Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12201994 - H1 H. 1 THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on December 20, 1994 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: The Practice of an Invocation at a Board Meeting The Board on December 6, 1994, set this day for hearing on the practice of having an invocation at the last Board meeting of the month. The Board had received a letter dated October 31, 1994, from A. Harper, P. O. Box 5743, Concord 94524, requesting that the practice of invocation scheduling be rescinded and to forbid it and all types of proselytizing at any and all government meetings or functions in the County. It was noted that County Counsel had provided the Board with a copy of his February 4, 1994, memo stating that the California Attorney General (Daniel E. Lungren) has recently opined that a county board of supervisors may open its sessions with an invocation. The Board had also received a letter dated December 5, 1994, from Sunne Wright McPeak, former Supervisor of Contra Costa County, explaining her reason for establishing the practice of having an invocation at the last Board meeting of each month when she first became Chair of the Board of Supervisors in 1982 . In order to underscore the diversity of religions in the County and to acknowledge the divergence of viewpoints on religion in the United States, Ms. McPeak suggested that the monthly invocation be followed by a moment of silence accompanied by the statement: "Please join us in a moment of silence in respect for those who have another faith or who hold different beliefs. " The following persons spoke in support of continuing the practice of an invocation: Sunne W. McPeak, (no address given) ; The Reverend Machrina Blasdell, Council of Churches, 1543 Sunnyvale, Walnut Creek; Ken Kumasawa, 1875 Las Rawblas, Concord; Mark Zapalik, Traditional Values Coalition, 804 Bethany Lane, Concord; Father Nick Milatos, St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church, 1797 Mariposa Court, Concord 94521; Reverend Jim Hutchison, Concord United Methodist Church, 1764 Sattler Drive, Concord 94519; Yvette Kay Jackson, 985 Ventura Drive, Pittsburg; and Jerry Jackman, San Ramon Valley Clergy Fellowship, 3414 Blackhawk Meadow Drive, Danville. The following persons spoke in opposition to continuing having an invocation: Allene Harper, P. O. Box 5743, . Concord; Burt Bogardus, P. O. Box 293 , Danville; Joseph Disch, 927 Santa Lucia Drive, Pleasant Hill; John Barker, Americans United, (no address) , Albany; Molleen Matsumora, Secular Humanists of the East Bay, Box 5313, Berkeley; and Bill Callison, Peace and Freedom Party, 2741 Atlantic Street, Concord; Deborah Wood, 7160 Meadow Lane, #52, Concord; and Martin Kassman, American Jewish Congress, 1201 14th Avenue, #101, San Francisco 94122 ; All persons desiring to speak were heard. Following his comments supporting the monthly invocations, Supervisor Torlakson moved that the practice of having an invocation be continued with the inclusion of the additional text suggested by Ms. McPeak to underscore the universality of our effort here. The motion was seconded by Supervisor DeSaulnier. Supervisor Bishop commented on the points made by the speakers on this subject. She advised that she did not believe these invocations reference religious thought but a quiet reflection and a celebration of our humanity and a getting in touch with our feelings, our core and what drives us. She stated that she felt satisfied with the opinion of the Attorney General provided by County Counsel and that the Board is within the legal constraints imposed by separation of church and state. Supervisor Smith advised that he would be very opposed to eliminating the concept of a meditation or invocation, but that the Board should expand what is being done right now. He proposed amending the motion to require at the beginning of each meeting an agenda item entitled "Invocation/Meditation, " and that the Clerk of the Board be responsible for securing the continued participation of the Council of Churches as well as to include those individuals in addition to the religious community who desire to offer some uplifting thoughts for reflection, and that every once in a while to have a moment of silence. Supervisors Torlakson and DeSaulnier agreed to the inclusion of the amendment of Supervisor Smith. THEREFORE, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the motion as amended is APPROVED. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Boar-!of Supervisors on the date shown. / ATTESTED: `%�-2< PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator cc: County Administrator County Counsel Deputy COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFF/CE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: February 4, 1994 To: Phil Batchelor County Administrator From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel Re: Board -of supervisors invocation This is to advise that the California Attorney General (Daniel E. Lungren) has recently opined that a county board of supervisors may open its sessions with an invocation. (76 Ops . Cal . Atty. Gen. 281 ) The Attorney General indicated that his opinion was based on the assumption that the invocation practice being approved was not: 1 . Required by law as a condition to the official proceeding. 2. Part of the deliberative agenda but rather incidental thereto, 3. Offered by or supervised or approved as to content by a public officer, 4 . Officially. limited to a particular religion, 5. Disparaging of others, or 6. Directed toward proselytizing. .