220408 1604 Response to Public Records Act RequestsFrom:Fred Galante
To:Frances Marquez; Michele Magar
Cc:Alisha Farnell; Peter Grant
Subject:Response to Public Records Act Requests
Date:Friday, April 8, 2022 4:04:07 PM
Attachments:220227 1733 Re_ City Council Authority to Adopt Rules for Adding Items to Council Meeting Agendas.pdf
220227 1744 Fwd_ City Council Authority to Adopt Rules for Adding Items to Council Meeting Agendas.pdf
220303 1023 One more time, this time with link! Re voting rights for pwd (1).pdf
220303 1132 Fwd_ One more time, this time with link! Re voting rights for pwd.pdf
220303 1139 Re_ One more time, this time with link! Re voting rights for pwd.pdf
Importance:High
Good afternoon Council Member Marquez and Ms. Magar,
I reviewed the authority you provided related to attorney-client privilege and it really doesn’t explain
the standard for the issues I referenced. Providing the statute from the Public Records Act that
references the attorney-client privilege does not help address the specific issues we discussed.
Again, the issues we discussed are whether the attorney client privilege applies to (i) issues that are
unrelated to legal advice or (2) issues that are threatened against the City and not an individual
council member, and whether either may be shielded by the attorney-client privilege by having a
council member discuss those issues with his/her attorney. As you know, my firm, and not Ms.
Magar, represents the City on the CVRA issues. Regardless, the attorney-client privilege is arguably
broad enough to encompass the latter issue, but not the former. Namely, the attorney-client
privilege does not apply to communications unrelated to legal advice.
The legal support for this conclusion is well established. Attorney-client privilege attaches to any
legal advice given in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Costco Wholesale Corp. v.
Superior Ct. (2009) 47 Cal. 4th 725, 733; Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2007) 155
Cal.App.4th 1485, 1495; Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363, 371. The communication
between attorney and client will not be privileged unless it is clear that the communication was
made for the primary purposes of obtaining legal advice. United States v. Chevron Texaco Corp.
(N.D. Cal. 2002), 241 F. Supp. 2d 1065. A party seeking to “establish the privilege [is] required to
sufficiently establish the communication . . . relates to professional legal services (as opposed to
business considerations). . . . .” In re Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012) 462 F. App'x 975, 978. Documents
prepared by a person do not become privileged merely because they are turned over to an attorney.
Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 110, 119.
To that end, I have reviewed the emails on the City’s server that are communications between the
two of you. I have redacted all communications that could possibly be found to be related to legal
advice. The rest of the dialogue is political strategy that cannot be deemed to be made for the
primary purpose of obtaining legal advice. I am providing this courtesy email to let you know that
the City Clerk’s office will be producing these documents, with the redactions shown, in response to
the Public Records Act requests. If you have any concerns, you will need to secure a court order to
prevent their release. Please let the City Clerk and me know by Monday at 5:00 p.m. whether you
will seek such a court order. Otherwise, the City cannot take the risk of shielding documents subject
to release under the Public Records Act. As you know, the policy of California Public Records Act
(“PRA”) favors disclosure. Agencies must find a specific exemption from disclosure in order to avoid
disclosing documents. (Govt. Code §6254, §6255; Cook v. Craig (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 773, 781.)
Additionally, Council Member Marquez’s affidavit is inconsistent with the follow-up email she sent
saying she has 9, not 8 responsive emails. Please have the affidavit updated to accurately describe
the number of communications she has. To this end, there are various emails where the
communications seem obvious that further responses would have been provided. It seems unusual
that responses were not included with the batch of emails. To this end, please confirm that your
search also included a search of Council Member Marquez’s sent and deleted folders from her
personal email addresses. Also, no copies of texts were provided. Per the requirement set forth by
the Cal. Supreme Court, communications relating to city business made by public employees
through private electronic devices of any form are public records. City of San Jose v. Superior Court,
2 Cal.5th 608 (2017). Finally, the PRA provides that all responders “shall justify withholding any
record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this
chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the
record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” Gov’t Code sec.
6254.4.5(a). The PRA further states that “a response to a written request for inspection or copies of
public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, shall be
in writing.” Gov’t Code sec. 6255(b). So, if Council Member Marquez is asserting that emails in her
possession on her private accounts regarding City business are not to be disclosed under attorney-
client privilege, that written statement must come from Council Member Marquez directly in her
affidavit. Please provide a corrected and updated affidavit addressing all of these points to the City
Clerk by Monday at 5:00 p.m.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Otherwise, as explained, the City Clerk will be
producing the attached, including with the redactions shown, by Tuesday, April 12 at 10:00 a.m.
Thank you.
Fred Galante | Equity Partner
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP | 18881 Von Karman Ave., Suite 1700, Irvine, CA 92612
Tel: (949) 223-1170 | Dir: (949) 250-5410 | Fax: (949) 223-1180 | fgalante@awattorneys.com |
awattorneys.com
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended
recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via email and delete the email you
received.
