HomeMy WebLinkAbout24-Council Office
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Councilman Chas Kelley
Fifth Ward
Subject: Recovery of Fees Incurred by the
San Bernardino Police Dept. for
Monitoring the Protest Rally held
March 27 and 28, 2006
Dept. Council Office
Date: March 28, 2006
ORIGINAL
MCC Date: April 3,2006
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
Recommended Motion:
To discuss and take possible action.
Contact Person: Councilman Chas Kellev
Phone:
5278
Supporting Data Attached:
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: fAcct. No.1
fAcct. DescriDtion1
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No.
Before .
Page 2 of6
Comments by Mayor Patrick J. Morris - City of San Bernardino
Let me make very clear why the idea of "sending a bill" for costs this city incurs
when its citizens exercise their fundamental right to peacefully petition the
government is without merit and is fundamentally at-odds with the principles on
which this country and our democratic government are founded.
Caleb Cushing was one of America's great early statesmen. He served as a
Congressman from Massachusetts for many years, as chief Justice of the
Massachusetts Supreme Court, and then as Attorney General under President
Franklin Pierce. In 1836, during a fierce debate in Congress regarding a
proposal that would have banned Congress from spending any time or resources
on considering the petitions Congress had received advocating the abolition of
salvery, Mr. Cushing made a timeless speech on the fundamental right of the
People to petition their government and the obligation of government to hear
such petitions and not erect barriers that would inhibit the People from
exercising this inalienable right. Government's first and foremost duty, said
Cushing, is to lend an attentive and respectful ear to the petitions of the People
because "the right of petition ... was not conferred on the People by the
Constitution, but was a pre-existing right, reserved by the People out of the
grants of power made to government."
After quoting the First Amendment that government "shall make no law
abridging the right of the People to peaceably assemble and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances," Cushing gave an eloquent elucidation
as to the broad sweeping meaning of this language. Said Cushing:
4/5/2006
Before .
Page 3 of6
"The right of petition, therefore, is not a privilege conferred by the Constitution.
It is recognised as a pre-existing right, already possessed by the People, which
they still reserve to themselves, and to which [government] shall not so much
as touch with the weight of a finger. The People, in their Constitution, say to
[government],--We place in your hands our right and power of collecting a
revenue to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the Union;
our right and power to regulate commerce, to coin money, to declare war, and to
raise and support armies and navies for its prosecution. Upon these and other
subjects you may exercise the discretion, which we repose in you by virtue of
our Constitution. But this you shall not do ... you shall make no law
prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech or of
the press; or the right of the People peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for a redress of grievances. These our great natural rights we
keep to ourselves; we will not have them tampered with; respecting them we
give to you no commission whatsoever."
Last week we witnessed in our city what has become perhaps an all too rare
occurrence in this great nation -- the People petitioning their government for
redress of grievances. And perhaps even more astonishing, in an age when we
point a finger at our younger generation and often cry "apathy" and
"unengaged," we witnessed the youth of this city coming together to express
their views and petition their government regarding a proposed law that would
affect their families, livelihood, and community.
As Mayor, when I was informed early last Monday morning that our youth
4/5/2006
Before .
Page 4 of6
would be walking to City Hall in an effort to make their petition heard, I
instructed our police officials that our first and highest duty as government was
to ensure that our children would be safe while exercising their constitutional
right, and that the peace would be maintained as provided for by our
constitution. To this end, both the police and the students did an exemplary job
of demonstrating the beautiful vision our founding fathers enshrined in our
Constitution, that if the People are given the right to petition their government,
and the government lends an attentive and respectful ear to their petitions, the
peace will be maintained. It was democracy at work in its most elegant form.
In response to this exercise of inalienable rights, however, some have suggested
our government should send a bill to those who could have locked the campus
gates and prevented the children from petitioning their government. I leave to
another day a discussion of the chaos and problems that could have sprung from
such an oppressive tactic - for today we are only considering the propriety of
government taking an action intended to discourage the People from peaceably
assembling and petitioning their government.
Make no mistake, "sending a bill" to the school district for costs the city incurs
when its People petition their government is the very burden on fundamental
rights that Caleb Cushing and our founding fathers fought so vehemently to
prevent. "Sending a bill" delivers a clear message to our citizens that
government considers the exercise of the right to peaceably assemble and
petition a burden. Instead of lending an attentive and respectful ear to the
People's petitions, the government will send them a bill. Instead of considering
the right to peacefully petition the government as inalienable "to which
4/5/2006
Before , Page 5 of 6
[government] shall not so much as touch with the weight of a finger," the
government will consider such action a nuisance to be discouraged and
burdened.
In defense of their proposition to "send a bill," some have said that our youthful
petitioners are no different than the theives, vandals, and hoodlums who ravaged
our streets and businesses several weeks ago after a punk rock concert. To
equate children peacefully assembling to petition their government for change,
with a profit-making venture that gave rise to an alcohol-fueled riot that brought
mayhem and destruction to our community, is an affront to all those who have
fought for the principles on which this country is founded. May I remind these
voices that we are a government of the People, by the People, and for the People
. .. and when the People peacefully assemble to make their voice heard, it is our
duty in government to attentively and respectfully listen, not discard them as
troublemakers and dissidents.
Others have said that these petitioners should have exercised their right to
petition at a more appropriate time or in a more appropriate manner. I remind
these people that the percipient language to the right of the People to peititon
their government, is the right of the People to peaceably assemble. What
occurred last week was a peaceable assembly of hundreds, if not thousands, of
children for the purpose of petitoning their government. That government
should EVER discourage or burden such a fundamental and quintessentially
democratic action, is shameful. Are there consequences to the manner in which
the children decided to make their petition heard? Sure there are. They had a
legal obligation to be in school, and the school district will determine the
4/5/2006
Before .
Page 60f6
appropriate response for the children who disregarded that legal obligation. But
when these students left their campuses to legally assemble at City Hall and
exercise their inalienable right to make their petition heard, it is government's
duty and obligation to keep the peace and respectfully listen to those from whom
government receives its authority and power -- not to turn a deaf ear and simply
hand out a bill.
4/5/2006