—Finally, the Attorney General indicated it remains to be determined. how. the .California Supreme Court would address the. issue of local legislative body invocations under the provisions of the California Constitution but that he (the Attorney General) believes that a majority of the current California Supreme Court would uphold such legislative body invocations under both state and federal Constitutions . If you have any questions concerning this attorney general ' s opinion or desire a copy of it, please advise. cc: Supervisors, District offices CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 4 df 10 0):invoca to.v jw RECEIVED e FM-A OFFICE OF a December 1993 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS 281 v. Palmer, supra, 468 U.S. at 525; Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, 361 (Harlan, J., concurring; Camara v. Municipal Court (1967) 387 U.S. 523, 527; United States v. Thompson (5th Cir. 1988) 837 F.2d 673, 675; United States v. Hinckley, supra, 672 F.2d at 129), no warrant is necessary when the property has previously been viewed by officials during a valid search (see United States v. Holzman (9th Cir. 1989) 871 F.2d 1496, 1505; United States v. Thompson, supra, 837 F.2d at 675). For example, i if an object has been examined as part of a valid custody search or inventory booking search, a warrant would not be necessary to examine it for a second time; the inmate would no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy after the first viewing. Such "second" searches have often been upheld in the context of the "plain view" doctrine, allowing officials to examine without a warrant any object in their "plain view" where a reasonable expectation of privacy would be lacking. (United States v. Holzman, supra, .' 871 F.2d at 1504-1505; United States v. Thompson, supra, 837 F.2d at is 675-676; United States v. Hinckley, supra, 672 F.2d at 129-131; People v. Superior Court (Gunn), supra, 112 Cal.App.3d at 977-978.)3 Under federal law, then, a warrantless search may be conducted of a jail -' inmate's property after completion of the booking process depending upon the purposes and scope of the search. Each situation must be considered in light of the relevant circumstances presented. A warrantless search may be conducted to accommodate legitimate institutional needs and objectives as well as when the inmate no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the property to be searched. Opinion No. 93-308—December 15, 1993 Requested by: MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY Opinion by: DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General Anthony S. DaVigo, Deputy THE HONORABLE BERNIE RICHTER, MEMBER OF THE CALI- FORNIA ASSEMBLY, has requested an opinion on the following question: . ' May a county board of supervisors open its sessions with an invocation? 3 While certain dictum in United States v.Edwards,supra,4I5 U.S.at 80609,might suggest that an inmate would never have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to property in the custody ' of jail officials, a broad reading of Edwards has not been followed by the federal courts (see Hudson v.Palmer, supra, 468 U.S. at 527-528; U.S. v. Holzman, supra, 871 F.2d at 1505; U.S. v. Thompson, ` supra, 837 F.2d at 675576; United States v. Cohen, supra, 796 F.2d at 22-23), and Edwards may properly be limited to its facts either as an inventory booking search or as a"plain view" search (see People v. Smith, supra, 103 Cal.App.3d at 843444). ji (Matthew Bender&Co.,Inc.) -1 13 J .i 282 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS Volume 76 jo o CONCLUSION A county board of supervisors may open its sessions with an invocation. d ! ANALYSIS We are asked to examine the permissibility of the practice of a delibera- tive body of a public entity (here a county board of supervisors) commenc- .1 ing its sessions with an invocation. An invocation, for purposes of this 4ij ; analysis, is"a prayer of entreaty that is usually a call for the divine presence and is offered at the beginning of a meeting.. . ." (Webster's Third New Internat. Dict. (1961) p. 1190.) May a public deliberative body regularly permit such an invocation? We conclude that it may. F In the absence of any contrary specifications, it will be assumed that the -_ invocation in question is not(1)required by law as a condition to the official (2)part of the deliberative agenda but rather incidental thereto, proceedings, R (3) offered by or supervised or approved as to content by a public officer, =rq_ (4) officially limited to a particular religion, (5) disparaging of others, or (6) directed towards proselytizing.' 1 The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in relevant part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . .." This restriction against the exercise of federal power is applicable to state ` and local governments as well, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Lee v. Weisman (1992) 505 U.S. _ [120 L.Ed.2d 467, 480-481; 112 S.Ct. 26491.) - 4 In Marsh v. Chambers (1983) 463 U.S. 782, the United States Supreme Court sustained the constitutional validity of opening the sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with an invocation.The court stated in part: ' "The opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative `- public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.From colonial times through the founding !11 of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer 1' has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom." (Id., at 786.) No opinion is expressed concerning the constitutional validity of a practice which lacks any of the assumed characteristics of the invocation under consideration.Ile assumptions are based upon the typical practices of public bodies which permit the opening of their sessions with an invocation. 