(Pinned for timeliness. Until this new policy gets tossed, what speakers should do is just go up to the podium and read direct transcripts of the videos they’re not allowed to show. Make a mockery of these clowns. Don’t show the Mike and Roy video, read it instead.)
Exactly what point is there for the city to be doing this? It’s not like there are lines of people anymore eagerly waiting to go in front of the council at orals. If only it were 1996 again!
Just sent to the council last night:
Dear Council Member,
I am writing today to warn you of “fine print” that is included in the City Manager’s option 3 in his recommendations for a new Digital Media Policy. If the City Manager’s office has not specifically pointed out this fine print, please ask yourself why not. I stand with many in our community who believe it is another attempt by city staff to deceive you into advancing their agenda. This time, by limiting the rights of specific individual’s, Mike and Roy, and targeting the content of our videos used to express our views at City Council meetings.
Below is just a sampling of what is being said about this on social media. These comments were taken from Burbank’s Angry Blog. It seems like most people agree that the new restrictions target me and Roy and that they are illegal. I have consulted with a lawyer as well as representatives from the ACLU who also agree and have recommended that Roy and I file a lawsuit against the City of Burbank if the City Council chooses to approve ANY of the three options recommended by the City Manager. Roy and I are prepared to follow through with recommended legal action.
Option 1 is to “Allow digital media with specific limitations”. These limitations are way too restrictive and violate the rights of residents. Option 2 is a “Blanket prohibition of digital media”. Is this really necessary? Are you so afraid to give your critics a voice in our community? I hope not. Don’t forget that Burbank residents have been permitted the use of videos in public comment for decades. Even former Mayor Will Rogers showed videos at City Council meetings.
Option 3 is of greatest concern. It says, “Continue with current practice” but does not! PLEASE read the fine print on the reverse of the “Digital Media Submission Form” and you will see that many of the restrictions from Option 1 are added back in through the submission process. Please give special attention to the second to the last bullet point in this fine print; “If a video is played during public comment at the Council meeting, all speakers, narrators and others participating in the video, who communicate their views in the video, including through a sign or place card, are deemed to have waved further public comment time during that comment period regardless of their actual time on the video…” If this wasn’t specifically pointed out by the City Manager’s office, I hope this causes you enough concern to not choose ANY of his options and just leave the Digital Policy as it exists.
You only have to sit through 3 minutes per speaker. Is that too much to ask? You already reduced our time from 5 minutes to 3 minutes in this comment period. We should really be allowed 5 minutes and EVERYBODY who submits a comment card should be allowed to express themself the way they choose and not the way Ron Davis chooses.
You were elected to represent the residents of Burbank and to protect and defend our rights. Tonight, please show us that you are willing to do that by standing up to Ron Davis and the office of the City Manager by not choosing any of the three options recommended in his staff report regarding a new Digital Media Policy. We deal with enough of this type of censorship, bullying and intimidation from our President and hope that our local politics can be a bit more civil and inclusive. The City Manager claims that the current Digital Media Policy gives me and Roy an “unfair advantage.” Over what? Over whom? Does he think this is a competition? We are just trying to express the views of many community members and share information to which they would otherwise not have access. Please do not accept any of the three options offered in the City Manager’s recommendation.
Sincerely,
Mike Moynahan
The two most compelling illegalities about the city’s new policy here is that it requires prior administrative approval to go before the council with any kind of video and that it bans anonymity by requiring a personal identifier.
Albano’s pretty hamfistedly inept, isn’t she? She actually cleared this policy? And Judge Murphy’s on board with it?
Really? Rogers would never have completely gone for it. That we’re sure of from his prior history on open meetings and public comment. Will was also savvy about the city not doing something dumb that would unnecessarily rile up the rubes.
Besides everything else, what good public policy reason lies behind its adoption apart from the desire to expressly limit two specific residents of Burbank?
This new policy is also incredibly easy to get around. As we’ve pointed out several times already, all a subsequent speaker has to do in lieu of playing a video of a repeat offender is just recite its written transcript. Even do it in different voices. The council gonna ban that as well?
Why not? It’s someone else’s speech too.
Burbank, California 
The city council we have now wants to shut down all communication and discussion. Shame on all 5 of them
These videos regularly shine a light on the abuses of the staff. The CM making more than the Governor of the State of California for example. Big surprise they want to limit them as much as they can.
I have a sinking feeling the council will be again by the nose by staff and approve the changes.
They have proven this over and over again.They don’t listen to the residents and there is no media coverage. That’s just one of the reasons the Mike and Roy show is vital. ANYbody missing Doc Gordon right about now?
Free Speech? What’s that?
