason after reason. Now, it’s a Brown Act violation.
Why would they violate the Brown Act? They have the votes. They could have scheduled this on the up-and-up and voted through the Certificate of Occupancy (even though Wal-Mart has not yet met all of their conditions of approval).
Instead, they kept the Certificate of Occupancy off the meeting agenda, had their city attorney assure everyone that it was not on the agenda and so would not be discussed that night, filibustered the meeting so that all the Wal-Mart opponents would leave what was “clearly” an uneventful meeting, then they snuck the certificate of occupancy on the agenda and voted it through.
I guess they must have figured it was better to violate the Brown Act than to have to openly debate the certificate, and admit that Wal-Mart had not met the conditions of approval. But does one action make them look any less like Wal-Mart sock puppets than the other?