A cadre of First Amendment groups alleges that the subcommittee of the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) also approves action that is then rubber stamped by the CLETS advisory committee (CAC) just hours later, again failing to properly announce what will be part of a discussion determined by law to be subject to advance disclosure.

The subcommittee, called the Standing Strategic Planning Subcommittee (SSPS), is, like CAC, composed of members of law enforcement associations and state agencies who form policy on justice matters in the state.

“Since at least July 2013, [CAC] and SSPS have scheduled their meetings on the same day. SSPS convenes in the morning and votes to make recommendations, then [CAC] meets in the afternoon and votes to finalize those recommendations,” reads a July 16 letter to the law enforcement telecom committee, signed by representatives of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU, the First Amendment Coalition and Californians Aware. “This has resulted in a system in which the public has only a few hours to analyze decisions and formulate comment before these proposals are formally approved.”

The complaint was spurred by a plan to use the drivers’ license photo and other information of Californians with law enforcement agencies nationwide for use in facial recognition databases.

That idea was scrapped after the agency received 1,500 complaints earlier this year. But it was in the final stages of approval when it was discovered after being passed via the alleged breach of the open meetings law.

During a March meeting of the CAC, David Maass, an investigative researcher with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told the board that he and others were concerned about the effort to allow federal access to state drivers license data.

According to the minutes of that meeting, in response to Maass’ comments, “SSPS Chair [Tom] Bruce stated that the SSPS makes no decisions on policies, practices and procedures and that the subcommittee’s role is strictly advisory.”

As is the role of the CLETS board, according to the DOJ website, which states that the board’s job is to “counsel and assist the Attorney General on the proper collection, storage, dissemination and security of CLETS data.”

The DOJ had already applied for a $50,000 grant to put drivers’ license data into a national database, despite the warning of the California Department of Motor Vehicles that the policy violated state privacy law.

The subcommittee did not meet for four years before being put back together in 2013 “so that there are proper eyes on the future and to deal with issues that are not generally reviewed by [CAC],” according a minutes from a July 2013 meeting.

At that time, the board was cautioned by chairman Sam Spiegel that “the subcommittee needs to abide by the 2004 Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, which requires public notice of meetings, agendas and an opportunity for the public to testify.”

Spiegel did not return a call.

In a joint meeting in November 2013 that was called to specify the goals of the freshly-revived subcommittee, board members noted that the sharing of drivers’ license photos nationally was not being done.

That meeting, though, launched the crusade to provide state drivers’ license photos to the feds. It was noted that the state was developing an “image warehouse” that will have facial capability.

At that time, subcommittee member Julie Basco, a representative from the state Department of Justice, said the federal law enforcement telecommunications system was seeking to include department of motor vehicle photos “though she is not aware of plans from [the feds] to create a national photo repository for DMV…”

The DOJ declined to make Basco available for an interview.

On Wednesday, the subcommittee is scheduled to meet at 9:00 a.m. followed by CAC at 1:00 p.m.

The parent, Robert Small, concerned about the school district’s plan to use Common Core standards in its curriculum, dared to verbally question school board officials after being told they would only take written questions from the parents, the Baltimore Sun reported this week.

“However, Small began speaking out against the district’s use of Common Core, prompting a security guard, who was also a police officer, to approach him and order him to leave,” the Sun reported. “'Let’s go!' he said sternly.”

“When Small didn’t immediately comply, the officer began pulling his arm and pushing him towards the exit. Some audience members gasped at the cop’s use of force.

“'Don’t stand for this,' the father said as he was dragged out. 'You are sitting here like cattle! Is this America?'”

Elected officials everywhere do this

Elected officials are increasingly closing off the public, all across America. And this is evident on every level of government — even during the legislative committee process.

The California State Legislature requires the public be allowed to speak during the committee process when bills are being heard.

“When testifying before the committee, first state your name and the organization that you represent or indicate that you are a concerned citizen and state where you live,” the Senate rules say. “The members of the committee will be interested to hear what you have to say and usually do not grill individual citizens who testify in the same way that they do lobbyists. Keep your testimony short and to the point.”

But more and more, Democratic legislators in Sacramento deny citizens the right to speak. Instead they tell visitors to the Capitol to give their name and affiliation only, and do not allow testimony.

I frequently witness members of the public being denied the opportunity to speak at legislative committee hearings. Often people have traveled hundreds of miles just to address their Legislature and elected representatives. More and more they are denied the opportunity to even give a statement.

Several times during this most recent legislative session, committee chairmen/chairwomen lied about another committee needing the hearing room, and forced members of the public to only give their names instead of allowing even a short statement.

When members of the public are invited to speak before committees, testimony is often limited to two minutes, while the same committees allow favored special interest groups to ramble on, well beyond two minutes.

In August 2012, I witnessed a particularly egregious violation on the Bagley-Keene Act when Sen. Pres pro Tem Darrell Steinberg cut off access to the Capitol cable television program which was recording an important Senate hearing about four of the November 2012 ballot initiatives.

The California Channel, the cable television channel that broadcasts all Senate and Assembly floor sessions, and most legislative committee hearings, was apparently interrupted on orders from Steinberg. Just before the hearing was scheduled to start, a Senate staffer ordered the hearing access to be cut off. I wrote about it: “Steinberg offers weak apology over hearing blackout.”

The California Channel, the Capitol’s cable access television, recently cut off access to their video archive prior to 2009. In most cases, this is the only video archive of very important legislative hearings. I've made several inquiries to the California Channel asking for access to older videos, but have never received a response.

California's Open Meeting Act

In 1967, the California Legislature passed the Open Meeting Act, called the Bagely-Keene Act, which requires all “state” boards and commissions to publicly notice their meetings, prepare agendas, accept public testimony and conduct their meetings in public unless specifically authorized to meet in closed session.

The California Attorney General's office explains the Act:

Parent arrested and charged

The State of Maryland also has an Open Meeting Act. But after being physically removed from the meeting by a cop, Mr. Small was charged with second-degree assault of a police officer, which carries a fine of $2,500 and up to 10 years in prison, and disturbing a school operation, which carries a fine of $2,500 and up to six months, the Baltimore Sun reported.

When the people are kept out of the legislative process, or prevented form participating in the school governing process, it is deliberate — especially under one-party rule, as is occurring in California under the Democratic supermajority.

Thomas Jefferson said, “When the people fear the government it is called tyranny. When the government fears the people there is liberty.”

And when the government has to listen to the people, there is liberty, freedom and a healthy Republic.

“Look, I am being manhandled and shut down because I asked inconvenient questions,” Small said. “Why won't they allow an open forum where there can be a debate? We are told to sit there and be lectured to about how great common core is.”