San Jose’s Code of Conduct and the Constitution
Attached to every San Jose City Council agenda is a Code of Conduct for public meetings. The council wants to foster an atmosphere of “fairness, courtesy, and respect for differing points of view.” But are these suggestions/requirements Constitutional?
For example, the city’s Code of Conduct states:
“Persons with objects and symbolic materials such as signs must remain seated when displaying them and must not raise them above shoulder level…”
“Speakers’ comments should be addressed to the full body. Requests to engage the mayor, councilmembers, boardmembers, commissioners or staff in conversation will not be honored.”
“Objects and symbolic materials, such as signs or banners, will be allowed . . . with the following restrictions: No objects will be larger than 2 feet by 3 feet.”
“Speakers should discuss topics related to city business on the agenda, unless they are speaking during Open Forum.”
And: “Failure to comply with this Code of Conduct which will disturb, disrupt or impede the orderly conduct of the meeting may result in removal from the meeting and/or possible arrest.”
I believe that every one of these instructions imposes a restriction on speech. The citizens of San Jose should ignore all of them.
Pete-“The citizens of San Jose should ignore all of them.” I agree with you 100%! I’ll bet the first time the Mayor tosses someone out of a Council Meeting for doing any one of the above, and they sue the City for violating their First Amendment rights, a judge will throw out those ridiculous policies FAST, QUICK, and IN A HURRY!
Too bad the Mayor and Council don’t have an enforceable code of conduct on themselves when it comes to the discussions with lobbyists they have weeks before a Council Meeting.
As an occassional Channel 26 viewer, I find the Open Forum portion of Council meetings to be a farce, generally taken advantage of by nut cases who have nothing relevant to say and who live for their two minutes in front of a captive audience.
The rules you’ve mentioned above are indeed ridiculous and they were trampled on during the Little Saigon fiasco. Most people with the slightest bit of civics knowledge are quite aware of how to conduct themselves during a Council meeting and don’t need a list of rules.
I’d like to see some guidelines around bad hair on the part of the Council panel itself. Facial and otherwise. Talk about violating some rules!
Pete,
I don’t know about you, but I would feel as though my rights were abridged if someone in front of me had a 4’ x 4’ sign, waving it back and forth. Where do his/her rights end and mine begin?
As for requiring that City business be the topic of discussion, isn’t that what the City Council meeting is all about?
I think that we have to maintain some sort of order – nothing extraordinary, just order based upon good common sense.
How about the resoundingly successful George W. Bush memorial ‘Free Speech Zone’ where you can do anything you want! As long as it’s towards the back of the City Council chamber bench seating.
Pete,
Do you mean to suggest that there is a fundamental right to disrupt a public meeting?
How do you suggest that the city deal with:
Speakers who take up everyone else’s meeting time with psychotic off-topic rants?
People who would sit in the front rows blocking other peoples views with large signs?
People who are disruptive to the point the public meeting cannot continue unless they are ejected?
My point: While everyone has the free speech right to participate in public meetings nobody has the right to disrupt the meeting or deny others full rights of participation.
The rules that you find so onerous are similar to those used in other cities and to my knowledge have never been successfully challenged. If you have information to the contrary please share it.
WHAT I OBJECT TO IS ALLOWING ANYONE THE RIGHT TO GO BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND PREACH RELIGIOUS DIALOG.
MC-“While everyone has the free speech right to participate in public meetings nobody has the right to disrupt the meeting or deny others full rights of participation.”
That is true, and I agree 100%, but no one has the right to censer people by telling them how large their sign can be, or tell them they have to address the WHOLE Council when speaking. Our Council chamber is on declining levels so blocking the entire audience’s view with a sign would not be possible.
Many times I’ve gone to a Council Meeting and THANKED the Mayor or a certain Councilperson for something they alone have done. Should I be ejected because I singled someone out for praise? The same goes for addressing the Mayor or a Council member for doing something wrong. Are you saying we don’t have the Constitutional right to address them directly in a public meeting, especially when we don’t have the opportunity to meet with them face to face in private? Not one single Council Member followed that rule when they took turns bashing Mayor Gonzales, or Chuck Reed during the election, or when they bash each other!