1? (dauhew Bender&Co..Inc.) 1` A` �is December 1993 A"ITORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS 283 ic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "It can hardly be thought that in the same week, members of the First Congress voted to appoint and to pay a chaplain for each house and also voted to approve the draft of the First Amendment for submission to the states, they intended the Establishment Clause of the Amendment to forbid what they had just declared acceptable.In applying the First Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. . . it would be incongruous to inter- pret that clause as imposing more stringent First Amendment limits on the states than the draftsman imposed on the Federal Government." (Id., at 790-791.) i' "To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an `establishment of religion' or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country." (Id., at 792.) 1 The issues to be resolved herein are (1) whether, in the decade following the decision in Marsh,the court has taken a different approach which might portend a modified result and(2) whether the California Constitution would compel a different result in this state. 1. Subsequent Federal Considerations In Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburg ACLU (1989) 492 U.S. 573, the court held unconstitutional a display of a Christian nativity scene on public property. Without limiting its holding in Marsh, which the court explicitly noted was based upon the unique history and tradition of legislative body invocations, the court employed its traditional analysis of religious establishment clause cases as set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602. Under Lemon, to withstand an establishment clause challenge, the government practice must be shown to (1) reflect a clearly secular purpose, (2)have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. (Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburg ACLU, supra, 492 U.S. at 592.) In Lee v.Weisman,supra, 120 L.Ed.2d 467,the court invalidated a public school initiated and sponsored graduation invocation. The court, after declining to reconsider the Lemon criteria in general, discussed and : i OAaWww 8endu k Co.,lac.) i 284 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS Volume 76 distinguished, but in no manner disapproved, its opinion in Marsh.2 The court stated: "Inherent differences between the public school system and a session of a State legislature distinguish this case from Marsh v. Chambers . . . . The atmosphere at the opening of a session of a =i state legislature where adults are free to enter and leave with little - comment and for any number of reasons cannot compare with the constraining potential of the one school event most important �i for the student to attend. The influence and force of a formal I exercise in a school graduation are far greater than the prayer - exercise we condoned in Marsh.. .." (Id., at 487.) 1 To this date,then, the United States Supreme Court has neither retreated -= from its three-part Lemon analysis of religious establishment clause cases in general nor deviated from the unique approach taken in the legislative body invocation cases which has been based upon considerations of history and tradition. -'-� 2. California Constitutional Considerations In Sands v. Morongo Unified School District (1991) 53 Cal.3d 863, the California Supreme Court examined the constitutional ramifications respect- ing invocations at high school graduation ceremonies.3 Justices Kennard, - -= Mosk,and Broussard concluded that a school graduation invocation violated --_-- the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution under the Lemon test. (1d., at 883-884.) Chief Justice Lucas concurred _ 3 "reluctantly" under the supremacy clause (id., at 884), but "would, if free to do so, uphold the challenged practice of the school district (id.,at 901). ;=z Justice Arabian concurred ". ..reluctantly, with the hope and expectation -== that the high court will soon endorse another view."(1d.,at 918.)In dissent, __-- Justice Panelli would have upheld the invocation under both Marsh (id., at 923, 925) and Lemon (id., at 925, 939). Justice Baxter,dissenting, stated that he "would not hold that prayer is in all circumstances constitutionally impermissible in a public high school graduation ceremony" under Lemon. (1d.,at 944.)With respect to the California Constitution,Chief Justice Lucas summarized as follows: "As a result of the various opinions filed in this case, three justices have concluded that the practice violates our state 2 The four dissenting justices,citing Justice Holmes'aphorism that"a page of history is worth a volume of logic"(New York Trust Co, v.Eisner(1921)256 U.S. 345,349), would have applied the Marsh approach to school graduation as well as to legislative body invocations. S The Sands decision predated the United States Supreme Court's five-to-four decision in Lee v.Weis- man. (Matthew Bender&Co.,Inc.) 0 P t December 1993 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS 285 Constitution, two have concluded it does not, and