Conclusion
I am reminded of the statement made by President Lincoln to his aide shortly after the capture of Fort Sumter in 1861,
[T]he necessity that is upon us, of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up government whenever they choose.
Therefore, it is only proper that further consideration of AB1921, and any other CID recommendations, by CLRC should cease immediately until the Commission members can be replaced with persons who understand and will abide by the purposes and mission of CLRC. I urge the Governor and Legislature to address this very important concern prior to CLRC’s next scheduled meeting on February 19.
==============
Date: January 13, 2009
To: Governor Schwarzenegger, California Legislative Leaders
Subject: AB 1921: The CLRC recommended CID special interest bill
I found it quite astonishing that on April 29, 2008 Speaker Pro Tempore Saldana withdrew consideration of her bill, AB 1921, as a result of a letter by a legal group whose membership was overwhelmingly dominated by Community Associations Institute (CAI) attorneys and their employees. (See my Dec. 13, 2008 email letter to Mr. Hebert, attached hereto, acknowledged by Mr. Hebert in his email to me on Dec. 23).
In CLRC memorandum MM08-12s1 of May 29, Mr. Hebert wrote of Assemblyman Saldana’s decision,
the Committee Chair admonished the CID Attorney Group for raising concerns after the bill had been introduced, rather than during the Commission’s deliberative process and directed the group to submit a specific and detailed list of its concerns to Assembly Member Saldaña by mid-May.
This action was further clarified in MM08-64s1of Dec. 9 (emphasis added),
An independent group of CID attorneys opposed the bill on the grounds that they had not had enough time to review it and feared that it might contain drafting errors. Once they have completed their review, the Commission will analyze their input . . . . The staff strongly recommends that the Commission wait for the results of this process before seeking reintroduction of implementing legislation.
. . . .
In developing the recommendation, the Commission had a clear practice of excluding any substantive change that might be controversial in the legislative process. Consistent with that practice, the staff made a general commitment the various interest groups, to reverse any substantive change that actually turns out to be controversial. That general approach was ratified by the Commission at the April 2008 meeting . . . .
However, Speaker Pro Tem Saldana did not address my concerns in her withdrawal of this bill under what is clearly CAI special interest influence. There is no mention of my April 11, 2008 letter to CLRC with my concerns for the omission of a Members Bill of Rights, among other constitutional concerns (see MM08-12s1, EX. p.1), nor did CLRC devote any discussion of study time regarding my issues with AB 1921.
Furthermore, there was no mention of the March 24, 2008 Center Valley Times article in which Ms. Donie Vanitzian severely criticized CLRC performance as biased toward the special interests had written in her,
A sober look at this preposterous legislation–devoid sufficient public input and competent research– reveals the imposition of unilateral substandard lawmaking. Assembly Bill 1921 consists of bad law . . . .
(See Appendix B of my Dec. 13 email letter). This article contained numerous objections to AB1921 that were ignored by CLRC and by Speaker Pro Tem Saldana.
Given CLRC’s enabling legislation, and its own statement of its “History and Purpose” as found on its web page, it is safe to conclude that CLRC has failed to follow its duties to the Legislature and to the public by 1) disregarding these serious public concerns and major policy questions that were brought to its attention, and 2) not calling for an study by professionals and organizations relating to these constitutional concerns. CLRC replied to my first email in 2005 on its failure to address a Bill of Rights (Chapter 2, Member Bill of Rights) with a shocking admission of any knowledge of the Constitution or US Bill of Rights,
However, a bill of rights would probably go beyond the substantive rights
that are currently provided in the law. What might those additional rights be? . . .
How would these rights apply in a CID context, where the governing body is
a private association rather than the state? CLRC MM05-03.
CLRC sidestepped the “HOAS are a government” issue. CLRC failed to question whether privately contracted governments can evade the Constitution as if they were simply a business, or private club, and not one that regulates and controls people within a territory, just like any other government. CLRC assumed that the Constitution is nothing more than the contract interference clause of Art. I, Sec. 10. CLRC failed in its obligations to uphold the US and California Constitutions, by permitting unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers to private organizations. CLRC held that the property laws of servitudes are superior to constitutional law, as do the CAI property lawyers who promote these common law holdings. CLRC concluded that, “However, it is beyond the scope of the current project.” MM-05-25s1.
It is evident that CLRC would rather deal with the “technical” questions raised by the CAI special interest property lawyers that resulted in the withdrawal of AB1921 than to study substantive issues affecting the rights and freedoms of the people living in CIDs in California. I am reminded of the statement made by President Lincoln to his aide shortly after the capture of Fort Sumter in 1861,
[T]he necessity that is upon us, of proving that popular government is not an absurdity. We must settle this question now, whether in a free government the minority have the right to break up government whenever they choose.
Therefore, it is only proper that further consideration of AB1921, and any other CID recommendations, by CLRC should cease immediately until the Commission members can be replaced with persons who understand and will abide by the purposes and mission of CLRC. I urge the Governor and Legislature to address this very important concern prior to CLRC’s next scheduled meeting on February 19.
Respectfully,
George K. Staropoli, Pres.
Citizens for Constitutional Local Government, Inc.
Scottsdale, AZ
602-228-2891
HOA Constitutional Government 