According to the staff memo in their packet on Tuesday's meeting, the new rules proposed which was written by the attorney Bill Bloor: " Any person disrupting the business of the Council, either while addressing the Council or attending its meetings, shall be asked to cease such disruption.
For clarification, disruption of a City Council meeting does not require behavior that constitutes a breach of the peace, although a breach of the peace would constitute a disruption of a City Council meeting. Rather, disruption of a City Council meeting is any behavior that interrupts the Council meeting or prevents the Council from accomplishing its business in a reasonably efficient manner. For purposes of illustration only, such disruption may include, but is not limited to:
irrelevant or repetitious speech
continuing to speak after the allotted time has expired
audience demonstrations such as booing, display of signs, or any other conduct that
disrupts the Council proceedings
continuing to speak after being ruled out of order by the presiding officer
other speech or behavior that disrupts the orderly conduct of the Council meeting.
He also gave this opinion in the memo: ' The question raised was whether this provision – in so far as it applies to: 1) irrelevant speech; 2) repetitious speech; 3) profanity1 ; and 4) signs in chambers – is an invalid limitation on speech.
In my opinion it is not an invalid limitation. The reason is that these four examples are not prohibited per se. They are only examples of conduct that might cause an actual disruption of a Council meeting. It is equally possible that such conduct might not cause an actual disruption of a Council meeting. Only when the conduct does cause an actual disruption of a Council meeting can the conduct be prohibited.
Limited Public Forum
To answer the question more fully, it will be helpful to review of some basic principles that were cited several months ago during the discussions of proposed changes to the Rules of Procedure.
One of the key principles in analyzing free speech issues is the location. The amount of protection afforded to speech varies depending on the location.
Courts recognize that some locations are considered to be “traditional public forums.” Examples of traditional public forums are parks and sidewalks. Signs and other types of speech presented in traditional public forums are entitled to the greatest protections of freedom of speech. Apart from traditional public forums, the courts recognize that other locations may be categorized as "designated public forums" or "limited public forums." In terms of hierarchy, traditional public forums are given the most protection. Less protection is given to speech in designated forums, and the least to limited public forums.
City Hall and Council Chamber are “limited public forums.” City Hall being so classified is not new or unique about Port Angeles. So far as I am aware, Port Angeles City Hall always has been considered a limited public forum. And most, if not all, city halls in the state fall under the limited public forum designation. Other examples of limited public forums are schools, post offices, and airport terminal areas.
In these limited forums, the type and manner of speech can be prohibited or limited. So in fact, as a legal matter, the public does not have a First Amendment right to speak during a council meeting. Nonetheless, almost all city councils do allow some public comment.
They rightly consider such things as public policy, community relations, open government, and similar ideals of public process. And on those bases, most city councils allow public comment as a regular part of their meetings, but the extent of public comment is subject to limitation. As examples, many cities limit comment to topics on the agenda; give preference to city residents; and almost all impose time limits on the individual speaker, on the total time allotted for public comment. In summary, 1) citizens do not have a legal right to speak at a City Council meeting; 2) most Councils do extend an opportunity for public comment at council meetings; and 3) the opportunity to speak at a council meeting is almost always subject to limitation. Signs are speech, and the same rules are true for signs. Signs on the sidewalk outside city hall are located in a traditional public forum and are given the greatest protections of free speech. In contrast, signs inside city hall can be prohibited or regulated, and they routinely are.
Limitation on Conduct
Expressive conduct can be restricted in a limited public forum to maintain order in a proceeding
and prevent disruption of the Council meeting. Beginning in April, Council did spend a considerable amount of time discussing what parameters to place on public comment periods. The legal analysis presented at that time demonstrated that the courts were fairly consistent. In summary, courts generally rule that City Councils may not censor particular ideas or particular words. Council may only prohibit conduct that actually disrupts a meeting. Particular words might actually disrupt a City Council meeting, but they might not. If the speech actually produces a disruption of a meeting, the Council can prohibit the disruption. However, if the words do not cause an actual disruption, the Council may not prohibit them. To this general rule, there are a few exceptions – fighting words, for example – but the exceptions are narrow.
