It seems that you may have a very valid representation there. But rest assured that I am not an advocate for sex offenders (registered, unregistered, on or off probation), felonys, illegal aliens, or Nazi's.
The discussion that Mr Netkin is refering to (which DID NOT occur at a VNNC meeting, as the VNNC has not met since Jan) was in regards to elections, and the views of current and former board members who were not there to represent themselves. It was addressing the City Attorneys interpertation of the charter as it is currently written. After the off-handed comment I made, Mr Netkin did not approach me to clarify me statement or to ask if I would advocate a change or further clarification of the charter through ordinance on the definition of a stakeholder. Thus my comment, which is not even quoted here and did not include my support of a sex offender being a board member, merely commented on their legal right to vote.
I respect Mr Netkin's right to his opinion and his first admendment right to free speech, as I respect that the charter as current written and interperted gives rights and freedoms to individuals that many of us find it difficult to digest. I understand however, that my job is to represent the views of stakeholders as thy are shared with me, not make assumptions as to what those views are. I also understand that I must follow the rules of the land, or city in this case, when discussion the facilitation of the election process in Van Nuys.