I think you’re missing the point here. Proper behavior is not something the Mayor or Council gets to mandate. We are grown ups in a civilized country. (At least I think we are.) These new “rules,” came about because members of the public were angry with some of the mean spirited things the Mayor and Council did, and said themselves! I was shocked to hear some of the very rude things that have come out of the Mayor’s and Council Members Pyle, Chirco, and Liccardo’s mouths in several Council meetings on several different issues. I say practice what you preach! If the Mayor and Council want to be treated with respect and dignity then they need to model that behavior themselves, they need to listen to the public, and stop making decisions long before we give our input, and watch their own rude behaviors.
And by the way, if you want a real lesson in idiots on the Dias, go to a Milpitas City Council Meeting. They cuss at one another, the Mayor interrupts speakers to ask unrelated questions, they ignore time limits and let their cronies drone on way past their time, and a whole host of other ridiculous things.
#6- I hate religious zealots myself, but this is the United States and we are entitled to freedom of expression, no matter how annoying it may be.
#5 MC:
No one has the right to disrupt a meeting. I agree, people should not be able to obstruct another persons view…but rather than prohibiting the size of the signs, ask that these people move to a particular side of the room. Applause/clapping is an expression of consent. For the council to suggest that the people refrain from expressing themselves in their own city hall is outrageous. City hall belongs to the people, not to the members of the city council.
Pete Campbell
#6, the Open Forum is I presume an opportunity to present non-agenda items to the Council, but unfortunately it is regularly abused by a street corner religious fanatic and a nut case who thinks he’s an accomplished and coherent writer. It’s irritating to watch and sit through even though these jokers only get 2 minutes each.
Re: Kathleen’s post about rude remarks made by Council members, I would encourage every last one of them to rudely and frankly advise these Open Forum jackasses to get a life.
#10-Mark T, “I would encourage every last one of them to rudely and frankly advise these Open Forum jackasses to get a life.”
First off, I think the guys you are talking about have mental disabilities. Secondly, the law prohibits the Mayor and Council to limit these people’s freedom of speech. It is an open forum and they can say whatever they want. Thirdly, the Mayor and Council seem to reserve their rude remarks for hard working people who take the time out of their busy schedule to come participate in the process. That is unacceptable to me.
And finally, Pete is right, we tax payers are paying the Mayor and Council and for that over priced albatross called City Hall. It belongs to us. The Mayor and Council are but public servants. Something they seem to forget, that is until they come knocking on your door for your vote, or donations.
I don’t know if they still do this, but the Gonzales crowd used to make a motion immediately before public comment, open public comment, and then vote on the motion immediately after.
The clear intent was to make sure that the public had no opportunity to influence the motion, or the resulting public policy.
Kathleen, they don’t remember they’re public servants even when campaigning. As has been said in the past, the number one job for any politician is getting elected. Everything else is secondary, including the concept of public service.
#7. Kathleen writes: “These new “rules,” came about because members of the public were angry with some of the mean spirited things the Mayor and Council did, and said themselves!”
Actually, I believe they were implemented after a guy, one of the meeting “regulars,” dumped a pile of garbage on the dais. The council rightly decided that even though “We are grown ups in a civilized country” it might be a good idea to ensure an orderly process at meetings. Everyone, including those with zip codes in The Twilight Zone, still get a chance to speak, contribute and make their views known.
Anyone who has ever attended a City Council meeting is aware that a small group of people are disruptive, rude and more interested in giving speeches than government process. And those are just the council members! (Ba dum-boom
)
The rules of conduct are not an attempt to abridge anyone’s reasonable right to free speech but they are a way to rein in the chaos from the preacher, the guy who “speaks for the people” on every single agenda item, etc.
Such rules are common in city halls across the U.S. yet somehow jackbooted thugs and black helicopters have not taken over.
Again, if anyone can cite a successful 1st Amendment challenge to these rules, please share.
#12- Mark T.- You aren’t kidding!
#13- MC- That was one reason. William Garbet is pretty frightening. I keep waiting for him to explode! I saw him go up there and dump a pale of mold, bugs, and dirt on the dais to make a point about Police helicopters.
I believe this “new” policy was enacted AFTER the IPA brought in a group of angry citizens who wanted the Police to open their reports and investigations to the public, and to allow the IPA extended powers not allowed under the City’s Charter. Nancy Pyle and Judy Chirco basically made some really rude comments that brought them some angry replies from the audience. The next day they protested Nancy Pyle for her remarks, and for calling them gang bangers. I think Mayor Reed brought these new policies of behaviors forward to try and “punish,” angry community members, and put them in their place.