From:Michele Magar
To:Frances Marquez
Subject:Re: City Council Authority to Adopt Rules for Adding Items to Council Meeting Agendas
Date:Sunday, February 27, 2022 5:32:52 PM
You can liken their attempts to “contain” and “control” you to drama you have chosen to
sidestep. You will not dignify it with more than a summary response. Your focus is elsewhere,
and that’s where it’s going to stay.
It doesn’t matter what they vote, because obviously they have a four to one majority. You
cannot stop them from adopting anything under the sun. But that doesn’t give it the force of
law.
For example, left over from our overtly racist past are “restrictive covenants” that “run with
the land” and ban the sale of real estate to African-Americans, Mexicans, Italians, you name it.
All such “covenants” are illegal, so do not carry the force of law. Rather than require zillions
of condo associations and real estate associations to rid real estate records of racist restrictive
covenants, a gargantuan task, it’s simply understood that these “rules” are null and void ON
THEIR FACE. It’s as if someone took a giant erasure and got rid of them.
The same applies to what the Council decides to enact. If it violates state law, federal law, the
Constitution, and a treaty the USA has ratified . . . it’s null and void, exactly like a restrictive
covenant in real estate records.
Re voting rights:
You are in favor of district voting. You believe the Council owes it to the Residents of
Cypress to not drag their feet in the hope that any reforms will take effect only AFTER the
November 2022 election. This is not rocket science, and there is no further excuse for delaying
a yes or not vote on district elections.
So you’d like to propose it RIGHT NOW. [and if you’re stopped]: Then if not tonight, then in
two weeks. That will give everyone more than enough time to decide which way to vote. I
dare say everyone on the Dias already knows which way they plan to vote, so lets be
responsible and get this done without dragging our feet any longer.
I want to remind my colleagues and everyone watching that tomorrow, we will be sued for
violating the CA Voting Rights Act. That’s exactly what a demand letter does: it gives a
specific deadline to negotiate, and if ignored, the lawsuit is filed the very next day.
So I will state for the record that I support district elections for very simple reasons: 5 steps:
1. The Constitution requires a national census every decade. The reason is to make sure
everyone gets their fair share of representatives to the House: depending on where the
population is booming versus declining.
2. The most recent census results were announced last year, and they show that today,
Cypress has become a majority minority town. Just like the state of California, which has been
a majority minority state for some time now. So Cypress is beginning to look more like the
rest of California.
3. Here's the major breakdown according to last year’s census results:
Asian & Pacific Islander percentage is Z
Latino percentage is Y
Afrian-Ameican percentage is X
Bi-racial is ??
And white people now make up a minority of residents. Ten years ago it was Z percent. Today
it’s Y percent.
4. Studies have shown that the best way to provide fair representation to all racial groups is by
adopting district voting. In fact, I know this is true because I wrote my graduate thesis on
redistricting. So this is something I’ve studied in depth.
5. FRANCES: lay out what you know like you’re telling a high school kid. Just one or two
more steps, and that’s it. Stop, thank people for listening, and sit down (or tell Paulo you’re
done speaking).
THAT’S IT. No one has the bandwidth for a long speech. Keep it short and easy to
understand, and just set boundaries all over the place:
a. You will not be railroaded, nor contained, nor controlled.
b. You understand you are outvoted “THIS YEAR,” but with district elections, your guess is
you won’t stay outvoted NEXT YEAR.
c. It’s quite clear that two of the Council members are termed out. That makes it difficult to
hold them accountable because neither will be on the ballot. But that doesn’t excuse them
from acting in the best interest of Cypress.
FOR EXAMPLE: What matters is NOT that the Council did not violate the law when it
decided to award a long-term trash contract without bidding and without vetting, and the result
is a 32 percent hike in garbage fees, a hike not experienced by other Orange County
communities that opted to shop around for the best possible deal.
Rather than harp on not having broken the law, why not decide to rectify the problem instead?
Wouldn’t that be more in keeping with what residents have been asking their elected officials
to do? They want us to fix the problem, not tell them they can’t hold us accountable because
we didn’t break the law.
That’s a low bar. We can do better than that. We can decide to listen to residents and respond,
not just let them vent at the end of every Council meeting. The open microphone is an
opportunity for us to engage with residents, not sit up here and ignore them and then adjourn
and go home. That’s disrespectful, and allows us to ignore the people we are here to serve.
As President Biden’s pick for the Supreme Court wrote in a lauded opinion: Presidents are not
Kings. Neither are we. We’re here to serve the people, not fight among ourselves. Let’s act
like adults and solve problems the people elected us to solve. Let’s not waste taxpayer money
defending a voting rights lawsuit we can’t win.
