Racist comments surface at county supervisors meeting

[ad_1]

Public comments made during the county’s COVID-19 updates have featured hours of angry screaming for months now, but the statements made on Tuesday crossed a particularly nasty line.

One of the nearly 70 people who spoke out against the vaccination warrants not only wanted three of the county’s five supervisors to die or be killed, but also launched in a racial insult against the top public health official in the county. region.

Supervisor Nora Vargas intervened during the comments, refusing to sit quietly during the rant which included humiliating comments about her. When a racist comment was made against Dr Wilma Wooten, the black director of the county’s public health department, Vargas couldn’t help but respond.

“You can call me fat as much as you want, but you are not allowed to tell him that,” Vargas replied.

Later, during board deliberations after hours of public commentary, Vargas drew a line between the right to be heard in a democracy and the indefensible words that came from the podium.

“Today’s comments are hate speech, not free speech, and that must stop,” Vargas said.

Board chairman Nathan Fletcher, who had temporarily walked away from the podium during the brutal back-and-forth, has returned to demand a higher level of civility in the future.

“Some of you have legitimate points and fair points that are worth hearing, but they are completely debased and completely erased with it for fun or sport. i am? said Fletcher.

But it was clear that the comments that supervisors so emphatically condemned resonated with many onlookers on Tuesday. The cheers are clearly audible in the video recording of the meeting, which was webcast live.

Fletcher had a few more words for those who laughed and clapped.

“Anyone who encourages it, you are equally guilty,” he said. “The reality is you can stand up here and say whatever you want, it’s your First Amendment, but it’s disgusting, it’s despicable, and it doesn’t help what we’re doing here.”

The atmosphere at county supervisor meetings, especially those featuring articles related to COVID, has been marked by comments from residents angry at how leaders have handled the pandemic since widespread restrictions began in 2020 .

Many have publicly questioned everything from the validity of positive test results to the efficacy and safety of coronavirus vaccines, prompting the county health department to recently launch its own disinformation website. for the purpose of refuting incorrect or misleading statements made at government meetings. But Tuesday’s meeting seemed to reach a new level of vitriol.

At one point, a person in the audience who repeatedly interrupted the public speech was removed from the meeting room of the County Administration building on Harbor Drive.

Much frustration has surrounded the county’s continued state of emergency response to the pandemic, particularly in the past two years when the total number of cases has plummeted and fewer people have found themselves in dire straits. hospital beds with COVID-19.

County officials have often said that status of emergency votes are necessary to maintain access to state and federal funding for anti-COVID actions, but some, including supervisors Jim Desmond and Joel Anderson, objected that it was not fair to continue to call the pandemic an emergency when the virus is better under control than in the past.

Anderson and Desmond also voted against an article Tuesday that sought to “cure and correct” a previous board decision to require vaccination for all new hires made by the county government. So far, the county council has not instituted a vaccination mandate for current employees; they retain the option of remaining unvaccinated and being tested regularly for coronavirus infection.

The board made the decision to recruit on a 3-2 vote in its monthly COVID-19 update on October 5, with Fletcher adding it to a list of five other actions on the agenda. advice. But the board later received a letter from La Mesa resident Mary Davis calling for the post to be quashed, alleging it was violating the open meetings law because it was not specifically on the agenda that must be posted at least 72 hours before a meeting.

Tuesday’s actions included a 3-2 vote to “heal and fix” the situation by reversing the previous vote. But supervisors also claimed that Helen Robbins-Meyer, the county administrative director, already has the ability to make vaccination a condition of employment.

Prior to the vote, County Attorney Lonnie Eldridge was careful to state that the previous vote “was taken in accordance with Brown’s Law,” referring to the common name of the legislation that enshrined the Open Meetings Act.

“This item was taken to address the COVID-19 pandemic which was on the agenda as item # 10,” Eldrige said. “Nonetheless, Brown’s Law provides a flawless method of remaking an item in case a question arises.”

The board’s decision to correct and correct its previous decision, he said, “does not prove that the act was not followed.”

This take, however, is clearly open to some interpretation. It drew boos from the crowd on Tuesday and some comments from Monica Price, a lawyer with the California First Amendment Coalition.

After reviewing agendas and a transcript of comments made when the item was added at the last minute during board deliberations on Oct. 5, Price said it seemed clear that the spirit of the law would promote the specific listing of the hiring change among the five other specific COVID-related items on the agenda for consideration.

The standard, she noted, is a “brief description” of what to vote on.

“A county employee or member of the public who somehow felt about it wouldn’t have known to show up to this meeting to comment,” Price said.

The county attorney’s claim that the article did not violate Brown’s Law because it was contained in a larger article largely focused on COVID, she added, may not stand if the request for correction was refused and the matter went to court.

While the case law on this specific topic is thin, she said, there is a case where an appeals court ruled against a municipality that voted on California Environmental Quality Act requirements while considering this. that an agenda listed as a subdivision request. Although CEQA requirements were clearly an integral part of the subdivision approval process, this was not considered sufficient because they were not explicitly mentioned.

“The court said ‘no, no, no, this agenda item is not enough notice that you’re going to be talking about CEQA,” Price said.

Insisting that the act was not violated, she added, is common in such situations because, if such a violation is proven in court, government agencies may be required to pay the costs. justice for the other party.

“Even though they don’t want to admit they did something wrong, I think the fact that they canceled the article shows that they were at least a little nervous about it,” Price said. .

Vaccination, meanwhile, is moving forward with Rady Children’s Hospital scheduled to begin immunizing children ages 5 to 11 on Wednesday after approval from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Tuesday. The shots are only taken by appointment.

[ad_2]