Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 04 2017 CMCITY OF CHUBBUCK SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4T11° 2017 -- 5:30PM CALL TO ORDER: Mayor England COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Kevin England, Josh Ellis -Phone, Annette Baumeister, Ryan Lewis and City Attorney Tom Holmes STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Public Works Director Rodney Burch, Captain Bill Guiberson, Deputy Clerk Joey Bowers, and City Clerk Rich Morgan Mayor England excused Councilmember Evans from tonight's meeting GENERAL BUSINESS: 1. Trespass Appeal of Niki Taysom Niki Taysom represented herself for the appeal. She stated that her trespass was not warranted and unconstitutional. Ms. Taysom in her defense proceeded to read passages of scripture from Doctrine and Covenants section 98 versus 4-5, 7-8, and 11. She then proceeded to read from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Ms. Taysom also read the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. She then read from the fourth article section 6. Ms. Taysom also proceeded to read the first amendment of the Constitution. She stated that if she stands in reverence under Roberts Rules of Order it is her right to exercise her right of freedom of speech for the Council to call upon her to speak. Councilmember Lewis asked Ms. Taysom why she kept talking about Roberts Rules of Order, but kept referencing the Constitution. Councilmember Lewis asked Ms. Taysom based on her understanding of the Constitution which body of government interprets the Constitution to tell us what it means? Ms. Taysom stated that is was the Judicial Branch of govermnent. Councilmember Lewis agreed with Ms. Taysom, he then proceeded to ask Ms. Taysom if the Judiciary branch of government has interpreted the Constitution, would that interpretation be the supreme law of the land. Ms. Taysom stated that the interpretation by the Judiciary Branch would be the supreme law of the land, if they are abiding by the Constitution, but stated that the Judiciary Branch had made decision that do not abide by the Constitution. Councilmember Lewis stated that by Ms. Taysom's own admission that the Judiciary Branch by law interprets the Constitution and asked Ms. Taysom if she felt like if the Judicial Branch was not interpreting the Constitution according to her view, if it was her statement that they are not the interpreter of the Constitution. Ms. Taysom believes that the Constitution is very clear and stated that we the people are the sovereignty, we (meaning the people) have the right to speak, we have the right to redress of grievances, and we have the right to address the legal actions being perfonned by our govenunent under the Declaration of Independence. Councilmember Lewis asked Ms. Taysom where the Robert Rules of Order was talked about in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or the Supreme Court of the United States. Ms. Taysom stated that the Robert Rules of Order was not stated in any of those. But as she understands and had been told that there is decorum in City Council meetings, and one of the decorum's used is the Robert Rules of Order. Ms. Taysom stated if a person would like to speak and address whatever body was in quorum, under the Roberts Rules of Order if she stood quietly and waited would then be called upon to speak. Ms. Taysom told about a time in a Land Use Development Meeting when Mr. Tom Nield was acting chair, called upon her to speak and stated that she had the right to speak under those rules of order (it is unclear what she meant by this statement, because Mr. Tom Nield is not on the Land Use Board). Ms. Taysom then stated that the Judicial Branch under the Constitution as the supreme law of this land does interpret the Constitution. Then Ms. Taysom stated that the Judicial Branch is not interpreting according to the Constitution but according to communism, including forcing mandated insurance that violates her constitutional right. Councilmember Lewis asked Ms. Taysom to clarify if her position is that the Judicial Branch of Government is communist. Ms. Taysom stated that the Judicial Branch is absolutely corrupt with the communist party behind it. Ms. Taysom also stated that as she has talked to other Government bodies in Alaska and Utah. When attending meetings in these States Ms. Taysom had been given the right to speak under Roberts Rules of Order at a Public Hearing, or on any agenda item. But she has been denied this right to speak in Southeast Idaho especially at the City of Chubbuck, City of Pocatello, and Bannock County. Ms. Taysom stated that she submitted in writing a case study based on a judicial decision to City