two (myself included) have declined to reach any state constitutional issues. Therefore, our judgment does not rest on the state Constitution; any.resolution of the state issues will necessarily await another day." (Id., at 902.) In view of the foregoing judicial treatment of school graduation invoca- tions in Sands, it remains to be determined how the California Supreme P Court would now address the issue of legislative body invocations under the provisions of the California Constitution. Article I, section 4 of the California Constitution provides in part: "Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. . . . The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Article XVI, section 5 in turn provides: "Neither the Legislature, nor any county, city and county, township, school district, or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation, or pay from any public fund what- ever, or grant anything to or in aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose, . . ."4 ; Extrapolating from the concurring and dissenting opinions in'Sands, we believe that if the issue were presented to the court today,a majority would i hold that legislative body invocations are not prohibited by the California Constitution. In his dissent in Sands, Justice Panelli referred extensively to the history and tradition of ceremonial prayer in California (53 Cal.3d at 931-933),15 concluding that such an historical perspective provides no support for the"separationist interpretation" under the state provisions (id., at 934-936). Both of the dissenting justices were of the view that neither of the provisions unique to the California Constitution, i.e., the"preference or discrimination" clause and the prohibition against grants in aid for religious purposes, precluded a properly conducted invocation. (Id., at 4 Article IX,section 8,prohibits the appropriation of public money for the support of any sectarian school,or the teaching of any sectarian doctrine in the public schools.This provision would not pertain to the legislative body invocation in question as it might to a school graduation invocation. 15 Justice Panelli observed: "Since 1849 the state Constitution has begun with a religious invocation:'We,the People of the State of California,grateful to Almighty God for our freedom,in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings,do establish this Constitution.'(Cal.Const.of 1849, preamble)This language,as well as the history of how it came to be included,eloquently refute the argument that the framers of the state Constitution intended to prohibit ceremonial prayer."(/d.,at 931.) Maubew Beaft&CO.,Inc.) S~ 286 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS Volume 76 933-939, 945-947.) With regard to the two state provisions,Justice Panelli explained in part: -'' "In summary,I cannot find in the`preference or discrimination' - clause an intent to erect the absolute `wall of separation' that would justify a decision to ban religious invocations at high school =y graduation ceremonies. Instead, the clause appears to add only = _ the requirement that the state not prefer, or discriminate against, a particular sect. [Citation.] This requirement can be met by having the invocation delivered, on a rotating basis, by speakers representing various points of view.But the practical impossibility of accommodating all points of view on each occasion does not amount to discrimination. As we held in Fox v. City of Los Angeles (1978) 22 Cal.3d 792, 797, `[i]n the California Constitu- tion there is no requirement that each religion always be represent- =j ed."' (Id., at 935. .� -'-_' "Even under the [California Educational Facilities Authority =t v. Priest (1974) 12 Cal-3d 593] standard, however, I would hold _it that religious invocations at high school graduation ceremonies do not violate article XVI, section 5. In Priest we held that this provision did not prohibit the state from making low-interest, - government construction bonds available to private, sectarian 1� colleges. [Citation.] We relied in part on our earlier decision ,- upholding tax exemptions for parochial schools. [Citations.]If the 1 , material financial assistance to religious schools approved in these .' cases is not a`direct,immediate,and substantial'benefit[citation], i=9� then neither is a costless, brief, traditional invocation at a high i-Fl school graduation ceremony." (Id., at 938.) With respect to the two California provisions, Justice Baxter expressed in _- dissent: "Article I, section 4 of the California Constitution affords _ essentially the same guaranty of religious freedom and state neutrality as does the First Amendment, adding an express guaranty against discrimination or preference. [Citation.] Except -� as noted above,where a preference may be implied by the delivery of invocations by members of the same sect over an extended period, and an endorsement may be implied if the speaker solicits audience participation in religious prayer, the past practices of - = the Morongo Unified School District in permitting religious (Matthew Bender At Co..Inc.) i 4 { .3 December 1993 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS 287 invocations at high school graduation ceremonies are not shown by this record to have denied any rights guaranteed by article I, section 4." (Id., at 945.