While I agree that a certain modicum of behavior must be adhered to, I think these policies are stupid. I have gone to Council Meetings in Los Gatos, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Gilroy, and Morgan Hill, and NONE of them employ these practices.
Pete has said it best!!!
We need a code of conduct.
#14. Kathleen – The meeting you describe with the insults flying between the dais and audience only reinforces the obvious need to reasonable rules of conduct. Reed is right to not allow that kind of a freak show during meetings.
Regarding the other communities you mentioned, you are wrong in at least one case. Los Gatos (like many communities)has a resident gadfly who attends all the Council meetings, speaks on all the issues, is rude and disruptive. Several years ago the council adopted what’s known as “The Ray Davis Rule” which limits public comments to 3 minutes and allows the Mayor to kick out anyone who is disruptive. It’s announced at the beginning of meetings and has been attached to agendas. The rule has been used several times and nobody, other than Mr. Davis, seems to mind.
The point is we expect a certain amount of enthusiasm from people attending meetings to advocate positions. But when their zeal interferes with your or my ability to participate, is intimidating or disruptive then our elected officials have every right to set reasonable limits. So long as it’s evenly applied such rules are not “punishment” but good government.
And yes, the episode with Mr. Garbet was a bit frightening. I can’t blame the council for not wanting it to happen again.
#16- We can agree that decent behavior is important. But I disagree with you on the rest. When I attended meetings in Los Gatos, I never heard any kind of announcement like that. Nor have I seen this in Campbell City Council meetings either.
The bottom line for me is this; I behave with respect in Council Meetings, even when I’m angry and I don’t need someone telling me how I must conduct myself. I cannot control others, and don’t see violent behavior in Council Meetings, so I think this policy is punitive, and rather insulting. I expect our Mayor and Council to behave properly too, but they don’t always. When they practice what they preach, may be I’ll reconsider what they consider proper etiquette. They use the media to bash one another, and I’ve seen some pretty childish, rude behavior from them on more occasions than I have ever seen the public demonstrate.
I don’t believe in government mandating rules of conduct over anyone, within reason of course. Murder, rape, robbery etc. not included. Again, I do agree that there are certain folks who need to be booted out for screaming, threatening people, name calling etc., but not for addressing a single Council Member, or for carrying a sign larger than quoted in the “new” rules. Some well-intentioned rules punish those of us who don’t behave badly. I for one agree with Pete on this one.
I am curious though, what have you seen in Council Meetings that is making you so adamant that some kind of grade school rules should be employed?
#17. Actually, you are wrong. There is such a rule in Los Gatos:
http://www.town.los-gatos.ca.us/documents/Miscellaneous/Neighborhood Meetings/9-24-07caTownHall.pdf
-or-
http://www.svcn.com/archives/lgwt/10.25.00/decorum-0042.html
Take your pick.
It’s my understanding that government bodies that do not have formal guidelines for meeting decorum frequently use Roberts Rules of Order as a guide for meeting procedures. Others craft their own rules based on Roberts. Some even designate a Sergent at Arms (often a cop) to help maintain order during meetings.
So you see, it really is a common practice for cities to set reasonable standards for conduct during public meetings. Nobody should feel “insulted” by such rules so long as they are evenly and fairly enforced. The good news is that such rules rarely need to be invoked.
What have I seen in council meetings that makes me think reasonable rules of order should be used?
William Garbet and his various stunts.
The Preacher.
People booing and hissing others opinions.
The whole Little Saigon circus.
Guys like Los Gatos’ Mr. Davis who give Nazi salutes, deliver ad hominem attacks and generally behave like jackasses while the council is trying to do the job they were elected to perform.
And, by the way, I am still waiting for anyone to cite a successful 1st Amendment legal challenge to such rules. If the rules are the egregious violation of the Bill of Rights that you and Pete claim don’t you think it would have been in the courts by now?