Let’s allow the Dias to reflect our City. And let’s stop dragging our feet about it, understand
we are choosing to become defendants in a voting rights lawsuit that will be filed tomorrow,
and let’s at least “own” our decisions, not back into them by delaying and kicking the can
down the road. We owe the residents of Cypress better than that.
On Feb 27, 2022, at 11:29 AM, Frances Marquez <fmarquez@cypressca.org>
wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Fred Galante <fgalante@awattorneys.com>
Subject: City Council Authority to Adopt Rules for Adding
Items to Council Meeting Agendas
Date: February 25, 2022 at 2:32:01 PM PST
To: Paulo Morales <pmorales@cypressca.org>, Anne Hertz-
Mallari <ahertz-mallari@cypressca.org>, Jon Peat
<jpeat@cypressca.org>, "SMinikus@cypressca.org"
<SMinikus@cypressca.org>, Frances Marquez
<fmarquez@cypressca.org>
Cc: "pgrant@cypressca.org" <pgrant@cypressca.org>
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Council Member Marquez asked me to provide legal authority for the
proposition that a City Council may establish its own rules for city council
members requesting agenda items to be placed on the city council
agenda for consideration. Detailed below is my analysis.
City meeting procedures are not prescribed by state law, with the
exception of requirements contained in the Brown Act (Govt. Code
§54950 et seq). Cal. Muni. L. Handbook §2.40. A city council may adopt
and change its own procedural rules and regulations regarding the
conduct of its proceedings. Govt. Code §36813; see Nevens v. City of
Chino, 233 Cal.2d 775, 778 (1965). These rules may be enacted by
ordinance or by resolution. See Central Mfg. Dist., Inc. v. Board of
Supervisors, 176 Cal.2d 850, 860 (1960); Cal. Muni. L. Handbook §1.229.
The city council may also abolish, suspend, modify, or waive its own
procedural rules. City of Pasadena v. Paine, 126 Cal.2d 93, 96 (1954). It is
important that the procedural rules do not violate federal or state
constitutions, mandatory charter, or statutory provisions by, for example,
discriminating against a protected class of persons. Cal. Muni. L.
Handbook §2.46. Said rules must be reasonable and not arbitrary and
capricious. See Nevens, 233 Cal.2d at 778; Paine, 126 Cal.2d at 93.
Furthermore, since Cypress is a charter city, the City Council has broader
authority to adopt its own rules for Council Members requesting agenda
items to be placed on the Council agenda for consideration insofar as such
procedures are a “municipal affair” and thus may be governed by the
City’s Charter. Cal. Muni. L. Handbook §1.184. The home rule provision of
the California Constitution authorizes a charter city to exercise plenary
authority over municipal affairs, free from any constraint imposed by the
general law and subject only to constitutional limitations. SeeCal. Const.
art. XI § 5(a); Comm. of Seven Thousand v. Super. Ct. (City of Irvine), 45
Cal.3d 491 (1988); Bishop v. City of San Jose, 1 Cal. 3d 56, 61 (1969); Ex
Parte Braun, 141 Cal. 204, 209 (1903). It is for the courts to determine
whether an activity is a municipal affair or a matter of statewide concern.
Such a determination depends on the specific facts and circumstances of
each case. The following are some areas that the courts have consistently
classified as municipal affairs:
1. Municipal Election Matters. See Mackey v. Thiel, 262 Cal. App.
2d 362 (1968).
2. Procedures for Initiative, Referendum and Recall. See Lawing v.
Faul, 227 Cal. App. 2d 23, 29 (1964).
3. Procedures for Adopting Ordinances. See Brougher v. Board of
Public Works, 205 Cal. 426 (1928).
4. Compensation of City Officers and Employees. Cal. Const. art.
XI, § 5(b); See Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees
v. County of Sonoma, 23 Cal. 3d 296 (1979); but see San
Leandro Police Officers Association v. City of San Leandro, 55
Cal. App. 3d 553 (1976) (labor relations is not a municipal affair;
Charter cities are subject to the Meyers-Milias Brown Act. Cal.
Gov’t Code § 3500.
5. Processes Associated with City Contracts. See First Street Plaza
Partners v. City of Los Angeles, 65 Cal. App. 4th 650 (1998); but
see Domar Electric, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 41 Cal. App. 4th
810 (1995) (state law establishing employment policy may
preempt local regulation of bidding criteria).
6. Financing Public Improvements. See City of Santa Monica v.
Grubb, 245 Cal. App. 2d 718 (1996).
7. Making Charitable Gifts of Public Funds for Public Purposes. See
Cal. Const. art. XVI, § 6; Tevis v. City and County of San
Francisco, 43 Cal. 2d 190 (1954).
8. Term Limits for Council Members. See Cawdrey v. City of
Redondo Beach, 15 Cal. App. 4th 1212 (1993); but see Cal.
Gov't Code § 36502(b) (regulating term limits).