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Because there is no expenditure of funds beyond the de minimis amount of overhead expense that may be attributable to the seconds during which a speaker may recite a prayer, and that recitation need not be viewed in all cases as reflecting state ! endorsement or support of the religious views of the speaker, I conclude that the California Constitution does not ban the inclu- sion in a graduation ceremony of all invocations in which the speaker may offer a prayer or statement of religious nature. - "Like the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First F� Amendment, therefore, the California Constitution does not pro- hibit all_reference to religion in academic events. Again, it is sponsorship or endorsement, express or implied, of religion or a particular religion that is the evil sought to be avoided.. . ." (Id., at 947.) As previously noted, neither of the justices who concurred "reluctantly" with the Sands majority's interpretation of the First and Fourteenth Amend- ments of the federal Constitution reached the California constitutional issues. (Id., at 884, 918.) Nevertheless, neither justice left any doubt as to his views concerning the probative significance of history and tradition upon an appropriate interpretation of California's charter document. Thus, Chief Justice Lucas stated: "History plays two important roles in constitutional analysis. Initially, it aids in the search for core values and principles underlying the text of the Constitution that may reveal with greater I: specificity than the text itself the evils sought to be prevented and the benefits sought to be obtained by constitutional provisions. .. . "History also provides a means to assess whether particular government practices have enhanced or inhibited basic constitu- tional values and principles over time. Although long-standing tradition alone does not constitutionally validate a policy or practice, it may be a factor of great importance in a pragmatic evaluation of its character and effect. . . ." (Id., at 886.) "The public acknowledgement of a Supreme Being is a consis- tent element of American culture, specifically endorsed by the (Matthew Bender&Co.,Inc.) i dMEL Elm 3. 288 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS Volume 76 a framers and upheld in the traditions of both state and national ..E governments since the founding of the republic. . . . F "Since the First Congress,national government encouragement of public prayers, and other generalized references to a Supreme t Being, has continued. . . . FO "All three branches of our national government and state que governments continue to make ceremonial'references to a Su- preme Being. . . ." (Id., at 890-891.)41 r j pre; Justice Arabian similarly viewed the issues from an historical perspective: to 1 "Historically, religion and prayer have always played a role in the _ our most cherished public ceremonies. . . .Modern times have not i• diminished the impulse or voice, on our most solemn public occasions, to invoke the divinity for blessing and guidance. 1A_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . per: "If history then offers no binding precedent, it does provide met perspective. Public prayer is an American tradition. It has occu- dur pied. . . a long and honorable place in our public lives. ... lE " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 "Our national experience•teaches that the mutual independence e __�- of church and state is the most conducive system to religious th -(=_ the freedom and social and political tranquility. Public prayer does 1 not threaten that harmony or the liberty of conscience which anc(§ J underlies it. On the contrary, it is through such occasions that we 82C �< <- reinforce and celebrate the rich diversity that has made us a great and noble people." (Id., at 917-918.) 7 Hence, we believe that a majority of the California Supreme Court today se S would uphold legislative body invocations, regardless of any holding on I0� IT school graduation invocations, under both state and federal Constitutions. Or( 1 V.S In light of United States Supreme Court and California Supreme Court 51 , decisions relevant to the question presented, we conclude that a county to board of supervisors may open its sessions with an invocation. rent 1 to i pay cou .S (Matthew Bender&Co..Inc.) (Matti _j f a 1 December 20, 1994 H. 1 Invocation Torlakson: I would just comment that I found it very beneficial over the years to have this. The way I look at it is our practise of prayer meditation is really celebrating the diversity we are, and the diversity of our beliefs and really honoring the freedom to practise those beliefs with the busy schedules we have. Sometimes we don't take enough time to reach in or reach out and I think that is part of what this moment does for us here and hopefully for the public. The process we have had I think has been has been open. I think the suggestion that Sunne McPeak made would be a good one to add some words to the agenda or to the moment we take together, but I think it is important; I think the practise has been done with respect, with an openness to all beliefs and with a universal outreach, not a coercive or imposing beliefs type of approach. I think it has been good and we should continue it. If anything I would move that we add to the practise the kinds of suggested words that Sunne gave us to underscore the universality of our effort here. ...I would -so move. Powers: There is a motion to close the public hearing and add the suggestion. Is there is second to that motion? DeSaulnier: Second. Bishop: I would like to add some comments. I think we have had very articulate, heartfelt