The Orange County Fair and Event Center’s board of directors is steadfast against California Senate Bill 264, which would specifically ban gun shows taking place on the property, saying the bill was unfairly targeting their fairground site. .
During a September 13 board meeting, the directors sent a letter to the governor’s office asking them to veto the bill, as well as pre-approving the rental contract along the intersection of the 2022 West Gun Show. Considered doing what the show would allow. To continue till 2022.
“The fact of the matter is that SB 264 originally started out as something that would ban gun shows from all state properties. To exclude only gun shows at the Orange County Fair and Events Center it was further was amended,” said board chairman Natalie Rubalkava-Garcia.
Rubalkawa also pointed out that if Fairgrounds lost the gun show, they would lose about $1 million in revenue, which they could not afford.
“We are a fair ground that generates revenue, and are very self-sufficient, so it will make a difference in the budget,” she said. “And I think it is the duty of the Board as the governing body was appointed by the Governor to send an honorable letter, just to tell him about the economic impact so that we can put it on record.”
The first draft of the letter asked the governor to veto the bill, something that sparked disagreement among the directors, who said the board should not take political positions.
“The Board of Directors of the 32nd District Agriculture Association opposes SB 264 and respectfully requests you to veto the bill,” the letter read. “The 32nd DAA Board of Directors has approved the type of events historically held at the OC Fair & Event Center in response to the needs and interests of the surrounding community. In 2020 the Board of Directors approved a gun show at the OC Fair & Event Center. Voted 5 to 1 to allow operations to continue as long as they are legal in the state of California.
The letter said Senator Dave Minn, who wrote the bill, never consulted with the board to see if there were non-legislative options to address his concerns.
Director Robert Ruiz echoed that OCFEC was being sidelined with the bill.
“When the bill was first introduced, I was under the impression that it was going to be a statewide thing. So I thought, well, this is a big statewide thing,” he said. “But then the bill was amended and now we are the only ones who are going to be affected by it. I’m just having a hard time understanding it. Again, I’m all for gun safety, but getting rid of this gun show doesn’t solve the issue we have with guns. “
Min said in a letter to the board of directors that banning gun shows in singles fairgrounds such as Del Mar and Cow Palace has precedent.
But Rubalkawa said the boards of those fairgrounds had voted themselves to ban gun shows, which is an entirely different situation.
“This law is not law until the governor signs it,” she said. “So that is why the Board, as the 32nd DAA-appointed Governor Member, is really the one who is here to help govern. The other thing I want to highlight is, if it is not good for the entire state. So, how does it bode well for the 32nd DAA? Those are exactly the issues that I think the board needs to take into account as we are discussing and reviewing the letter that we are proposing to the Governor. send to.
Min’s Chief of Staff Ash Alwandi read out a statement from Min at the meeting, which argued that the board should be careful not to enter into a bad faith contract, or he could be held personally liable.
“The Board’s job is not to respond to local concerns or act as a political body, but to act as the financial manager of the 32nd Agricultural Union. This is why Senate Bill 264 was necessary in the first place, because the Board correctly noted that they could not make a political decision here. For the board to weigh in with Governor Newsom would be contrary to their previous statements as well as clear guidelines for the board’s governance.”
“What would the Board be doing if a long-term contract is pre-approved at a special meeting convened immediately after the passage of SB 264 from the State Legislature, it is clearly an intent to defeat the purpose of this law. appears to be a bad faith contract. As such, I believe that any such contract had to be pre-approved at this time and could have been avoided to be contrary to public policy in this matter,” Alvandi said.
“Let me be clear, if the Board engages in such action, I will explore all options to invalidate all contracts that are proved in this way, including by litigation or new legislation. , I and my advisors believe that if the Board has entered into these agreements in wrongful confidence, the Board members who have voted for such remedy could potentially be held personally liable. .
After much discussion on the matter of whether to go about both the letter and the contract the right way, the Board voted to present both items for the next 23 September meeting.
This News Originally From – The Epoch Times