Attorney Tom Holmes and Police Chief Randy Severe validating her right to speak. Ms. Taysom stated that if she has a redress or wants to redress of grievances, that she has the Constitutional right to be called upon to speak and no body of government can deny her that right. Councilmember Lewis wanted to know if it was the Idaho case State v. Clark that she gave to Mr. Tom Holmes. He also wanted to know if she gave the case study to Mr. Holmes relating to this hearing. Ms. Taysom stated that she couldn't remember the name of the case study and that she had submitted it to City Attorney Tom Holmes and Police Chief Randy Severe previous to the hearing. Councilmember Lewis stated that the Idaho case State v. Clark states that if anybody has been trespassed that they have the right of an appeal. It does not state that Robert Rules of Order applies, or that the public has any rights to stand up and make general policy statements during a closed City Council meeting. Councilmember Lewis stated that Mr. Holmes trespass letter acknowledged that Ms. Taysom had the right to appeal. Ms. Taysom stated that she was first denied her letter of appeal by Mr. Tom Holmes, and had to remind Mr. Holmes in a passing conversation that it stated in her letter that she had the right to appeal. Ms. Taysom stated that we the people are the sovereignty and the Council is just the public servants and are required to do the will of the people under the supreme law of the Constitution. Ms. Taysom stated that the Constitution rules above State Code, City Ordinance, and above anybody else. She then stated that no level of congress can make any laws that rule over the Constitution, not the judiciary, or the executive, and that no other form of government has that authority. Ms. Taysom stated that if other people for example Tom Nield acknowledges her right to speak, and if other surrounding States allow her to stand up and speak, But she isn't allowed to speak at the City of Chubbuck, City of Pocatello, and Bannock County or anywhere else in Southeast Idaho. Ms. Taysom stated that this violated her Constitutional rights. Councilmember Lewis asked Ms. Taysom if she was saying that an individual member on the Land Use board can set a law that is greater than the Supreme Court of the United States. Ms. Taysom stated she was not saying that, all she was saying is that Tom Nield acknowledged and stated that she had the right to speak under Constitutional law and Roberts Rules of Order. Ms. Taysom stated that when any form of government does anything to jeopardize our liberty, safety, health, and property, it is the duty of the people as the sovereignty to stand. Ms. Taysom stated that these are open meetings and the Council is doing business but the Council is still the public servants. Ms. Taysom stated that she has the right to stand quietly or raise her hand quietly and wait to be called upon to speak, and she expects under her rights, for the Council to call upon her to speak. Councilmember Lewis asked Ms. Taysom if she had any interpretation of the Constitution or from the United States Supreme Court that supports her argument. Ms. Taysom felt like there was no need for an interpretation. Councilmember Baumeister asked Ms. Taysom to read from the Constitution where she gets her interpretation again. Ms. Taysom stated that she had already read it and she also read it from scripture. Ms. Taysom then proceeded to read the first amendment of the Constitution. Ms. Taysom in reading the first amendment stated that congress could make no law that abridges the Constitution of the United States of America, there for no other form of government can. Ms. Taysom then continued to read the first amendment during which when reading about the free exercise of speech Ms. Taysom stated that she looked up the definition in the first American dictionary which she stated means to lessen or cut short. Ms. Taysom continued to read the first amendment and then proceeded to read the sixth article second paragraph of the Constitution. Ms. Taysom stated that any other law has to agree with the Constitution, and the people of the United States are the supreme law of the land. Ms. Taysom stated that if a City, State, or County institutes an ordinance or resolution that violates Constitutional law they do not have the authority to do so pursuant to the Constitution. Ms. Taysom felt like if she is at a meeting and that any quorum is violating the Constitution she has the right to stand up and speak. Ms. Taysom in closing stated that she feels like the people are the sovereignty and have the duty to speak and not to be shut down for reading and interpreting the Constitution. Ms. Taysom stated that she is