speakers today, and it is extremely difficult. I go back some 30 odd years when I first started teaching school. . .we had a tradition of reading the Bible, and I don't think we were even specific as to the Old Testament and the New Testament when we all prayed. It really helped me at the beginning of the day to deal with kids all day long; it was very difficult. I think some good excellent points have been raised. I think when I hear the word religion used I don't think we are talking about religion. I think we are talking about a quiet reflection and to me not religion but a celebration of our humanity and a getting in touch with our feelings and our core and what drives us. And believe me I think we all need those resources at the beginning of the day. I think there have been some excellent suggestions. We obviously have tried to direct that toward being very inclusive. -Being an English major I love language, and there is something about the language of whether you call it prayer, but the words to me a poem can sometimes suffice for what we traditionally call a prayer. That is appropriate. I think there is a need to outreach to get the kind of diversity that we have in our community. I feel satisfied Mr. Westman has provided us with a opinion of our Attorney General that we are within the legal constraints imposed by separation of church and state. We are certainly not trying to establish a religion here, but I think those moments of quiet reflection or listening to some of the words that we have heard - and I have heard very - there is no proselytizing in the words that I have heard not on one occasion, but I think to be guided by fundamental principles of fairness and caring for others and that moment of getting in touch with our humanity is a practise that once a month - it really helps me for the rest of the day. When you say you can do that before you get here - one of the things I have picked up that goes with being a Supervisor is that if you are in your car, you don't have those quiet moments for reflection. You are on your phone and you walk in the door and people are bombarding you the minute you get here. It is a moment as the person who gave the invocation this morning said to deal with frustration, to just draw some quiet time. I think for all of us, I want to respect the rich diversity that we have and those people who do not have a belief in as (someone said) a higher being, but they see that higher being as being themselves. I think it's a practise that I will be supportive of continuing. Smith: Just a few comments. One thing that was said struck me profoundly, and that was by Mollee mentioned that silence was the only thing that spoke for the entire community. I certainly hope that is not true because if it is true we are all wasting our time here becasue we are here to decide things and we are here to hear input, and we here to balance that input, and if silence is the only thing that really speaks for our entire community we really don't have much. On the other hand, I do recognize that we have a responsibility to fill that silence with every view point that can possibly be had in our community and to give every viewpoint the opportunity to be made. -So -I would -be very opposed to eliminating the concept of a meditation or -invocation, but I really think we should expand what we are doing right now. -I - think what we should dols at the beginning of each meeting we should have a section on the agenda that says meditation/invocation, .and we should ask the Clerk of the Board to be responsible for filling that spot with any and all comers who. want to offer some uplifting thoughts to the Board of Supervisors before their meeting, whether they be from religion, from poetry, from prose, from psychology, psychiatry, whatever - so that everybody has the opportunity to give us, something uplifting to think about. .And every once in a while to put in just pure silence. But I hope it is not the only thing that brings us together. I would hope there would be the room for us to have talk and thoughts about uplifting issues that possibly involve God, that possibly involve other beliefs. 2 So I wonder if the Board would consider that option so that we move away from only having the Council of Churches select, but we also include the Council of Churches and have a time that we can fill with anything that is uplifting before the meeting including invocations or meditations. Powers: Tom has indicated a willingness to include that in his motion and second. DeSaulnier: I will be very brief. I would like to read a quote from the Attorney General's opinion in support of invocation. In his judgment he quoted from Legal Issuance and the quote is "to invoke that divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making laws is not an establishment of religion or a step toward establishment. It is simply a tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the people of this country. " And I think that is all that we are doing. I think we have gone far afield in the many emotions that have been expressed today. And in my belief that is all we are doing. I would make a comment from our invocation of this morning, and suggest we all and maybe put this in the motion that we all fervently pray for the reporters over here. Indeed while they are watching us, no one is watching them so we have to hope that some divine power is watching them. Powers: Any further discussion. (Called for the question) Ayes: 1,2,3,4,5 Chair announced that the vote was unanimous.