Lincoln City Council members ignoring due process

Whatever happened to you're innocent until proven guilty? That principle has been honored in the United States since the case of Coffin versus the U.S. in 1894. The long-honored guidance comes from the Constitutional Due Process protections provided under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and 14th Amendments, and other statutes and case law. But four out of five Lincoln City Council members don't seem to understand the beloved principle that has been a fundamental part of our country since the late 19th-century. That's evident in a strange chain of spiraling comments and actions last week by the council members claiming that another council member assaulted a business owner during an April 25 live stream. The furor centers around House of Oliver/Oliver's Brewhouse & Grill owner Matthew Oliver's live stream April 25 at the Third Congressional District Candidate Forum at William Jessup University in Rocklin. Oliver started the live stream smiling and asking a university representative if punches would be thrown and if there would be any Will Smith slaps (referring to Smith slapping Chris Rock at last month's Oscars). Six minutes into his live stream, a grinning Oliver points to Bill Lauritsen, a Lincoln City Councilman he said doesn't like him: "See if he avoids me. I'm like a ninja. I'm really good at this. I'm getting myself in trouble a little." Throughout their six-minute dialogue, even with what Oliver called an assault but appeared to be a pretend karate jab from Lauritsen, there was continuous banter, one-upmanship, laughter and smirks between the two men. We've repeatedly watched the video and "the assault" alleged by the business owner seems more like horseplay between the two men. While some of Oliver's statements in the live stream were offensive, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. But City Council members are held to a higher standard of conduct. While Lauritsen told The News Messenger that he should have walked away when Oliver was filming him, the alleged assault is questionable. One legal expert we asked said there was no assault and another legal expert said there was assault. A court of law would ultimately decide that issue rather than City Council members acting as if the alleged assault really happened. An assault is a serious crime, especially when made by a council member. If someone commits an assault, they should be punished. When someone is a victim of an assault, they are probably not seconds later making jokes. Yet Oliver immediately laughed and jested that he had to go to the House of Oliver "for wine, maybe a margarita or martini or straight whiskey shots. The assault took my virginity." The next night, April 26, Oliver, his wife and four community members demanded during the Lincoln City Council meeting that Lauritsen be removed from his seat because of the alleged assault. Later during the council meeting, Lincoln Mayor Holly Andreatta addressed Lauritsen and asked him to resign. Under the Brown Act, proper noticing must be given to agenda items. Not only was this item not on the agenda but Andreatta refused to honor her promise to Lauritsen that he could respond to the charges leveled against him by her, Oliver and the court of public opinion. Andreatta also made a greatly-exaggerated statement that Lauritsen "destroyed everything" that she worked for the past three years. At no time during Tuesday's meeting was Lauritsen allowed to address the allegations. That's unfair and not part of the due process we follow in the U.S. A person is always allowed the opportunity to address the charges against him in the same forum. There were no charges made by law enforcement; there isn't a lawsuit pending against Lauristen and yet City Council members are trying him in the public spotlight. The Lincoln mayor called a special closed meeting the next day, April 27, to discuss Lauritsen's behavior. Andreatta and the three other council members, Vice-Mayor Paul Joiner, Alyssa Silhi and Dan Karleskint, sent out a press release afterward, saying they asked Lauritsen to resign and encouraging the community to initiate a recall election. While that is unethical, it's also illegal at least for council members to meet in closed session to endorse a recall of one of their fellow members. The four Lincoln City Council members are actively trying to remove a fellow elected official in spite of the fact that recall elections can cost between $50,000 and $100,000 each just for filing fees that must be covered by the city and its residents. Is this really the best use of city money? What made the Lincoln mayor and three other council members go after Lauritsen with such intensity when Oliver and Lauritsen seemed to enjoy razzing each other April 25? On April 29, the city of Lincoln resent the press release as an email blast. Isn't this considered campaigning for Lauristen's removal with public funds? Signed by Andreatta, Joiner, Silhi and Karleskint, they said that Lauritsen "was verbally and physically aggressive toward a member of Lincoln's business community, verbally assaulting, and appearing to strike the individual at a debate forum for the Congressional Third District in front of a room full of witnesses and while being filmed on FaceBook Live." Did the council members actually watch the entire video? The four City Council members have acted without sufficient evidence or process on a fellow member. Andreatta, Joiner, Silhi and Karleskint said after the April 27 closed session meeting, "We take this very seriously and are embarrassed, disgusted and outraged by his behavior." This is over-the top hyperbole from four elected officials who did not follow a valid process. It's the mayor and the three other council members, however, who are causing embarrassment to the city by not following due process and procedures.