being sincere and feels like there is health and safety issues, freedom issues, and rights of property issues in the City of Chubbuck. Ms. Taysom feels like the Council doesn't care and have accused her of outburst in Council meetings when she isn't even allowed to speak. Mayor England stated that he had allowed for all the time used from the Council's questions, and let Ms. Taysom know that her allotted 10 minutes was up and brought the meeting back to the Council for any further discussion or questions. Councilmember Baumeister wanted to know if there was a representative from the Police Department that had a comment. There being no cormnent brought it back to the Council. Councilmember Lewis agreed with Ms. Taysom that she does read from the Constitution often. But stated that the interpretation of the Constitution as set forth in the Constitution its self is by the Judiciary Branch. Councilmember Lewis stated that her argument of the Roberts Rules of Order should allow a discussion on any topic is not supported by the United States Supreme Court. Councilmember Lewis stated that the United States Supreme Court has said that City Council Meetings are limited tribunals. This Council is not obligated to allow general policy discussion and argument at all City Meetings. Councilmember Lewis explained when the Council has a specific agenda item and he used the example of an application for a subdivision, that the only criteria the Council uses to make a decision for that subdivision/agenda item, is existing City ordinances and not policy changes that somebody wants. Councilmember Lewis also stated that the council and public needs to stay on topic and not talk about off topic items that have nothing to do with the agenda item. Councilmember Lewis also stated that the Supreme Court of the United States has said that "the Constitution does not grant members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy". Councilmember Lewis felt like if the public could speak on anything they wanted at any time that they wanted at any location they wanted, it would create chaos. Councilmember Lewis also stated that the City has Ordinances that gives the Mayor the authority to maintain decorum and order during a City Council Meeting. Councilmember Lewis referenced back to Ms. Taysom's statement and scriptures about following the law, and said that the City Ordinance's are the law of the City of Chubbuck. Ms. Taysom stated that she used the example of Tom Nield not as having authority over the Mayor, but as an older gentleman that understands the way Constitutional law should be, and her right under it. Ms. Taysom also stated that she already referenced a Supreme Court decision banning that and they are not true methods to the Constitution. Councilmember Lewis told Ms. Taysom that if she wants to change the law that she needs to change it through the federal court system and not at the City of Chubbuck meetings. Councilmember Lewis stated that the City of Chubbuck Council does not have the authority to change Federal law, State law, or Constitutional law as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Ms. Taysom stated that the council is making their decision based on Lawrence Wasden's pamphlet on Idaho open meeting laws, records request, and other things, Ms. Taysom stated that these pamphlets are incorrect. Councilmember Lewis stated that he was not stating or using Lawrence Walden's pamphlet but a United States Supreme Court case. Councilmember Lewis also quoted the 9t' circuit court which has said that "City Council meetings are a limited public forum for purposes of first amendment analysis". Councilmember Lewis also stated that the United States Supreme Court has said that Councils do not violate the first amendment if it restricts public speaking to the subject at hand. Councilmember Lewis stated that the 91h Circuit Court of appeal has said that if remarks are iinpertant to the topic, disrupt or disturb or otherwise impede the conduct of the meeting, then a trespass maybe appropriate. Councilmember Lewis stated that it included the following examples, speaking to long, being unduly repetitious, and extended discussion of irrelevances. Councilmember Lewis believes Ms. Taysom when she says she is passionate. But feels like Ms. Taysom only believes her own interpretation of the Constitution, and not what the United States Supreme Court, and other circuit courts have determined as the law of the land. Councilmember Lewis stated that when Ms. Taysom disregards the Mayor's counsel to stay on topic, to stay within the time limit, to not talk about general policy items when talking about a specific application, then Ms. Taysom is doing the very things