#18-MC- I’m not “wrong,” about what I said, or personally witnessed. I’ve attended many meetings in Los Gatos and have never heard the Council make any statement like the one you’ve quoted. You can post all the rules you want but you aren’t going to change my mind on this topic. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
As to your comment,” Nobody should feel “insulted” by such rules so long as they are evenly and fairly enforced.” You don’t have the right to tell me or anyone else what we do or do not have the right to feel about anything. What some feel about “common practices,” differs, and we are entitled to have a differing opinion and to be respected for it. “Common practices,” are not necessarily “good or fair,” when they are evenly applied. Ask African Americans, Gays, and others how evenly applied discrimination feels to them.
As to your making judgments on people at Council meetings i.e. calling people jackasses, Little Saigon supporters a circus, the preacher etc., I think you are a person who isn’t very tolerant of others or their rights to freedom of expression. It seems that if they don’t fall in line with your perception of right and wrong they are somehow less than or to be ejected! That mindset is not in line with tolerating freedom of expression it is called repression and discrimination. Who, after all, is in charge of the censorship button in this country? No one is, as far as I’m concerned. I’m happy to live in a country that allows us to think our own thoughts or say how we feel without being tortured, imprisoned, or beaten.
You are side stepping the bad behaviors exhibited by the Mayor and Council on many occasions and the hypocritical way they set rules for us, but don’t model those kinds of “codes of conduct,” themselves. I have seen a lot of bad behavior on our Council in the last several years. They’ve twisted policies with the intention of covering up bad faith behaviors and actions. They’ve distorted policies to justify doing something the public doesn’t want, just so they can appear to have our best interests at heart. Using the law to hurt groups, and to get their way, and then imposing “code of conduct,” on citizens who are outraged by their bad faith conduct is unacceptable. You can dress up a liar in a suite and tie, and have them speak like a God, but a liar is a liar regardless of their presentation to the contrary.
You are entitled to your opinion, and you may to continue to beat a dead horse if you wish, but I stand firm on my feelings on this topic. Have a nice day MC.
#19. Kathleen: Sigh. OK, I surrender. No point in attempting dialogue with someone who responds to facts with ad hominem bullb*^@#.
MC- “Kathleen: Sigh. OK, I surrender. No point in attempting dialogue with someone who responds to facts with ad homonym bulb*^@#.” Glad to hear you can gracefully decline beating a dead horse without being offensive.
MC to have an open honest dialog it has to start with respecting another’s point view. We don’t have to agree on anything, but when you start telling people how the conversation should go, telling people they have to prove everything they “FEEL” with evidence, and call people names, well I just don’t want to continue the conversation. Some of the people at the Council Meetings you are bashing are mentally disabled and cannot help it. That is offensive to me. So, if you want a “dialog,” start with being respectful.
21: I think it’s offensive for you to start attacking MC and labeling him intolerant when all he’s doing is correcting your misstatement. You said that no other cities around have the types of rules on conduct during council meetings; he provided proof that indeed one does, Los Gatos, therefore you are incorrect. Just because you have not personally heard it doesn’t mean it’s not in their municipal code. He’s absolutely in the right here.
For what its worth many, many cities have restrictions on public behavior at council meetings. Google it. signs, time limits, not addressing one particular member of the council…san jose is not reinventing the wheel, here, folks.
#22
As was pointed out during the Little Saigon “debate”, Kathleen considers people who do not agree with her as intolerant.
Additionally, her opinion is never wrong, irrespctive of the facts. She is always right.
As she says in #19:
“I’m not “wrong,” about what I said”, and
“You can post all the rules you want but you aren’t going to change my mind on this topic”
Some people live in a fantasy world, and could care less if the facts conflict with their fantasy.
#22-“labeling him intolerant?” Calling people Jackasses, and making statements that what these people have to say should not be allowed because he/she doesn’t think their comments have merit? That isn’t intolerant? Hum…
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) – Cite This Source – Share This
in·tol·er·ant
–adjective 1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one’s own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
2. unable or unwilling to tolerate or endure (usually fol. by of): intolerant of very hot weather.
–noun 3. an intolerant person; bigot.
You are entitled to your opinion. Welcome to America. Oh by the way your two minutes have been cut to one, and your are being ejected because your comments weren’t addressed to the entire bolg of SJI.
#23- Taking my comments out of context and twisting them around to suit yourself doesn’t change the facts. I’ve been to the Los Gatos Council Meetings many times and have never heard them scold or lecture anyone the way MC claims.
