Huntington Beach mayor again makes disparaging remark on hot microphone
Huntington Beach Mayor Pat Burns made a disparaging remark on a hot microphone Tuesday night, at the same meeting where the City Council said it would not repeat public comment restrictions that the American Civil Liberties Union alleged violated the Brown Act and speakers' 1st Amendment rights.
Burns' remark was made after Wendy Rincon and her daughter Sydney made public comments.
After groaning and calling for the next speaker following Sydney Rincon, the microphone picked up Burns muttering what sounded like 'Another f—ing cow' under his breath, although the last word could have been 'coward.'
Burns did not respond to Daily Pilot requests for comment.
About a year ago, he called then-minority council members Natalie Moser, Dan Kalmick and Rhonda Bolton 'pieces of s**t' after they walked off the dais in protest of an item that Burns had brought forward seeking to affirm the council's commitment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
Burns' comment Tuesday was not immediately heard by meeting attendees in the theater at the Central Library where the meeting was taking place, but it could be heard by people who were watching the livestream of the meeting online.
'You can hear it on the city's recording,' said Wendy Rincon, who was standing behind her daughter during her comments. 'He can't run from it ... Whether he's saying it about my daughter or the lady who spoke after her, it's kind of subjective. No matter what, he shouldn't be saying it, period. But considering that my cease and desist letter was on the agenda, I don't think it's a stretch to assume he was talking about my daughter and me by default.'
The cease-and-desist letter referenced came from Jonathan Markovitz, a free expression and access to government staff attorney for the ACLU, on behalf of Rincon. It claimed that Burns violated the Brown Act, the U.S. Constitution and the state Constitution with his actions during the council's May 6 meeting.
In the letter, Markovitz argued that the mayor should not be warning members of the public that they can't make crude gestures or use foul language when providing public comment. Additionally, he should not stop public speakers from addressing individual council members by name.
Burns did both at the May 6 meeting, prompting clarification from Huntington Beach City Atty. Mike Vigliotta.
'[Speakers] should just address the council, but to the extent they need to mention names, they can,' Vigliotta told Burns.
Huntington Beach's code of ethics, adopted in 2016, states that all city elected or appointed officials should treat their fellow city officials, staff, commission members and the public 'with patience, courtesy, civility and respect, even when we disagree on what is best for the community and its citizens.'
Sydney Rincon, 22, said she has also spoken at council meetings before. Her comments included noting that the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment give rights, including freedom of speech and freedom of press. She also commented on Burns wearing an American flag shirt to the meeting, stating that it violated the United States code regarding respect for the flag.
'It does not surprise me that he would respond so maliciously,' said Sydney Rincon, a recent graduate of San Francisco State with bachelor's degrees in cinema and political science, in an interview on Wednesday. 'I think what's important to recognize is that nowhere within my speech that I gave on Tuesday night did I address a personal opinion or a grievance of the council. I merely acknowledged the Constitution and our standing flag code. Even in that commentary, he spoke maliciously of me as a constituent and as a voter in this city.'
The council voted unanimously 6-0-1, with Councilman Andrew Gruel absent, that while it was not admitting that Brown Act violations occurred, it would cease, desist from and not repeat the challenged past action. There was no discussion of the agenda item.
Burns, Mayor Pro Tem Casey McKeon, Gracey Van Der Mark and now-state Senator Tony Strickland were voted into office in 2022. After Butch Twining, Don Kennedy and Chad Williams were elected last fall, they formed a self-proclaimed all-MAGA council. Wendy Rincon has long been critical of them.
She gave the council the middle finger during her public comments at the March 4 meeting and said 'F— you,' critical of Burns limiting the time for public speakers to a single minute.
'After two years of being called a groomer, a pedophile, an indoctrinator, I had reached my limit,' she said following Tuesday night's meeting. 'You know how contentious the library [debate] has been ... and I lost my temper. I stand by it. It's not something that I would normally do, but I think that they kept ratcheting up the hate and the anger. It's like, what do they expect?'
She said Wednesday she was considering filing a lawsuit against the city, and had sent an email to Markowitz seeking feedback.