Why can’t those two clowns drag themselves out of the kitchen and show up to the council meetings? They can each take 3 minutes and double their shtik.
Hey anon do you ever watch a council meeting ? I mean seriously Mike and Roy not only get up and make it to the meetings they are the ones who, when called say roll the tape. Obviously you don’t watch and have no clue what you are talking about.
I go to the meetings. They afraid to talk in public so they need to roll a tape? I’m weary of the home depot/contractor spec kitchen scene. If they show up to speak, why is the video necessary? May become a standing problem for their lawsuit.
Watching council meetings I have seen Mike and Roy roll a tape and I have also seen them talk with no tape so again I am left to wonder what you are even talking about Anonymous. The fact you focus on a kitchen is um errr your problem. There is no problem for a lawsuit nobody needs a reason or an explanation to communicate through established forms of media at all. Here we are the media capitol and people like our council want to censor media ? Really sad if you ask me.
So mystified, and yet you continue to respond. Where’s the censorship? Are you saying this is a content based restriction as opposed to a time/place/manner restriction? If they are perfectly capable of standing before the council to rant about whatever bullshit they want, then why does a change to the policy re video presentations censor them and how does it harm them? You don’t need to worry about the answer to the second part, someone else will handle the Article III issue.
And I’m sorry you’re sad. That makes me sad too. Just like their kitchen studio.
This new policy restricts the speech of anyone who wants to show a video of anyone else who has already had their three minutes.
Citing or mentioning or showing someone else speak can easily be your own “speech” as well. Staff and council rely upon an extremely childish definition of “speech” to somehow justify this restrictive new policy of theirs — as if “speech” only means you yourself talking.
And why are they doing it? To specifically block two longtime council critics.
What if someone wants to cite or moderate or elucidate a point that “Mike” or “Roy” has made on video, but Mike and Roy have already been up there? Staff now gets to engage in prior restraint by telling a new speaker that they can’t show the video — when it hasn’t even been shown yet to know what the purpose of showing it is? Such behavior is content blocking in its consequence, and I think also by design.
Never hold up in court. That and the extensive registration process makes the city look very bad. Like they’re trying to block speech they don’t like.
There’s no other motive for this, nor any kind of good public policy reason for the change. It might be different if lots of people were going up there and wasting time showing duplicate videos of the same people, but they’re not.
Well thanks for all the love I enjoy your observations. So let’s get back to last night the Council wants rules let’s try this. Any speaker can play a video that they have turned in prior to 10am Tuesday with their name as the person playing the video. This will help PIO cue up the right one. Regardless of content and persons appearing in it uses their 3 minutes only problem fixed. Additionally if a speaker wants to yield their time to another person at orals it only counts as their 3 minutes. This is to be fair as the Council directed staff. We don’t need forms or any other rules. I didn’t hear staff,council or anyone from the public offer such a simple procedure to clarify how easy the rules can be for video and oral comments.
Prior restraint. Prior review before being allowed to proceed. That’s the problem with the written requirements.
No one should have to register with the authorities ahead of time and be required to name names in order to speak at a public forum.
That’s EXACTLY what’s going on here.
I love the “cuing up the right one.” Like there’s so many. Your ideas are more reasonable than theirs, but no good reason exists to block someone showing a video. In order to be consistent, the council will also have to ban any verbal quote or mention of another speaker.)
Did you read my post? Didn’t say anything about review even Mike and Roy communicate to PIO who’s playing what. Since day one if you dropped off a video you had to put your name on it or stop at the control room and give them a heads up this is nothing new. Erma even knew the system and that was VHS. I’m with you on this don’t understand the push back.
Has anyone ever found out what happened to Irma’s videos? She had a treasure trove of great material.
The council is in a pickle on this one. The average viewer sees through their motivation to push these restrictions through. Staff is casually backing off on this because it’s just too obvious that they have bad intent.
They want people to come and speak only if they are in agreement with them.
Mike and Roy should have rented a
booth at ‘Holiday in the Park’ on Magnolia.
It would have been the only adult oriented
booth. The leader of M.P.M.A. runs a
mommies club in Burbank so she provided
some real boring preschool entertainment.
it would have the a HUGE hit! Our CC would have freaked out!
Mini uprising makes mole hill. Burbank residents need to pay more attention to the things going on around them. Voting for the sales tax increase was my final validation that they believe everything they hear and in turn, deserve everything they get.
This council is scheming to squelch free speech because they want to control everything and not have the truth exposed.
That sales tax increase was, is, and will be a complete scam. It will be fun to watch people who supported it leave Burbank as things only grow worse in the years ahead. I agree Mel Burbank is in a downhill slope of decline and the cities leadership is playing the violin while the whole city slips away.