9. Land Use and Zoning Decisions (with a few exceptions). See
Brougher v. Bd. of Pub. Works, 205 Cal. 426 (1928).
Please let me know if there are any questions or comments, but please do
not reply to all in response to this email so as to avoid any Brown Act
issues.
Fred Galante | Equity Partner
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP | 18881 Von Karman Ave., Suite 1700, Irvine, CA
92612
Tel: (949) 223-1170 | Dir: (949) 250-5410 | Fax: (949) 223-1180 |
fgalante@awattorneys.com | awattorneys.com
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this
communication in error, please advise the sender via email and delete the email you received.
From:Michele Magar
To:Frances Marquez
Subject:Fwd: City Council Authority to Adopt Rules for Adding Items to Council Meeting Agendas
Date:Sunday, February 27, 2022 5:43:59 PM
THERE IS NOTHING ATTACHED TO OPEN
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michele Magar <tanyaprojectmlp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: City Council Authority to Adopt Rules for Adding Items
to Council Meeting Agendas
Date: February 27, 2022 at 5:32:44 PM PST
To: Frances Marquez <fmarquez@cypressca.org>
You can liken their attempts to “contain” and “control” you to drama you have
chosen to sidestep. You will not dignify it with more than a summary response.
Your focus is elsewhere, and that’s where it’s going to stay.
It doesn’t matter what they vote, because obviously they have a four to one
majority. You cannot stop them from adopting anything under the sun. But that
doesn’t give it the force of law.
For example, left over from our overtly racist past are “restrictive covenants” that
“run with the land” and ban the sale of real estate to African-Americans,
Mexicans, Italians, you name it.
All such “covenants” are illegal, so do not carry the force of law. Rather than
require zillions of condo associations and real estate associations to rid real estate
records of racist restrictive covenants, a gargantuan task, it’s simply understood
that these “rules” are null and void ON THEIR FACE. It’s as if someone took a
giant erasure and got rid of them.
The same applies to what the Council decides to enact. If it violates state law,
federal law, the Constitution, and a treaty the USA has ratified . . . it’s null and
void, exactly like a restrictive covenant in real estate records.
Re voting rights:
You are in favor of district voting. You believe the Council owes it to the
Residents of Cypress to not drag their feet in the hope that any reforms will take
effect only AFTER the November 2022 election. This is not rocket science, and
there is no further excuse for delaying a yes or not vote on district elections.
So you’d like to propose it RIGHT NOW. [and if you’re stopped]: Then if not
tonight, then in two weeks. That will give everyone more than enough time to
decide which way to vote. I dare say everyone on the Dias already knows which
way they plan to vote, so lets be responsible and get this done without dragging
our feet any longer.
I want to remind my colleagues and everyone watching that tomorrow, we will be
sued for violating the CA Voting Rights Act. That’s exactly what a demand letter
does: it gives a specific deadline to negotiate, and if ignored, the lawsuit is filed
the very next day.
So I will state for the record that I support district elections for very simple
reasons: 5 steps:
1. The Constitution requires a national census every decade. The reason is to
make sure everyone gets their fair share of representatives to the House:
depending on where the population is booming versus declining.
2. The most recent census results were announced last year, and they show that
today, Cypress has become a majority minority town. Just like the state of
California, which has been a majority minority state for some time now. So
Cypress is beginning to look more like the rest of California.
3. Here's the major breakdown according to last year’s census results:
Asian & Pacific Islander percentage is Z
Latino percentage is Y
Afrian-Ameican percentage is X
Bi-racial is ??
And white people now make up a minority of residents. Ten years ago it was Z
percent. Today it’s Y percent.
4. Studies have shown that the best way to provide fair representation to all racial
groups is by adopting district voting. In fact, I know this is true because I wrote
my graduate thesis on redistricting. So this is something I’ve studied in depth.
5. FRANCES: lay out what you know like you’re telling a high school kid. Just
one or two more steps, and that’s it. Stop, thank people for listening, and sit down
(or tell Paulo you’re done speaking).
THAT’S IT. No one has the bandwidth for a long speech. Keep it short and easy
to understand, and just set boundaries all over the place:
a. You will not be railroaded, nor contained, nor controlled.
b. You understand you are outvoted “THIS YEAR,” but with district elections,
your guess is you won’t stay outvoted NEXT YEAR.
c. It’s quite clear that two of the Council members are termed out. That makes it
difficult to hold them accountable because neither will be on the ballot. But that
doesn’t excuse them from acting in the best interest of Cypress.
FOR EXAMPLE: What matters is NOT that the Council did not violate the law
when it decided to award a long-term trash contract without bidding and without
vetting, and the result is a 32 percent hike in garbage fees, a hike not experienced
by other Orange County communities that opted to shop around for the best
possible deal.
