Liang - Numerous Justifications for Special Meeting on May 3rd, but None for the one on April 5.

Liang listed numerous justifications for calling a special meeting to discuss the ballot question of CCSG Initiative on May 3rd, while there was no reason given to call the special meeting on April 5.

Besides Darcy Paul and Barry Chang, the same letter was sent to the other three Councilmembers as well with the same information.

---------------------------------

From: Liang C <lfchao@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:45 AM
Subject: JUSTIFICATION for 9 PM Special Meeting on May 3rd: Supporters of CCSG Initiative Deserve a Fair Chance
To: Barry Chang <bchang@cupertino.org>
Cc: "dpaul@cupertino.org" <dpaul@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Chang,

Councilmember Darcy Paul said that he supports to put CCSG Initiative on Tuesday May 3rd meeting agenda if a second Councilmember or in particular the Mayor second it.

Thank you for meeting with us yesterday. Thank you for sharing the events leading up to the calling of the surprise 9pm special meeting. So, the justification was that Gilbert Wong said someone called to ask for the meeting. So, you seconded Gilbert's motion to call the meeting, is that right?

Well, this time, many residents emailed to request a 9pm special meeting. We just want to have a fair chance to refute the false interpretation in the 9212 Report. This time there are many reasons for calling a special meeting:

• There is evidence that the attorney who prepared the 9212 Report made a mistaken and referred to an out-dated version of the report.
• There is evidence that the Council violated Elections Code 9051 as explained in earlier emails. The ballot question should be "true and impartial purpose of statement" and not meant to prejudice voters for or against any measure.
• There are many emails from residents to request a 9 pm May 3rd special meeting to be held right after the regular meeting.
• The 9 pm special meeting on May 3rd to re-visit the ballot question of CCSG Initiative might avoid a lawsuit to force the city to comply with Elections Code 9051.
• The 9 pm special meeting on May 3rd to re-visit the ballot question of CCSG Initiative might avoid wasting the taxpayer dollars on a lawsuit to force the city to comply with Elections Code 9051.
• On March 31, the supporters of CCSG Initiative was not give a fair chance to refute the false interpretation in EC 9212 Reprot since the City only announced the amended ballot question during March 31 meeting. The CCSG Initiative committee had no access to the letter from Sand Hill's attorney. The Council didn't even display the amended ballot question on screen during the discussion for the residents to see what's being amended.
• On April 5, the supporters was once again surprised at 9 AM in the morning for a 9 PM special meeting. The residents didn't have time to study the issues during the day. People did scramble to speak with the little time they have, but no time was spent studying the 9212 report or Elections Code. People did scramble to attend the meeting, but many people were not able to attend.
• The supporters of CCSG Initiative should be finally given a fair chance to refute the false interpretation in the 9212 Report with sufficient preparation.

With all these reasons, we are requesting a 9 PM special meeting to be called on May 3rd right after the regular meeting. If the 9 PM meeting called on April 5 because of some phone call is justifiable at all, this request for the 9 PM meeting on May 3rd is reasonable and justifiable.

If you as an elected representative of the voters of Cupertino, a Mayor of Cupertino, believe in fairness and good governance, you would support the request to call a 9 pm May 3rd special meeting.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao