Selecting new councilman not on La Puente agenda

The La Puente City Council agenda doesn’t list a hearing regarding the city selecting a council member to fill Louie Lujan’s seat. Lujan resigned two weeks ago, a day before he pleaded guilty to perjury for lying in campaign finance forms.

Last we heard, the council tonight was scheduled to choose between five finalists. We’re told the council didn’t list the hearing because it was continued from a hearing last week, when the five candidates were chosen as finalists.

But how would anybody know about tonight’s hearing unless they were at last week’s meeting?

I admire the council for trying to move quickly, but I’m pretty sure this type of thing should have been publicized.

  • LP IS RUN BY CRIMINALS

    File a Brown Act violation complaint. Nadia uses the city attorney to help keep the residents quiet at all the meetings. If there ever was a girl that wanted to keep the residents quiet it Nadia.

    Shouldn’t have taken all that dirty, dirty money.

  • LP is Run by Criminals.

    Template for Brown Act complaint

    Sending a cure and correct demand letter is only appropriate when an action has actually been taken that needs to be corrected. In other words, if the Brown Act is violated yet no action was taken, then a cure and correct demand letter would not be sent. Rather, a person would turn to the courts for an order preventing future violations or would ask the district attorney to do so.

    The act of sending a cure and correct demand letter triggers a number of requirements and deadlines that you must consider before you send your demand:

    A Cure and Correct Letter must be sent within 30 days of alleged Brown Act violations occurring at open and public meetings or within 90 days of alleged violations that do not occur at open and public meetings.

    The Legislative body must correct action within 30 days of receiving the letter and inform the demanding party in writing of its action or decision not to take action.

    No response for 30 days is considered a decision by the legislative body not to take action.

    Any litigation challenging the legislative bodys response to the cure and correct demand letter must be taken within 15 days of the bodys official written response, or within 15 days of the day the legislative bodys 30-day response deadline passes. For more information, see our Brown Act FAQ page or our Brown Act text page.

    Here is a sample Cure & Correct Demand Letter:

    Presiding Officer
    Members
    Name of Legislative Body
    Name of Local Agency

    Dear _________,

    This letter is to call your attention to what I believe was a substantial violation of a central provision of the Ralph M. Brown Act, one which may jeopardize the finality of the action taken by (name of legislative body and local agency).

    The nature of the violation is as follows: In its meeting of (date), the (name of legislative body) took action to (describe the action taken, specifying the proposal and in what fashion it was acted upon, i.e. by either a formal vote, an approval in concept, or some other reflection of a consensus that the body would act or not act in a certain manner in the future).

    The action taken was not in compliance with the Brown Act because (specify one or both) it occurred as the culmination of a discussion in closed session of a matter which the Act does not permit to be discussed in closed session (and/or) there was no adequate notice to the public on the posted agenda for the meeting that the matter acted upon would be discussed, and there was no finding of fact made by the (name of legislative body) that urgent action was necessary on a matter unforeseen at the time the agenda was posted.

    In the event it appears to you that the conduct of the (name of legislative body) specified herein did not amount to the taking of action, I call your attention to Section 54952.6, which defines action taken for the purposes of the Act expansively, i.e. as a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance.

    As you are aware, 1986 amendments to the Brown Act created specific agenda obligations for notifying the public with a brief description of each item to be discussed or acted upon, and also created a legal remedy for illegally taken actions, namely the judicial invalidation of them upon proper findings of fact and conclusions of law.

    Pursuant to that provision (Government Code Section 54960.1), I demand that the (name of legislative body) cure and correct the illegally taken action as follows: (specify whatever corrective action you believe necessary to redress the illegality and provide the public the awareness and opportunity to comment of which it was deprived, e.g. the formal and explicit withdrawal from any commitment made, coupled with a disclosure at a subsequent meeting of why individual members of the legislative body took the positions by vote or otherwise that they did, accompanied by the full opportunity for informed comment by members of the public at the same meeting, notice of which is properly included on the posted agenda. Informed comment might in certain circumstances include the provision of any and all documents in the possession of the local agency related to the action taken, with copies available to the public on request at the offices of the agency and also at the meeting at which reconsideration of the matter is to occur.)

    As provided by Section 54960.1 you have 30 days from the receipt of this demand to either cure or correct the challenged action or inform me of your decision not to do so. If you fail to cure or correct as demanded, such inaction may leave me no recourse but to seek a judicial invalidation of the challenged action pursuant to Section 54960.1, in which case I would seek the award of court costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Section 54960.5.

    Respectfully yours,

    cc (Name and title of agencys legal advisor)

  • The Big Hommie

    If little lou lujan was not enough to prove the city is corrupt, then the residents need to take a careful examination on the rest of the crooks inside city hall; these crooks need to join lujan in jail as well.

    The bozo administrators need to go to jail also. All they do is make stupid mistakes and steal the city’s money. Let the “CARNALES” in prison run the show inside city hall, they already run the streets of La Puente.

  • The Big Hommie

    Leon Garcia is the crook

  • The Big Hommie

    Is Leon Garcia related to the Lujans? Because if he is, then Leon is in the right family.

    Leon, Lit Lou, Fat boy Holloway, the chola Nadia, the dummy Solis, and the drunk Argudo are all CROOKS!

    Let the “CARNALES” run city hall!

  • The Big Hommie

    “My name is Ed Chavez”

  • Ed Chavez

    After they caught me with that prostitute in Sacramento, I had better lay low.

  • Ed Chavez

    After they caught me with that prostitute in Sacramento, I had better lay low.

  • the eye in the sky

    The chavez’ are nothing more than hawks. Why are those two losers trying to get back into la puente politics? That is the million dollar question everyone in LP is inquiring.

    Hey losers,you two hawks need to find something else with your time and get the hell out of LP.

  • Ed Chavez

    I spent nearly my entire life in politics. Lay off.

  • http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvgov/chavez002.pdf Ed Chavez

    Dear Voters:

    http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvgov/chavez002.pdf

    Regards,
    Edward “Ed” Chavez