Rather than harp on not having broken the law, why not decide to rectify the
problem instead? Wouldn’t that be more in keeping with what residents have been
asking their elected officials to do? They want us to fix the problem, not tell them
they can’t hold us accountable because we didn’t break the law.
That’s a low bar. We can do better than that. We can decide to listen to residents
and respond, not just let them vent at the end of every Council meeting. The open
microphone is an opportunity for us to engage with residents, not sit up here and
ignore them and then adjourn and go home. That’s disrespectful, and allows us to
ignore the people we are here to serve.
As President Biden’s pick for the Supreme Court wrote in a lauded opinion:
Presidents are not Kings. Neither are we. We’re here to serve the people, not fight
among ourselves. Let’s act like adults and solve problems the people elected us to
solve. Let’s not waste taxpayer money defending a voting rights lawsuit we can’t
win.
Let’s allow the Dias to reflect our City. And let’s stop dragging our feet about it,
understand we are choosing to become defendants in a voting rights lawsuit that
will be filed tomorrow, and let’s at least “own” our decisions, not back into them
by delaying and kicking the can down the road. We owe the residents of Cypress
better than that.
On Feb 27, 2022, at 11:29 AM, Frances Marquez
<fmarquez@cypressca.org> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Fred Galante <fgalante@awattorneys.com>
Subject: City Council Authority to Adopt Rules
for Adding Items to Council Meeting Agendas
Date: February 25, 2022 at 2:32:01 PM PST
To: Paulo Morales <pmorales@cypressca.org>,
Anne Hertz-Mallari <ahertz-
mallari@cypressca.org>, Jon Peat
<jpeat@cypressca.org>,
"SMinikus@cypressca.org"
<SMinikus@cypressca.org>, Frances Marquez
<fmarquez@cypressca.org>
Cc: "pgrant@cypressca.org"
<pgrant@cypressca.org>
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Council Member Marquez asked me to provide legal
authority for the proposition that a City Council may
establish its own rules for city council members requesting
agenda items to be placed on the city council agenda for
consideration. Detailed below is my analysis.
City meeting procedures are not prescribed by state law,
with the exception of requirements contained in the Brown
Act (Govt. Code §54950 et seq). Cal. Muni. L. Handbook
§2.40. A city council may adopt and change its own
procedural rules and regulations regarding the conduct of its
proceedings. Govt. Code §36813; see Nevens v. City of Chino,
233 Cal.2d 775, 778 (1965). These rules may be enacted by
ordinance or by resolution. See Central Mfg. Dist., Inc. v.
Board of Supervisors, 176 Cal.2d 850, 860 (1960); Cal. Muni.
L. Handbook §1.229. The city council may also abolish,
suspend, modify, or waive its own procedural rules. City of
Pasadena v. Paine, 126 Cal.2d 93, 96 (1954). It is important
that the procedural rules do not violate federal or state
constitutions, mandatory charter, or statutory provisions by,
for example, discriminating against a protected class of
persons. Cal. Muni. L. Handbook §2.46. Said rules must be
reasonable and not arbitrary and capricious. See Nevens, 233
Cal.2d at 778; Paine, 126 Cal.2d at 93.
Furthermore, since Cypress is a charter city, the City Council
has broader authority to adopt its own rules for Council
Members requesting agenda items to be placed on the
Council agenda for consideration insofar as such procedures
are a “municipal affair” and thus may be governed by the
City’s Charter. Cal. Muni. L. Handbook §1.184. The home rule
provision of the California Constitution authorizes a charter
city to exercise plenary authority over municipal affairs, free
from any constraint imposed by the general law and subject
only to constitutional limitations. SeeCal. Const. art. XI § 5(a);
Comm. of Seven Thousand v. Super. Ct. (City of Irvine), 45
Cal.3d 491 (1988); Bishop v. City of San Jose, 1 Cal. 3d 56, 61
(1969); Ex Parte Braun, 141 Cal. 204, 209 (1903). It is for the
courts to determine whether an activity is a municipal affair
or a matter of statewide concern. Such a determination
depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each
case. The following are some areas that the courts have
consistently classified as municipal affairs:
1. Municipal Election Matters. See Mackey v. Thiel,
262 Cal. App. 2d 362 (1968).
2. Procedures for Initiative, Referendum and Recall.
See Lawing v. Faul, 227 Cal. App. 2d 23, 29 (1964).
3. Procedures for Adopting Ordinances. See
Brougher v. Board of Public Works, 205 Cal. 426
(1928).
4. Compensation of City Officers and Employees. Cal.
Const. art. XI, § 5(b); See Sonoma County
Organization of Public Employees v. County of
Sonoma, 23 Cal. 3d 296 (1979); but see San
Leandro Police Officers Association v. City of San
Leandro, 55 Cal. App. 3d 553 (1976) (labor
relations is not a municipal affair; Charter cities
are subject to the Meyers-Milias Brown Act. Cal.
Gov’t Code § 3500.