“Some people live in a fantasy world, and could care less if the facts conflict with their fantasy.” I would certainly agree with that 100%.
#23 – What do your comments have to do with the topic? Lets just keep comments to the topic, and stop singling people out like you just did. It is offensive to me that you are ignoring SJI’s newest policies on keeping comments limited to the topic at hand.
#24 Kathleen- MC is talking about “reasonable rules” to ensure that the public can equally engage in the process. NOwhere in his post do I see that anyone is trying to stop anyone from talking due to the content of their comments. can you show me? Exact content please. Facts, please. No need for hyperbole.
Please read again.
#23: I am fully aware of Ms. Flynn’s attitude…just wanted MC to know that the entire readership of SJI is not as trigger happy or unreasonable. I totally agree with you.
#23-” As was pointed out during the Little Saigon “debate”, Kathleen considers people who do not agree with her as intolerant.
Additionally, her opinion is never wrong, irrespctive of the facts. She is always right.
As she says in #19:
“I’m not “wrong,” about what I said”, and
“You can post all the rules you want but you aren’t going to change my mind on this topic”
Some people live in a fantasy world, and could care less if the facts conflict with their fantasy.”
Your comments here apply to Pete’s topic how?
#27-“23: I am fully aware of Ms. Flynn’s attitude…just wanted MC to know that the entire readership of SJI is not as trigger happy or unreasonable.”
Your comments about me have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and I think MC is a big enough boy or girl who can speak for himself/herself.
If you two self appointed judges want to take this off line, and stop hiding behind fake names, and disclose who you are PRIVATELY, I’d be happy to enlighten you on my attitudes without others having to be involved in this petty pissing match. This blog is not designed for these types of conversations. If you two chose not to take it off line and keep posting remarks about me on SJI, then it will be very evident that you are only looking for a public venue to bash someone while you hide like a coward behind your computer.
Everyone please stick to the subject from now on. I won’t post any more personal comments between individuals on this thread by anyone.
You all have very good points and ideas. Keep the challenges on an intellectual level, not a personal one. Be respectful of your differences. It’s much more effective that way.
The Editor
to my point above, these types of rules are often present in cities. the following is a sampling from different cities just from the first few pages of a google search on public decorum in city council meetings:
“Subd. 10. Members of the Audience. No person in the audience shall engage in disorderly conduct such as hand clapping, stamping of feet, whistling, using profane language, yelling and similar demonstrations, which conduct disturbs the peace and good order of the meeting.”
“(e) No placards, banners, or signs will be permitted in the city council chamber or in any other room in which the city council is meeting. “
“8) All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any single member, unless in
response to a question from said member.
9) Members of the public can not bring signs or placards into the City Council Chamber during City Council
meetings. Signs or placards may be displayed outside the building or in the City Hall lobby. Handouts or printed
materials may be distributed in the Council Chamber prior to the Council meeting or in the lobby outside the City Council Chamber. “
it’s not to stop people from joining public discourse, it’s to make sure that everyone is able to participate, and not just the noisiest or those with the biggest signs.
http://www.geocities.com/ensey_in_2000/freesp01.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment
http://www.cceia.org/resources/for_educators_and_students/four_freedoms/5223.html
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/11178pub19970102.html
Many cities who have tried to create their own policies or “rules,” have been sued and LOST because they have not been empowered to make such laws. State Laws supersede City Laws.
#32: The link describes a case filed, not a case won. There’s a big difference between the two. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
I could find no follow up article saying the case ever went to trial, much less that the ACLU prevailed. If this is not correct I would welcome a follow-up post with references to articles supporting your claim.
The case you cite dates back to 2001. It seems likely that if the federal court had ruled in the ACLU’s favor local communities would not have the ability to impose rules governing conduct at government meetings. But again, no documentation could be found to suggest the ACLU won this case.
Also, none of the links provided in #31 support your claim that “Many cities who have tried to create their own policies or “rules,” have been sued and LOST because they have not been empowered to make such laws.”
Which cities? If there are “many” it should not be hard to support the claim.
However the ACLU link that you offered had this bit of insight that seems relevant:
“Government can limit some protected speech by imposing “time, place and manner” restrictions.”
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/censorship/11079prs20010822.html
Government bodies may NOT censor or prohibit banners, signs or flags of any type carried by the public under the First Amendment either.