that the court systems have said may violate order and decorum. Ms. Taysom stated that she has the right to read the Constitution during a public hearing, to show how the Council is in violation of the law. Ms. Taysom felt Iike that was not deteriorating from the topic being discussed. Ms. Taysom stated that the Council is violating God's law and the Constitution, and are committing sedition and treason. At about 5:56 Ms. Taysom then proceeded to pack her bag and leave the meeting (she stopped in the doorway to listen to Councilmember Ellis). Councilmember Ellis felt like the argument that Ms. Taysom has presented is different and inconsistent with the testimony and actions that Ms. Taysom has shown during Council Meetings and afterward in the parking lot. Councilmember Ellis also stated that the accusation that the Council is communist and breaking the law have become extremely disruptive and are opinion based statements. Councilmember Ellis felt like Ms. Taysom always tried to bring everything to a religious view point that he didn't think should have a place or be part of these City meetings. Councilmember Ellis agreed with Councilmember Lewis that Ms. Taysom strays from what she should be doing when she comments during meetings. Councilmember Ellis also stated that the Council has always allowed Ms. Taysom to speak when she agrees or disagrees on topics and applications during public hearings as they do for all the general public. City Attorney Tom Holmes stated that Councilmember Lewis's interpretations of the Supreme Court and 9th circuit decisions are correct. Councilmember Baumeister stated that Ms. Taysom states that the Judicial Branch and Supreme Court have the right to interpret the Constitution, but they are doing it wrong. Councilmember Baumeister felt like what Ms. Taysom was saying is that Ms. Taysom holds the supreme authority to interpret the Constitution and her interpretation is higher than anybody else. Higher than the Mayor, higher than City Attorney Tom Holmes, even higher than the United States Supreme Court. Councilmember Baumeister stated that this is a Representative style of government, and the people's role/voice to make a change is with a petition, or by who the people elect into government offices. Councilmember Baumeister stated that the Council cannot make everybody happy all the time. But they have to do what they feel is the best with the knowledge that they have for everybody as a whole community. Councilmember Baumeister stated that Ms. Taysom's hostile and uncomfortable behavior of storming off, mumbling things under her breath to the audience, blocking/barricading the doorway, screaming her comments and then marching back into the meeting and demanding to be able to speak, chasing down Councilmember Baumeister's van in the parking lot is hostile and childlike behavior, which is not acceptable behavior at City meetings. Ms. Taysom stated that she didn't chase down Councilmember Baumeister's van, but was approaching as a public representative to be able to speak to her. Councilmember Baumeister stated that was Ms. Taysom's interpretation versus her own interpretation. Councilmember Baumeister recalled telling Ms. Taysom politely that she had a previous engagement and was unavailable to talk, as Ms. Taysom continued to chase down and followed her van as Councilmember Baumeister tried to pull out of the parking lot. Councilmember Baumeister let Ms. Taysom know that writing letters, speaking on topic at a public hearing is appropriate behavior. Councilmember Baumeister also told Ms. Taysom that standing up and saying/demanding "I would like to speak, I would like to speak" is an outburst and disruptive behavior during a meeting and is not the appropriate time or place. Councilmember Baumeister stated as Councilmember Lewis has stated that is it not Ms. Taysom's interpretation but the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution that is the supreme law of the land. At about 6:03 Ms. Taysom walked out of the meeting again stating that if she cannot address the Council's lies then there was no reason to stay (and left the building for the remainder of the meeting). Councilmember Baumeister recommended to Ms. Taysom that if she would like an appeal to stay until the Council had made a decision. Councilmember Lewis stated that he still wanted to ask Ms. Taysom about some of her comments made in previous meetings, but was unable to because she left the meeting. Councilmember Lewis wanted to ask her about the issues that have become intentionally disruptive. Councilmember Lewis stated that Ms. Taysom had stated that the Council should ignore certain and select federal laws. Including the federal