5. Processes Associated with City Contracts. See First
Street Plaza Partners v. City of Los Angeles, 65 Cal.
App. 4th 650 (1998); but see Domar Electric, Inc.
v. City of Los Angeles, 41 Cal. App. 4th 810 (1995)
(state law establishing employment policy may
preempt local regulation of bidding criteria).
6. Financing Public Improvements. See City of Santa
Monica v. Grubb, 245 Cal. App. 2d 718 (1996).
7. Making Charitable Gifts of Public Funds for Public
Purposes. See Cal. Const. art. XVI, § 6; Tevis v. City
and County of San Francisco, 43 Cal. 2d 190
(1954).
8. Term Limits for Council Members. See Cawdrey v.
City of Redondo Beach, 15 Cal. App. 4th 1212
(1993); but see Cal. Gov't Code § 36502(b)
(regulating term limits).
9. Land Use and Zoning Decisions (with a few
exceptions). See Brougher v. Bd. of Pub. Works,
205 Cal. 426 (1928).
Please let me know if there are any questions or comments,
but please do not reply to all in response to this email so as
to avoid any Brown Act issues.
Fred Galante | Equity Partner
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP | 18881 Von Karman Ave., Suite
1700, Irvine, CA 92612
Tel: (949) 223-1170 | Dir: (949) 250-5410 | Fax: (949) 223-
1180 | fgalante@awattorneys.com | awattorneys.com
This email and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you
may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via email
and delete the email you received.
From:Michele Magar
To:Jonathan Kung
Cc:Frances Marquez
Subject:One more time, this time with link! Re voting rights for pwd
Date:Thursday, March 3, 2022 10:22:54 AM
https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/8%2028%20HAVA%20Formatted%20KJ%20V
5%20508.pdf
My thinking is to collect info this year so it’s ready to go once Frances is in the majority next
year, and finally able to do more than be the sole vote against the Guardians of the Status Quo.
Here are the other topics Frances and I discussed, so Jonathan can stick helpful press reports
he may see into our resource library, along with the legal stuff I’ll be sending him:
1. SB 1141: how Cypress is/is not implementing the nation’s first state coercive control law,
that broadens the definition of domestic violence to include nonphysical abuse. FRANCES:
there is funding for pilot programs in 2022 VAWA reauthorization, so one it passes
Congress I’ll figure out if Cypress is eligible for federal $$ to implement our new
coercive control law.
2. Affordable, Accessible, and fully integrated housing: We need all three adjectives for new
housing solutions for Cypress! Newsome just outlawed single family home zoning, which
means more and more localities will enact laws similar to the ones up here that allow single
family homeowners to build “accessory dwelling units” in their back yards. Small studio/one
bedroom apartments would do wonders for single people, and esp for seniors who would be
happy to downsize, freeing up their homes to young families who need the extra bedrooms to
flourish, and reducing the Bay Area’s prohibitive rent levels for everyone of all ages. There’s
also a program here that matches seniors with extra unused bedrooms with seniors who can’t
afford to rent more than a bedroom. That could easily be copied in Cypress via a website that
automates the matching process without requiring more than a few staff members, so it’s
cheap to fund.
3. Voting rights: much of this will be out of our hands since Cypress seems determined to fight
Shenkman’s promise to litigate. Cypress will eventually settle once it’s clear it cannot win, but
not before dragging out the process so there will be no district voting in November 2022. So in
all likelihood this lawsuit may still be raging in 2023, but Frances and her two allies can vote
to immediately settle the case once they have the majority votes.
4. Disability rights in Cypress: we can cover any part of it Frances wants to cover, from
special education to services that benefit seniors with disabilities. All of it can be improved
using best practices examples from similar CA cities. It’s also a world that obviously overlaps
with the rights of seniors . . . so provides an opportunity for coalition building among
advocacy organizations inside Cypress, and between Cypress and LA-based nonprofits.
5. Dealing with hate crimes. Hopefully a strong response will blunt more anti-semitic hate
mail letters appearing in Cypress . . . I’m just not sure there will be a meaningful response
from Cypress unless Frances forces it by teaming up with the Cypress police chief to help him
solve the current case, either by offering a reward or by any other means the police chief says
will help. Most important is reassuring affected protected classes that Cypress has zero
tolerance for hate crimes and will prosecute them energetically.
6. Training the next generation of advocates. Frances can do a lot to inspire secondary,
college, and grad students to become activists. We’ll have to figure out the best way for her to
do that, but including summer internships for students is one great way to start.
Those are the main areas thus far. But remember, none of this will work unless we help
Frances get two more votes in November, via the at-large voting system that will still exist,
hopefully for the last election in Cypress to vote via a method that dilutes the strength of
protected classes in Cypress. That’s going to take a LOT of energy and outreach to voters, and
will likely be the most time-intensive work all three of us will be doing this summer.