Facts, Not Hyperbole- It doesn’t matter what date these cases are, that is how amendments to the law are made, and new presidents are set. I made a statement that cases have been filed and won, I did not say the link attached was proof. I simply gave some links to where information on Free Speech could be reviewed. You can do searches on the references I’ve given above, you can even write the ACLU to find out the results of these law suites, and Google to see the results of the cases.
If you look at the First Amendment link, you can most certainly see that local government can not stop any one from bringing signs, posters, or literature to a council Meeting or any protest. Further, just because cities make their “own rules” it does not mean they are Legal. Take for example the case of COMPAC and the literature they sent out regarding Cindy Chavez during the Mayor’s race. The Ethics Committee found them in violation of “their rules,” well the Federal Court disagreed based on freedom of speech and COMPAC’s win forced the City to re-do their “rules.”
I searched and searched and couldn’t find a thing to support claims that these “rules,” set by local Councils are legally acceptable. I even went so far as to speak with an attorney who specializes in Civil Rights. In her opinion, which I’m sure other attorneys will disagree with, or even some of you, she said that the first time the Mayor or Council stops a citizen from addressing a remark to a single member of the Council, or refuses to allow a sign or poster, they will be violating that persons first Amendment Right To Free Speech and Expression, unless they are making terrorist threats. She even said that this would be a perfect opportunity for someone to file a complaint and WIN because no one can censor a citizen’s rights to free speech, not even a Mayor or Council vote.
She said that local government are allowed to set time limits for speakers; they may stop someone from being violent, or from slandering, or making false claims against some one. She said that the size of the sign may be limited but NOT it’s content. She said that the reason religious zealots can speak in open forums is because freedom of religion and freedom of expression is covered under the Freedom of Speech Act.
Since you feel so strongly that your position is absolute on this issue, why don’t you present facts supporting your contention that cities can limit free speech and expression? I’d like to see some documentation on that myself, since I couldn’t find anything. I look forward to seeing what you come up with, as this is a very interesting topic to me. Given that Nazi groups, Skin Heads and other rather “different,” groups cannot be stopped from holding rallies, handing out literature, or making speeches that would curl your hair. And while I really am a big advocate of free speech, those people scare the hell out of me, but I have seen them in public meetings touting their beliefs and NO ONE tries to stop them!
34 – What is the “Freedom of Speech Act”? Never
heard of it. Perhaps you or your attorney source could elucidate.
Jack,
Now that you have merged with the Metro, perhaps they could weigh in on this topic. After all who knows more about the right to free speech than a journalist, or the owners of a newspaper?
#35- Wondering,
Thanks for catching that; I meant to say right to free speech. Do you have any sources that could clarify whether or not these “rules,” set by #30 post are legal? I’ve searched and searched and found nothing that supports these types of rules.
#33-Hyperbole, I seriously doubt the ACLU would file a frivolous law suite. But you are correct; people sue just to sue these days. Since I know the ACLU have filed more than one lawsuit on this issue, I have sent an email to them to try and find out whether they won the case, or what the disposition of the case is. I’ll let you know if I hear back. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
#37- Thank you for all your hard work! I know SJI was having a posting problem for a while there. Glad it got worked out.
I have a few questions. I know some the cases you are referring to here, but you have not put a link where I can read the entire case, what was claimed, and what grounds the decision was made on. Could you please post the link you got these from, I’d like to read them? From what little I do know, these cases are around disruptive behaviors by citizens that made people feel physically threatened, or were created because of an act of violence etc.
The gentlemen who went crazy and shot at the Mayor and Council had a long history of property grievances with the Mayor and Council. There was a lot more to this case than just a guy who one day walked in and shot people. The Mayor and Council also had a personal relationship with this guy and that had a lot to do with his actions against them. (I don’t excuse what he did, but I think back ground info is important.)
No one disagrees that rules are needed to prevent yelling, threatening people, going on tirades about things not relevant to the topic. That is not what Pete Campbell was referring to in this column, or why I agreed with Pete. May be that is where the misunderstanding is coming in here. I think our council has gone too far and is impeding on my rights by telling me to do things that are not going to be disruptive, rude, or impede their ability to conduct a civilized meeting.