communications commission (FCC) federal rulings, federal agencies, state law, and state agencies. Ms. Taysom's public policy statements about promoting agenda 21 (which is a United Nations agenda). Ms. Taysom also talks about conspiracies between Thomas S. Monson and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also stated as the Mormon or LDS church, and local clergy. Ms. Taysom accuses every State and federal agencies of communism, and treason. Ms. Taysom also states and brings up the danger of her sons that confuses the public and the Council because nobody has any idea of what she is talking about. Ms. Taysom also states that everything the Council does is unconstitutional for example taxes, fees, ordinances, benefits, licensing businesses, and the international building code. Councilmember Lewis stated that Ms. Taysorn gives these remarks at a specific public hearing agenda that has nothing to do with that agenda or application. Councilmember Lewis believes that Ms. Taysom makes these remarks of confusion intentionally to disrupt the public hearing and create confusion. Councilmember Lewis feels like Ms. Taysom believes that Roberts Rules of Order is the supreme law of the land. Councilmember Lewis agrees with Councilmember Baumeister that the only time Ms. Taysom agrees with the United States Supreme Court is when it agrees with her own interpretation of the Constitution. Councilmember Lewis also stated that Ms. Taysom constantly talks about, and objects to, things like mandatory hook ups to sewer and water for protection of the public, Ms. Taysom also calls out local leaders as conspirators with each other. Councilmember Lewis believes and feels that Ms. Taysom intentionally is highly disruptive during City meetings. Councilmember Lewis stated that with the interpretation of the United States Supreme Court that the Mayor's trespass that had been issued to Ms. Taysom was not improper. Mayor England stated that he has had very similar conversations with Ms. Taysom on a one-on-one bases in his office. Mayor England stated that Ms. Taysom has stated that she totally disagrees with the Supreme Court'Os interpretations of the Constitution. Mayor England on the topic of Ms. Taysom's disruptive behavior gave an example of a time when she took a group of a scouts out in the hallway after a Council meeting and told them to never listen to the Council and the Mayor because they were a bunch of liars. Mayor England wanted it known that he was the last one onboard to trespass Ms. Taysom, but felt like it got to a needed point after Ms. Taysom's behavior in the parking lot after a City Council meeting. Mayor England stated the trespass is for one year, and the intent and hope is that Ms. Taysom will learn that if she keeps meeting decorum she will be welcomed back to the City's public meetings. Councilmember Lewis stated that the record and statements of Ms. Taysom today is evidence that even if she is passionate about what she believes. Ms. Taysom's intention is to disrupt and Councilmember Lewis feels like that the Council has had an overabundance of patience to not have it come to this point. Councilmember Lewis motioned for the denial of the trespass appeal for Niki Taysom. Councihrlernber Baumeister seconded motion for denial. Roll Call: Lewis -yes, Ellis -yes, Baumeister -yes, motion passed CLAIMS: 1. City of Chubbuck claims for October 4"', 2017 as presented to Mayor England and Council. Public Works Director Rodney Burch explained that the Copperfield Landing water development is part of the City's overall water capital improvement plan. The Developer had developed to that location before the City could, so the City is reimbursing the developer to install the water transmission line to be installed in that subdivision on the City's behalf. Councilmember Ellis wanted it known that he was not involved with any of the Copperfield Landing negotiations, or even having any knowledge of the contracts or negotiations. But since he was related to the contractor of that subdivision recused himself from any Copperfield Landing items for approval. Councilmember Lewis motioned for approval of City of Chubbuck claims as presented Councilmember Baumeister seconded motion for approval Roll Call: Baumeister -yes, Lewis -yes, Ellis -yes (excluding Copperfield Landing), motion passed 2. Chubbuck Development Authority claims for October 0', 2017 as presented to Mayor England and Council Councilmember Lewis motioned for approval of Chubbuck Development Authority claims Councilmember Baumeister seconded motion for approval Roll Call: Ellis -yes, Baumeister -yes, Lewis -yes, motion passed ADJOURN: MAYOR KEVIN ENGLAND X X_ Rich Morqan Kevin Enqland City Clerk Mayor