The City Council Rules of Procedure contain examples of activities that could possibly result in the actual disruption of a City Council meeting. “[I]rrelevant or repetitious speech” are specific illustrations drawn from court case. “[A]udience demonstrations such as booing, display of signs, or any other conduct that disrupts the Council proceedings” is a slight variation of the provision that was recommended in April. It was included in a draft distributed to the City Council on April 22, and it was discussed at a Council work session on April 26. The April 22 draft was a revision of the first full revision prepared by Councilmember Collins earlier in April. Although Council has discussed this provision in detail since April 26, only a few changes to this provision, not relevant here, have been made since then.
The activities referenced in the Rules of Procedure are for illustration only. If they produce a disruption, those activities can be controlled or prohibited. However, in a different context those same activities might not produce a disruption. If they do not produce an actual disruption, and if they are intended as speech or communication, they cannot be prohibited. Only actual disruptions of City Council meetings are prohibited under the Rules.
Signs in Council Chambers
Another question was raised about the Rules’ treatment of signs. Prior to the April 26 Council work session, Council requested sample language from other cities addressing signs in Council Chambers. As to this, there are few examples. The Legal Department reviewed the rules of procedure of approximately 50 code cities (a fair representation of the 194 code cities). Of the cities, some have not adopted local rules of procedure. Of those that have adopted rules of procedure, the majority do not say anything about signs in Council Chambers. Of those cities that do address signs, most simply prohibit them. Only one Washington city was found allows signs subject to conditions. That is Bothell. The provision from Bothell’s Rules of Procedure reads:
Signs will be allowed in the meeting by the presiding officer so long as they are limited in size to 11 x 17 inches and are not displayed or otherwise employed in a manner that disturbs or threatens others as determined by the presiding officer. All signs, placards or other forms of public display type written comment must be composed of soft, collapsible materials with no protrusions or hard mountings. Any person bearing a sign or other form of public display type written comment that violates the provisions of this section will be required to remove such sign from the meeting chambers and may themselves be barred from the meeting if they become disruptive by refusing to remove such signs.
This information was provided to Council, and it was discussed in detail at the April 26 Council work session. However, Council elected not to adopt any language within the Rules of Procedure that would specifically prohibit or regulate signs in Council Chambers. This leaves Council in the same position as before. The Presiding Officer or the Council may prohibit or regulate signs at its discretion.
Conclusion
In my opinion, the Rules of Procedure do not violate constitutionally protected speech. The reason is that the Rules do not limit speech; they limit conduct that disrupts a Council meeting. The examples referenced within the Rules of Procedure (i.e. irrelevant speech, repetitious speech, and display of signs) are intended only to be illustrations of conduct that could potentially lead to a disruption of a meeting. However, the same conduct, if it does not lead to disruption of a Council meeting, it cannot be prohibited. The Rules do not prohibit particular words or thoughts; the Rules prohibit conduct that actually disrupts a City Council meeting. That prohibition is valid. "---Bill Bloor City Attorney
Cases and citations:
Reza v. Pearce, 806 F.3d 497, 503 (9th Cir. 2015).
Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800, 811 (9th Cir. 2013).
Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc).
Kindt v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 67 F.3d 266 (9th Cir. 1995).
White v. City of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421, 1425-26 (9th Cir. 1990).
Ref. http://wa-portangeles.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/3401
Editorial note: Well, there you have it readers, the new proposed meeting rules for we voters who elect these folks into office to fallow during public meetings. Remember where this all started, way back in Feb. 2 during that circus of a meeting that lead to ethics complaints, and reviewing the ordinance regarding audience conduct. Which this is. This all stemming from the root cause of four councilmembers deciding to ignore the will of the majority of citizen taking part in that straw poll to stop adding fluoridation. Remember this is being billed as just discussion, it would be interesting if some on the council will move to take action on this. Plus, note the timing of this on the agenda, toward the end of the meeting under "information" just before the final open comment session of the evening. It will also be interesting if any council members will move to bring this discussion sooner then what it's slated for at the tail end of the meeting, when probably half of those attending may skip out early during the meeting. As you know Council member Whetham often spoke about his objections of banning signs in the chambers, one of the issues raised after the Feb. 2nd meeting when it was reported that the Deputy Mayor, Cherie Kidd made moves to ban signs in the chamber at the last minute. It will be interesting to see if Whetham will hold his stand on against posing any bans on signs in the chamber. In essence readers you should feel lucky you are even allowed to talk during public meetings...how about that!
Click here for more local news, and commentary