'In this day and age, men just don't get to say that sort of thing,' she said of Burns' remark. 'I don't think that Pat has received that memo yet.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Mayor Brandon Johnson should not veto snap curfews
On Wednesday, Chicago's City Council passed by a vote of 27-22 an ordinance authorizing so-called 'snap curfews,' meaning that Chicago police will have the authority to get teenagers off the streets if they sense trouble is brewing. In essence, police Superintendent Larry Snelling would have the power to impose curfews in specific public areas within Chicago where large, unpermitted teen gatherings are beginning, or expected soon to form. The idea is that police officers would be able to tell those already assembled that they have 30 minutes either to go home or take a walk with just a couple of friends elsewhere. Mayor Brandon Johnson blasted the ordinance approved by a clear majority of aldermen and said he planned to issue a rare mayoral veto (the first since 2006, the Richard M. Daley era) in coming days. He should rethink that idea. We're aware of arguments against giving the police this power, especially given our long-standing interest in guarding civil liberties. We've been concerned about a couple of kids being inside a movie theater, for example, only to walk out onto the street without knowing about any curfew and then finding themselves in conflict with the police. We're also of the view that law-abiding teens must be welcomed downtown and that there is nothing illegal in gathering with friends on a warm summer's night, shooting the breeze. That's why we were against making the existing 10 p.m. curfew for Under 17s any earlier, and why we applaud Jahmal Cole, founder and CEO of 'My Block, My Hood, My City,' who is planning to bring over 1,500 teens, primarily from the South and West sides, into the business and cultural districts of downtown Chicago on July 19 for what he calls 'a day of exploration, belonging and new opportunities.' This will be the third year the nonprofit organization also known as M3 will have chaperoned an initiative powered by donors and volunteers; we hear Cole expects to have more participants than ever this year. The plan is both to make these teens feel like they belong downtown, as they should, and also to start to shift some negative perceptions among downtown business owners and workers. We hope everyone has a great time together. But there is often a tradeoff between civil liberties and crime prevention and, where minors are concerned, protection must come first. If it is handled right, this new police power might actually keep kids safer by pre-empting any trouble before it happens. And to think that there is no danger of such trouble when teens gather en masse downtown is to put your head in the sand when it comes to the lessons of recent history, especially as hot summer nights are upon us. Johnson claimed that the ordinance, introduced by Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd), 'is counterproductive to the progress that we have made in reducing crime and violence in our city.' With all due respect, we don't see the merit of that argument. It should be seen as a tool. And let's remember that incidents of violent crime don't just affect tourists or the business district — they're usually worse for the kids caught up in any melee. No parent or grandparent wants a teen to get stuck around a group of hot-headed peers who might encourage them to do things they later have cause to regret and that impairs the progress of their promising young lives. Such scenarios typically terrify a teenager's loved ones. Perhaps most importantly here, the city's aldermen, many of whom represent the impacted families and know their communities very well, are telling the mayor loud and clear that they want this protection, not just for folks downtown but for the kids themselves. And the vote would suggest that these aldermen of the majority, such as Ald. Pat Dowell (3rd), trust Snelling to guard against any problems, which will mean using the ordinance very sparingly, offering as much advance notice as possible and focusing on de-escalation. Snelling already has said in several interviews that he will commit to that. Good. And if no snap curfew is ever needed this summer, all the better. Still, whatever his ideological misgivings or sense of being personally affronted, the mayor would be wise to listen to the City Council and add this ordinance to the police's toolbox for keeping everyone safe. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
11 hours ago
Court blocks Louisiana law requiring schools to post Ten Commandments in classrooms
NEW ORLEANS -- A panel of three federal appellate judges has ruled that a Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in each of the state's public school classrooms is unconstitutional. The ruling Friday marked a major win for civil liberties groups who say the mandate violates the separation of church and state, and that the poster-sized displays would isolate students — especially those who are not Christian. The mandate has been touted by Republicans, including President Donald Trump, and marks one of the latest pushes by conservatives to incorporate religion into classrooms. Backers of the law argue the Ten Commandments belong in classrooms because they are historical and part of the foundation of U.S. law. The plaintiffs' attorneys and Louisiana disagreed on whether the appeals court's decision applied to every public school district in the state or only the districts party to the lawsuit. 'All school districts in the state are bound to comply with the U.S. Constitution,' said Liz Hayes, a spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs. The appeals court's rulings 'interpret the law for all of Louisiana,' Hayes added. "Thus, all school districts must abide by this decision and should not post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms.' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said she disagreed and believed the ruling only applied to school districts in the five parishes that were party to the lawsuit and that she would seek to appeal the ruling. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' order stems from a lawsuit filed last year by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds, who said the law violates First Amendment language guaranteeing religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion. The mandate was signed into law last June by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry. The court's ruling backs an order issued last fall by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles, who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to take steps to enforce it and to notify all local school boards in the state of his decision. Law experts have long said they expect the Louisiana case to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, testing the conservative court on the issue of religion and government. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress can 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' The high court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose. In 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.
American Press
11 hours ago
- American Press
Court blocks Louisiana law requiring schools to post Ten Commandments in classrooms
Gov. Jeff Landry on Wednesday signed a bill mandating the displays of the 10 Commandments in all Louisiana public schools. (Crystal Stevenson / American Press) A panel of three federal appellate judges has ruled that a Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in each of the state's public school classrooms is unconstitutional. The ruling Friday marked a major win for civil liberties groups who say the mandate violates the separation of church and state, and that the poster-sized displays would isolate students — especially those who are not Christian. The mandate has been touted by Republicans, including President Donald Trump, and marks one of the latest pushes by conservatives to incorporate religion into classrooms. Backers of the law argue the Ten Commandments belong in classrooms because they are historical and part of the foundation of U.S. law. The plaintiffs' attorneys and Louisiana disagreed on whether the appeals court's decision applied to every public school district in the state or only the districts party to the lawsuit. 'All school districts in the state are bound to comply with the U.S. Constitution,' said Liz Hayes, a spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs. The appeals court's rulings 'interpret the law for all of Louisiana,' Hayes added. 'Thus, all school districts must abide by this decision and should not post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms.' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said she disagreed and believed the ruling only applied to school districts in the five parishes that were party to the lawsuit and that she would seek to appeal the ruling. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' order stems from a lawsuit filed last year by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds, who said the law violates First Amendment language guaranteeing religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion. The mandate was signed into law last June by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry. The court's ruling backs an order issued last fall by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles, who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to take steps to enforce it and to notify all local school boards in the state of his decision. Law experts have long said they expect the Louisiana case to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, testing the conservative court on the issue of religion and government. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress can 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' The high court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose. In 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.
