[Note: Retired Judge Martha Goldin served 16 years as a judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Prior to that, as required by law, she was an attorney for 17 years. She retired from the bench in 1996, remaining active as a judge until recently. She is presently a member of the Los Osos Sustainability Group.]

Said Goldin during public comment on non-agenda items, “(Supervisor Gibson) cut me off and as a consequence, he deprived me of my right of free speech by exercising prior restraint upon my speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution.  

“The irony in all of this is that only two speakers had utilized the chair's 10-minute Los Osos speech rule… When I got up to speak, nobody else had spoken on Los Osos, so six minutes were gone and I started. Theoretically, there were four minutes left for Los Osos, the prohibited speech. Instead of allowing me the three minutes or asking again if anyone else wanted to share the four minutes or doing anything that might have amounted to reasonable process, the Chair again prohibited me from speaking in violation of his own – in my opinion – unconstitutional 10-minute rule.”

During comment on the Los Osos wastewater project update, Goldin recalled the topic that she was discussing prior to her microphone being cut off last Tuesday.

“The County has embarked upon a tainted process, which should be halted. An employee of the County, Paavo Ogren, appears to have had improper dealings with respect to a contract for a particular company, Montgomery Watson Harza. The matter is the subject of a formal complaint and has come to the attention of the public through an article published in the online CalCoastNews (.com).

“That article states, ‘Ogren was temporarily running Los Osos district when contractor Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH) of Broomfield, Colorado, was retained by the district for wastewater project management in early September 1999. Ogren did not sign the pact, nor did any board member. Instead, Ogren waited several weeks for Buell to become district manager, and then told Buell to backdate the MWH contract.’   

“Now, the same County employee is a leading figure with respect to another project involving the same contractor. There's a Latin saying, ’False in one part, false in all,’ and there's jury instruction on credibility of a witness: ‘A witness faults in one part in his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others.’   

“While the matter before this board is not the veracity of a particular employee, the issue is justice and the appearance of justice; fairness and the appearance of fairness. The issue is the appearance and the actual propriety of a process. Regardless, whether it is Los Osos or any place, whether it is a wastewater project or any project, the past of apparent involvement of a leading County employee with a particular contract – in conduct which may have been illegal and is unethical, if nothing else – compromises the process in which that same employee is involved with that same contractor.   

“It taints the process with such a gloss of impropriety that the process is irretrievably damaged and must be halted, purged of the parties and entities that have compromised it and allowed to proceed only after it had been freed of the blight. That’s what I intended to say about the process.”  

Goldin concluded, “Now, just as an afterthought, I note that we are being protected today by the sheriff. Welcome. I hope everybody feels very secure and not threatened by an octogenarian grandmother who has come here to exercise her right to free speech.”

When the Microphone Went Dead, Part I

Retired Judge Martha Goldin from Los Osos was cut off by trigger-happy Supervisor Bruce Gibson during her three-minute public comment on the County process at the April 28th Board of Supervisors meeting – at the very moment she brought up Public Works Director Paavo Ogren and global engineering giant MWH in the same sentence.

(Following is a transcription of the Gibson-Goldin encounter, which was probably more audible in chambers than over the television, from which we taped. We apologize for not being able to provide more or all of Judge Goldin’s comments. You, the reader, will understand why as you read on …)

Judge Goldin: Good afternoon. As I retired judge I think I have a few credentials with which to speak about process – due process, fairness, openness, the appearance of justice. First let me say, with respect to process, I will just point out that the agenda with respect to public comment does not have the Chair’s rule about 10 minutes for Los Osos, and that I believe is a violation of the Brown Act: One must have it on the agenda. So perhaps next time it will appear on the agenda, but it doesn’t today. That’s the first thing about process.

Secondly, I note that the process has been grossly subverted and is now so tainted that I would suggest to you that you need to start – I won’t say all over again – but that you certainly need to stop the process now. What am I talking about? I am talking about that it appears that Mr. Ogren, the head of the project, and now I believe that he (inaudible)–
(Supervisor Gibson interrupts)

Supervisor Gibson: Now, Miss Golden, excuse me, we’re not going to take comment on the sewer now.  If you have general comment – excuse me!

Goldin: I’m talking about the process, and due process.

Gibson: Then continue … on that subject.

Goldin: …The head of the project, I believe he’s now head of Public Works … appears to have been involved with Montgomery Watson Harza …
(Judge Goldin’s microphone suddenly goes dead just before the word “Harza”)

Gibson: OK, Miss … Miss … Miss … Miss Goldin, you’re talking about the sewer project. That’s … that’s … Miss Goldin, excuse me, that’s enough!

Goldin: (continuing to speak, most of it inaudible, microphone off, Supervisor Gibson drowning her out) … due process is due process, and you don’t seem to have it… (inaudible) concerning the process …

Gibson: (to County Council Warren Jensen) Mr. Jensen, what options do we have?  I have instituted a policy here on the matter of Los Osos. We have a public commenter who is unwilling to abide by it. I’m not going to physically remove her from the lectern, but I find this really unpleasant and disturbing in the sense that it is now co-opting others’ time to have public comment on --

Goldin:  (inaudible) … my time …

Gibson: Excuse me, Miss Goldin…

Jensen: We believe your policy is reasonable, it’s justifiable under the Brown Act, and that you may enforce that policy.

Gibson: All right, and with that – I would ask --

Goldin: … County Council (inaudible) … please …

Gibson: Miss … Miss Goldin… Let me ask County Council if I could, if there comes a point at which commenters refuse to abide by policies laid down by the Chair, do we have options on that…?

Goldin:  I will give up my time, but I would like to ask County Council about a (inaudible) not on the agenda …

Gibson: OK, your time is up, please sit down.

Goldin: I would like (inaudible) of County Council about the fact that (inaudible) Los Osos …  is not on the agenda.

Gibson: Please sit down!

Goldin: May I get an answer?

Gibson: No! Not at this point,

Goldin: (inaudible)

Gibson: Miss Goldin, please sit down … Mr. Jensen, I’d like to revisit the question of cooperation with policies for public comment. I mean, if a speaker, for instance, chooses to exceed the three-minute limit, what options do we have on that?

Jensen: Well, on very rare occasions we have had a couple of people escorted out of the chambers by Sheriff’s deputies …

Gibson: OK. And in terms of managing public comment, you’d mention to me in our conversations that we do have the option to limit the public comment to a very specific time frame. It’s on our agenda for 15 minutes in the morning, 15 minutes in the afternoon, is that correct?

Jensen: Yes, it’s expressly stated in the Brown Act.

Gibson: Further, other counties do have policies by which speakers who appear in general public comment at a meeting might be limited to a certain number of times a month to appear in that capacity?

Jensen: That’s correct.

Gibson: All right. So with that I would ask that speakers cooperate with the Chair. My policies on Los Osos are specific to the issue of that fact this board has other business before it, and I expect as a matter of civil behavior in the chamber of the Board of Supervisors, that members of the public would understand that and cooperate with that policy. This County has what I consider very open policies and rules of public comment. We listened to a number of items that are outside the purview of this body, which is not necessary under matters of the Brown Act. And I would ask County Council in general, are our noticing requirements for public comment adequate at this point?

Jensen: Yes, we believe they are.

Gibson:  OK, thank you.

#