Otherwise, we’ll face nothing but the same for the last two years of Frances’ term of office,
and I think her head will explode if she’s forced to tolerate this level of hostility for longer
than November!
— Michele
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michele Magar <tanyaprojectmlp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re voting rights for people with disabilities
Date: March 3, 2022 at 10:02:17 AM PST
To: Jonathan Kung <jkung@ucsd.edu>
Hi Jonathan,
Please stick this link in the resources you’re collecting for Frances re voting
rights. You can see from the executive summary at the top the main problems
they found and the solutions they offered. Although it’s nearly a decade old, my
assumption is many of the problems still exist.
Take care,
Michele
From:Frances Marquez
To:michele Magar
Subject:Fwd: One more time, this time with link! Re voting rights for pwd
Date:Thursday, March 3, 2022 11:31:55 AM
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michele Magar <tanyaprojectmlp@gmail.com>
Subject: One more time, this time with link! Re voting rights for pwd
Date: March 3, 2022 at 10:22:48 AM PST
To: Jonathan Kung <jkung@ucsd.edu>
Cc: Frances Marquez <fmarquez@cypressca.org>
https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/8%2028%20HAVA%20Formatted
%20KJ%20V5%20508.pdf
My thinking is to collect info this year so it’s ready to go once Frances is in the
majority next year, and finally able to do more than be the sole vote against the
Guardians of the Status Quo.
Here are the other topics Frances and I discussed, so Jonathan can stick helpful
press reports he may see into our resource library, along with the legal stuff I’ll be
sending him:
1. SB 1141: how Cypress is/is not implementing the nation’s first state coercive
control law, that broadens the definition of domestic violence to include
nonphysical abuse. FRANCES: there is funding for pilot programs in 2022
VAWA reauthorization, so one it passes Congress I’ll figure out if Cypress is
eligible for federal $$ to implement our new coercive control law.
2. Affordable, Accessible, and fully integrated housing: We need all three
adjectives for new housing solutions for Cypress! Newsome just outlawed single
family home zoning, which means more and more localities will enact laws
similar to the ones up here that allow single family homeowners to build
“accessory dwelling units” in their back yards. Small studio/one bedroom
apartments would do wonders for single people, and esp for seniors who would be
happy to downsize, freeing up their homes to young families who need the extra
bedrooms to flourish, and reducing the Bay Area’s prohibitive rent levels for
everyone of all ages. There’s also a program here that matches seniors with extra
unused bedrooms with seniors who can’t afford to rent more than a bedroom. That
could easily be copied in Cypress via a website that automates the matching
process without requiring more than a few staff members, so it’s cheap to fund.
3. Voting rights: much of this will be out of our hands since Cypress seems
determined to fight Shenkman’s promise to litigate. Cypress will eventually settle
once it’s clear it cannot win, but not before dragging out the process so there will
be no district voting in November 2022. So in all likelihood this lawsuit may still
be raging in 2023, but Frances and her two allies can vote to immediately settle
the case once they have the majority votes.
4. Disability rights in Cypress: we can cover any part of it Frances wants to cover,
from special education to services that benefit seniors with disabilities. All of it
can be improved using best practices examples from similar CA cities. It’s also a
world that obviously overlaps with the rights of seniors . . . so provides an
opportunity for coalition building among advocacy organizations inside Cypress,
and between Cypress and LA-based nonprofits.
5. Dealing with hate crimes. Hopefully a strong response will blunt more anti-
semitic hate mail letters appearing in Cypress . . . I’m just not sure there will be a
meaningful response from Cypress unless Frances forces it by teaming up with
the Cypress police chief to help him solve the current case, either by offering a
reward or by any other means the police chief says will help. Most important is
reassuring affected protected classes that Cypress has zero tolerance for hate
crimes and will prosecute them energetically.
6. Training the next generation of advocates. Frances can do a lot to inspire
secondary, college, and grad students to become activists. We’ll have to figure out
the best way for her to do that, but including summer internships for students is
one great way to start.
Those are the main areas thus far. But remember, none of this will work unless we
help Frances get two more votes in November, via the at-large voting system that
will still exist, hopefully for the last election in Cypress to vote via a method that
dilutes the strength of protected classes in Cypress. That’s going to take a LOT of
energy and outreach to voters, and will likely be the most time-intensive work all
three of us will be doing this summer.
Otherwise, we’ll face nothing but the same for the last two years of Frances’ term
of office, and I think her head will explode if she’s forced to tolerate this level of
hostility for longer than November!
— Michele
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michele Magar <tanyaprojectmlp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re voting rights for people with disabilities
Date: March 3, 2022 at 10:02:17 AM PST
To: Jonathan Kung <jkung@ucsd.edu>
Hi Jonathan,
Please stick this link in the resources you’re collecting for Frances re
voting rights. You can see from the executive summary at the top the
main problems they found and the solutions they offered. Although
it’s nearly a decade old, my assumption is many of the problems still
exist.