Local governments CAN set guidelines and rules but they can also be challenged in courts, if they impede on people’s Civil Rights. The City really thought they had the right to fine COMPAC because of their fliers but the Federal Court disagreed. The City has been sued many times and has LOST many times on their rules. I think what you need to understand is that each case you’ve put on here is different from others, and one case that is similar will not necessarily result in the same decision. I have seen this hundreds of times in my work, so I know it depends on the judge, and the circumstances.
Right now, I am “impatiently” waiting to hear back from the ACLU on the numerous cases they have filed lawsuits on with regards to these issues, and have won. Lawsuits regarding limiting content of signs, forcing people to address the entire body on the Council, and limiting expressions of discontentment with the Mayor or Council for unethical behaviors is illegal. I think we can agree on one thing here though, no one wants to go into a Council Meeting and hear threats or yelling, or name calling etc. I’ll re-post on this topic if I ever hear back from the ACLU. :-(
#34 & anyone Else Still Following This Thread:
My apologies for the delay in getting this posted sooner. I sent the following information Saturday night but apparently it never made it to, or past, the SJI gatekeeper. So I re-sent it on Sunday, still no dice. It’s now Monday evening and I’m going to go for the hat trick. Let’s hope this time it makes it through.
Now, down to business.
#34 said “why don’t you present facts supporting your contention that cities can limit free speech and expression?”
I am happy to do so.
You will be pleased to know that San Jose is on very solid legal ground with it’s recently adopted rules of conduct. There are numerous court cases and legislation that grants a city council considerable latitude to establish and enforce rules of decorum to control disruptive public speakers and actions during meetings. The courts tend to be supportive so long as the rules are enforced equally.
The most frequently cited case is White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1990) which deals with the core issue of disruptive behavior by audience members or speakers. The relevant section of the ruling reads in part: “The meeting is disrupted because the Council is prevented from accomplishing its business in a reasonably efficient manner. Indeed, such conduct may interfere with the rights of other speakers.”
Another case that comes up is Kindt v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 67 F.3d 266 (9th Cir. 1995). In this case the court held that “. . . public bodies must have a rather broad authority to structure meetings, even if that requires limiting subject matter and number and types of speakers.”
In Luckett v. City of Grand Prairie (2001) the court noted that “being disruptive is not confined to physical violence or conduct, but also encompasses any type of conduct that seriously violates rules of procedure that the council has established to government conduct at its meetings.”
There are a number of other cases that support San Jose’s rules. A recent case is
Thornton v Kirkwood in which a Mr. Thornwood sued and lost after his disruptive behavior got him tossed out of council meetings. Unfortunately, this case took an ugly turn when last February he took a gun to city hall and shot 8 people, killing six.
I’d also like to address another issue that’s come up in this thread, and that is the suggestion, as seen in comments about Los Gatos, that San Jose’s rules are somehow unique. Similar rules are quite common. (I say “similar” because some cities have rules that are more restrictive than San Jose’s.) In fact, San Jose’s rules seem to come from the same League of California Cities legal boilerplate as those that can be found in other California cities including, but not limited to:
Los Gatos (which, accept it or not, passed its rules in 2000)
Mountain View
Santa Cruz (Yep, even liberal Santa Cruz sees the need to control meetings.)
San Leandro
Los Angeles
Glendale,
Inglewood
Mission Viejo
Dana Point
Burbank
West Covina
Brentwood
Montclaire
Colton
Oakley
Crescent City
Pico Rivera
Pomona
The desire to maintain reasonable rules of conduct is not limited to California cities. Similar rules are also in place in:
Durham, N.C.
Dallas, TX
Lansing, MI
San Marcos, TX
Brainerd, MN
Roeland Park, KS
Bainbridge, GA
Clearwater, FL
Des Plain, IL
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. Governments absolutely have the right to establish reasonable rules of conduct at public meetings. And, more to the point of this discussion, the rules have withstood legal scrutiny.
#38. There is no one single link that I know of that defines these cases. You can simply Google “White v. City of Norwalk,” “Free Speech + city Council,” “Rules of decorum + city council” etc., to find a wealth of information.
I think the cases are fairly self-explanatory. I also think it’s an over-simplification to suggest these cases involving rules of decorum are only aimed at people yelling, etc. There is no “misunderstanding.” Cities have the legal authority to keep their meetings on track without disruption which is exactly what San Jose has tried to accompolish with it’s newly-adopted rules.
