(Poll) Should the City Restrict Public Comments?
A mayor’s request sparks debate on the guidelines placed on freedom of speech.
A Feb. 17 article on Glendora Mayor Doug Tessitor’s request to place “decorum standards” on public comment forums sparked debate on First Amendment rights and the Brown Act.
One comment suggested that the city council would be running into a “slippery slope” should they move to place restrictions on the public comment forum of city council meetings.
Tessitor requested that the city take a look at the city of Alhambra’s “Standards of Decorum” during the Feb. 14 city council meeting, a motion seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gene Murabito.
Alhambra’s city council agenda prohibits comments considered “making personal, impertinent or slanderous remarks.” Tessitor suggested the same standards should be applied to Glendora’s own public comments, requesting that the council discuss the item at a future city council meeting.
But the request is generating discussion on the limitations of freedom of speech.
“The First Amendment doesn’t give absolute right to free speech,” said Dr. Jennifer Walsh, professor of political science at Azusa Pacific University, noting that courtrooms place limitations on the public’s right to speak. “However, the council will have to tread very carefully,” she said.
Under the Brown Act, government cannot censor an individual’s right to speak during meetings simply because the content is considered provocative or controversial, said Walsh.
The Glendora City Council agenda states public comment is open for individuals to speak on any item “calendared for action or discussion at that meeting or on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission.”
Walsh said even critical statements of city council members can be fair game. “If the individual is speaking in regards to the actions of an elected city official while he or she is representing the city, then yes, I think that person has a right to discuss the issue, however valid it may be,” said Walsh.
Still, Walsh said cities may put into writing standards that can eliminate “inappropriate comments” by limiting comments to agenda items, a pending decision or city business policy.
“The First Amendment is not a blanket policy and there are some guidelines we have to subscribe to,” said Walsh. “The city may decide that the public comment forums are not necessarily the appropriate place to come and take pot shots at the mayor whenever you feel like it…You can’t shout fire in a crowded theater and escape the consequences.”
What do you think? Should the city place restrictions or further guidelines on the public comment forums of city open meetings?
Gary Edmonds
10:52 am on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
It’s my opinion that we have lost our sense of grace and propriety in society. I believe in the first Amendment but I also believe it was never intended for us to profane each other or protect the obscene. When it was penned, it was unthinkable for one to act and speak as many do today.
There is no place for profanity or slander in our cities government. Any citizen who attends these meetings whether you’re the mayor or a concerned citizen is leaders in this community. You are the leaders of Glendora each of you. You shape Glendora. That being said you need to rise above the petty bickering, insults, profanity, and slander for you are the role models for the rest of the citizens. Act accordingly.
We are a very self-focused people.
I am in favor of decorum laws not only for the city meetings but for the city of Glendora. All too often, I have to ask someone to watch their mouth, when I take my children out in public. I should be able to take my wife and children anywhere without being assaulted by profanity that many use in everyday language. The irony is that many have used these salty words to make their own speech spicier but it has lost all flavor when used so often.
That’s my opinion.
Gary E.
Janet Crum
2:18 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
I would support rules that ban purely personal attacks unrelated to an official's performance in office, and I would support limiting public comment to issues that are on the agenda or directly related to the Commission's work (and it sounds like those restrictions are already in place). It might also be helpful to enforce a time limit for an individual's comments, to prevent someone's rant from taking over the meeting and preventing others from having time to speak. But other restrictions on the content or manner of speech seem inappropriate in a public forum. We want to encourage community members to participate in their government--right? And we don't want to give elected officials power to silence those who disagree with them. I especially don't like the "impertinent" wording in Alhambra's rules. That could be construed as any speech that disagrees with an official--way too general and broad. It also seems to imply that the public rank below their elected officials and should be deferential rather than behaving as equals.
Horatio
12:42 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Seems like Mr. Tessitor is afraid that someone will take it on him like he did with Mr Harrold.
Bill C.
2:45 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Like Harrold and some of his supporters hasn't tried since then? Nice try, but Tessitor's been challenged more than once and is still on the council. If you think he isn't subject to attacks of the most graphic type go check out the Glendora Topix board and see what one local nut does to vent at city leaders and anyone else they don't like.
Horatio
3:22 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
That is not what I've said, but the former City Mayor did not try to ban free speech.
Bill C.
4:34 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Yeah but Brubaker was a Harrold supporter wasn't he? Harrold didn't have that to deal with him and Harrold used his cable show to spout off with stuff I think even he knew shouldn't be said at a council meeting. Brubaker doesn't seem to get the difference. The speech Brubaker has brought to council meetings for months isn't issue oriented, it's nothing but personal attacks. Even when he was going off on his ridiculous rants about issues he disageed with the council on at least he was speaking about issues, he hasn't done that in awhile and the type of speech he's been engaging in these days shouldn't be tolerated.
Horatio
10:23 pm on Thursday, February 23, 2012
Still, the point is: "freedom of speech".
Should the misuse of some be enough to justify a ban on freedom for all of us?
Bill C.
1:49 pm on Friday, February 24, 2012
You apparently can't figure out the difference either Horatio, you just repeat the same tired message. Freedom of speech is not absolute, it's as simple as that.