Take care,
Michele
From:Michele Magar
To:Frances Marquez
Subject:Re: One more time, this time with link! Re voting rights for pwd
Date:Thursday, March 3, 2022 11:38:34 AM
Sorry Frances I just realized I sent this to your wrong email address. I am going to erase it
from my contacts file right now, and will be sure to use your private one. Meanwhile, rest
assured that all communications between us is attorney-client protected, regardless of who else
hacks into your email to violate your right to privacy.
This is the last time I’ll use this email address.
— Michele
On Mar 3, 2022, at 11:31 AM, Frances Marquez <fmarquez@cypressca.org>
wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michele Magar <tanyaprojectmlp@gmail.com>
Subject: One more time, this time with link! Re voting
rights for pwd
Date: March 3, 2022 at 10:22:48 AM PST
To: Jonathan Kung <jkung@ucsd.edu>
Cc: Frances Marquez <fmarquez@cypressca.org>
https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/8%2028%20HAVA%2
0Formatted%20KJ%20V5%20508.pdf
My thinking is to collect info this year so it’s ready to go once
Frances is in the majority next year, and finally able to do more than
be the sole vote against the Guardians of the Status Quo.
Here are the other topics Frances and I discussed, so Jonathan can
stick helpful press reports he may see into our resource library, along
with the legal stuff I’ll be sending him:
1. SB 1141: how Cypress is/is not implementing the nation’s first
state coercive control law, that broadens the definition of domestic
violence to include nonphysical abuse. FRANCES: there is funding
for pilot programs in 2022 VAWA reauthorization, so one it
passes Congress I’ll figure out if Cypress is eligible for federal $$
to implement our new coercive control law.
2. Affordable, Accessible, and fully integrated housing: We need all
three adjectives for new housing solutions for Cypress! Newsome
just outlawed single family home zoning, which means more and
more localities will enact laws similar to the ones up here that allow
single family homeowners to build “accessory dwelling units” in
their back yards. Small studio/one bedroom apartments would do
wonders for single people, and esp for seniors who would be happy
to downsize, freeing up their homes to young families who need the
extra bedrooms to flourish, and reducing the Bay Area’s prohibitive
rent levels for everyone of all ages. There’s also a program here that
matches seniors with extra unused bedrooms with seniors who can’t
afford to rent more than a bedroom. That could easily be copied in
Cypress via a website that automates the matching process without
requiring more than a few staff members, so it’s cheap to fund.
3. Voting rights: much of this will be out of our hands since Cypress
seems determined to fight Shenkman’s promise to litigate. Cypress
will eventually settle once it’s clear it cannot win, but not before
dragging out the process so there will be no district voting in
November 2022. So in all likelihood this lawsuit may still be raging
in 2023, but Frances and her two allies can vote to immediately settle
the case once they have the majority votes.
4. Disability rights in Cypress: we can cover any part of it Frances
wants to cover, from special education to services that benefit seniors
with disabilities. All of it can be improved using best practices
examples from similar CA cities. It’s also a world that obviously
overlaps with the rights of seniors . . . so provides an opportunity for
coalition building among advocacy organizations inside Cypress, and
between Cypress and LA-based nonprofits.
5. Dealing with hate crimes. Hopefully a strong response will blunt
more anti-semitic hate mail letters appearing in Cypress . . . I’m just
not sure there will be a meaningful response from Cypress unless
Frances forces it by teaming up with the Cypress police chief to help
him solve the current case, either by offering a reward or by any other
means the police chief says will help. Most important is reassuring
affected protected classes that Cypress has zero tolerance for hate
crimes and will prosecute them energetically.
6. Training the next generation of advocates. Frances can do a lot to
inspire secondary, college, and grad students to become activists.
We’ll have to figure out the best way for her to do that, but including
summer internships for students is one great way to start.
Those are the main areas thus far. But remember, none of this will
work unless we help Frances get two more votes in November, via
the at-large voting system that will still exist, hopefully for the last
election in Cypress to vote via a method that dilutes the strength of
protected classes in Cypress. That’s going to take a LOT of energy
and outreach to voters, and will likely be the most time-intensive
work all three of us will be doing this summer.
Otherwise, we’ll face nothing but the same for the last two years of
Frances’ term of office, and I think her head will explode if she’s
forced to tolerate this level of hostility for longer than November!
— Michele
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michele Magar
<tanyaprojectmlp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re voting rights for people with
disabilities
Date: March 3, 2022 at 10:02:17 AM PST
To: Jonathan Kung <jkung@ucsd.edu>
Hi Jonathan,
Please stick this link in the resources you’re collecting
for Frances re voting rights. You can see from the
executive summary at the top the main problems they
found and the solutions they offered. Although it’s
nearly a decade old, my assumption is many of the
problems still exist.
Take care,
Michele