Bottom line, every point that you and Pete have argued are illegal are commonly practiced by cities across the country. If you look at the rules of decorum for the cities I listed you will find that most specifically ban addressing individual council members, place limits on the size and display of signs, speaking off-agenda and the other issues that you and Pete Campbell have suggested are illegal.
The ACLU has been involved in a few cases where City Councils inappropriately limited rights of free speech, but none involving the fair application of rules of decorum such as those in San Jose.
OK, I’ve given a summation of why I believe San Jose’s rules to be legal. I would very much like to see any citations to bolster your and Pete’s belief that San Jose’s rules do not pass legal muster. Not personal opinions, but cases in which similar rules of decorum have been successfully challenged.
The ball’s in your court.
#39- The cases you have quoted do not fit into the category of Pete’s column. These cases are based on individuals behaving violently or in such a disruptive manner that some kind of code had to be developed. They do not address my concerns at all, given that I have maintained all along that violent, disruptive behaviors like yelling, threatening, slandering someone are not acceptable behaviors. I have provided you with links that support my contention that these rules can be challenged and found illegal. You do not agree and that is fine. I see you taking bits and pieces that you find to try and support your contention, but I’m sorry I don’t see that as proof.
When you can provide two cases related to Pete’s column only, showing that a person who was ejected from a Council Meeting for addressing one Council person in a “respectful way” filed a lawsuit and LOST, then may be I’ll re-think my position. Or if you can find two cases that a citizen who brought a 4X4 sign, quitely lifted it over their shoulders without yelling or screaming, was thrown out of a council meeting, sued and LOST, or someone wearing a shirt that said I hate Mayor (?) who was ejected sued and lost. And I’d like a link where I can read the entire case, not just a blurb about it because cases and their circumstances very, and if you are an attorney you know that to be true.
I have provided you with a case close to home, COMPAC winning on free speech even though many cities have the exact same rules on that issue, and links that provide sufficient documentation that many City Councils have been challenged on the rules you have above. Also, if you had looked at the ACLU links carefully, you would see quite a few cities pledging NOT to interfere with a citizen’s rights to free speech and expression. Just because laws or rules are passed does not mean they are legal. Our city has been sued and lost on many cases, including land use based on their own interpretation of the law. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen the City Attorney lose a case in court and see him quoted in the Merc saying,’ I don’t agree with the judge’s findings on this.”
I don’t feel the cases you have given make your argument the way you feel they do. I also think we will never agree no matter what I post. I could provide you several cases on one issue, but you could provide several more saying the opposite because as I said before, the same case coming before a different judge would have a different out come, but for some reason you aren’t willing to hear that.
If you don’t believe me, sit in Small Claims court one day, or in Civil Court, you will be amazed how many cases on similar issues are decided differently by the same judge. Look at the case of our former Mayor Gonzales. I knew he’d get off based on the lack of evidence and the way the case was handled before the Civil Grand Jury. The City is very lucky that Ron didn’t sue them for the ways in which they neutered him and kept him from his Mayoral responsibilities.
Here’s my bottom line on this issue, everyday I see us losing more and more of our civil rights and it scares the hell out of me. In some cities you can not wear perfume, in some cities you can not walk your dog on the side walk, in some cities you can not drink in certain public places like parks (So much for romance) and in some cities you can not smoke in your own house or car. Sally Liber wants to pass a bill on spanking children, and I just read an article on a suggested new bill to deny students who drop out of high school a driver’s license. I’m telling you the list is getting endless. I want to live in a country that leaves government out of my private life, and does not interfere with my right to free speech, and self-expression, so if I’m ever ejected for addressing one Councilperson instead of all of them, you can be sure I’ll sue them for it.
#40. I take if from your post that you have been unable to find any documentation to support your claim that San Jose’s rules are illegal.
Instead you cite the COMPAC case which has absolutely nothing to do with rules governing meeting decorum.
You’ve asked me to support the claim that San Jose’s rules are legal. I have done so, although you do not accept these cases. But your acceptance is not needed for these cases to have the rule of law.
Again, I would like to see anything, A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, to support the claim that San Jose’s rules are, as you say, illegal.
We know your opinions. But can they be backed with facts?