CCMIN050603 - Laserfiche WebLink

of Pleasanton citizens in the military. He especially thanked Deborah McKeehan, Eileen Morley and Stan Gibson on City staff. Matt Sullivan, 7882 Flagstone Drive, indicated public debate is vital to our democracy. It was not surprising that Congress passed the Patriot Act in the aftermath of 9/11. However, the passage of this law creates serious concerns regarding the infringement of our Constitutional rights that protect freedom of speech, prohibit unreasonable search and seizure, provide for due process, the right to a speedy trial and counsel, prohibit cruel and unusual punishment, and provide equal protection under law for all. It was surprising that there was virtually no debate in Congress and the lessons of previous eras, that this was an overreaction by government in the name of security, were unheeded. The government now wants to enact Patriot II, which goes far beyond the original law in numerous ways. Many Th-Valley citizens have appeared at local City Council meetings asking for a community discussion of the Patriot Act. There has been some controversy surrounding this, with many wondering why issues decided at the national level should be discussed in our local town halls. He felt this was important because individual citizens have very little influence with higher levels of government. He cited several instances where the Pleasanton City Council has endorsed state and national issues. He urged the Council to adopt a resolution supporting the Bill of Rights and to send a message to lawmakers which they cannot ignore. Bob Cuddy, Livermore, represented the Save Our Rights Coalition of the Tri-Valley, asked for Council support in fighting serious encroachments on the United States Constitution. The organization was formed in March and represents a broad cross-section of the community. It supports the goal of capturing terrorists however there is also concern about the means employed in reaching that goal. The government has overreacted and should review its actions. He pointed out his organization is not anti-war, not a partisan political group, and is solely about protecting the Constitution. He asked to be placed on a furore agenda to debate three issues in detail: the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, and the Freedom to Read Act currently pending in Congress. He understood that a local government cannot overrule a federal act, but it can go on record to tell its federal elected officials to see that the constitutional protections of its citizens are safeguarded even during a war against terrorists. Many other cities have done this and the State of Hawaii has opposed the Patriot Act. Many citizens are deeply worried about this and he asked Council again for an agenda item for full discussion. Mike Dumte, 6665 Singletree Way, thanked Council for its wonderful job focusing on local issues, which it was elected to do. He did not support Council addressing federal legislation. Council should focus on public safety, development and budgetary matters. Councilmembers campaigned as nonpartisans and did not give opinions on federal legislation or international issues. He completely disagreed with the citizens who are asking Council to take a position on federal legislation. He felt a resolution from the City Council would have no effect on the federal government. Unlike more liberal communities such as San Francisco or Berkeley, he felt Pleasanton was half Republican and half Democrat and if it takes a position one way or another on this, it would alienate half its citizens. The community has good representation in its elected congressmen and they would listen to comments from their constituents. Those comments would be carried to debate in Congress and he felt that is where it belongs. He felt the City was being used by this group for political reasons. This group never commented about the Pleasanton City Council 6 05/06/03 Minutes