HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-23 Government Operations Committee Minutes Government Operations Committee
• August 23, 2005
Minutes
Councilor Attendance: Greene, D'Errico, Hawes, Gratwick, Farrington
Staff Attendance: Barrett, Farrar, Hamer, Yardley
Others: BDN, WLBZ, Bill Sullivan, Terrilyn Simpson, Senator
Plowman, James LaBreque, Joe Baldacci, Mike
Robinson, George Burgoyne
1. Proposed Policy— Distribution of Written Materials in City Buildings
At the last Committee meeting, staff was asked to prepare a policy regarding the
distribution of written materials in City buildings. The issue arose as a result of a
request to place non-City material in a City facility. The proposed policy was
distributed to the Committee with their agenda packet.
Barrett reviewed the general policy which said the City shall not allow the
distribution or dissemination of any written materials including but not limited to
magazines, brochures, newspapers, flyers, pamphlets, posters by the public.
The City Department responsible for the operation of the building may but is not
• required to distribute or otherwise make available materials that are reasonably
related to the department's purpose. The department shall be viewpoint neutral
in deciding which materials to provide. Bass Park, Parks and Recreation, BIA are
covered by this policy except to the extent that they are leasing a portion or all
of the facilities to a third party for an event in which case those areas are not
subject to the policy. The lessee has the right to distribute their materials within
their lease space. The City does have a commercial advertising policy, which
will stay in efFect, and governs for commercial advertising. Posters and
publications informing the public of upcoming events, performance or activities
may be placed or distributed in City buildings only for events supported or
sponsored in part or in whole the City, by the State of Maine or by the US
Government. The City Department Director responsible for the building would
approve such posters and publications. Outdated materials will be removed on a
viewpoint neutral basis. Publications and other reading materials in public waiting
areas in City buildings shall be limited to materials otherwise permitted to be
placed or distributed in City buildings and other publications and materials
purchased by the City in the course of its normal operations for City business
purposes. As an example, if BIA subscribes to air related magazines as a part of
its normal business, it can be made available to the public at their facilities; the
City Manager's Office receives the National League of Cities paper and it can be
placed for public viewing. The proposed policy would eliminate Newsweek, Good
�
Housekeeping, Time, etc. Barrett feels the proposed policy formalizes much of
• what was discussed at the last Committee meeting.
In response to D'Errico, the first draft was put together by ]ohn Hamer and
Barrett made additions in Section 5. D'Errico supports the approach. Gratwick
asked about Section 3.1 — distribution or dissemination — and if People Magazine
is acceptable. Hamer said there is a practical difficulty. If someone visits the
office and leaves a magazine, the City is not providing it. Distribution and
dissemination implies that Gratwick could leave a stack of People Magazine as
opposed to what would be stamped "office copy." Barrett referred to Section
5.4 which regulates what reading material will be allowed or permitted in City
buildings. Staff should remove a copy of People Magazine, for example, if left by
a citizen. Gratwick talked about Sections 3.1 and 5.4 and indicated that the
wording is unclear. Barrett asked Gratwick to get back to him with further
clarification. Hawes supports the proposed policy. She agreed with displaying
information that is pertinent to the specific office.
Terrilyn Simpson, publisher, editor and author of the newspaper and article in
question, addressed the committee. She is having difficulty understanding how a
City can enact an ordinance, which is in violation of the first amendment. The
wording in the proposed policy gives an inordinate of subjective control over
material. She would be happy if she were allowed to leave three copies of her
• paper at Health and Welfare. Obviously, the issue is content. She was
`�overwhelmingly startled"with the proposed policy. In response to Gratwick,
Simpson disagreed that it is a subjective process. She thinks that some of the
State's foster care pamphlets are erroneous but that doesn't give her a right to
remove them from public settings. In response to Gratwick, Hamer said the
policy as drafted is fairly restrictive. Because it is a non-public forum, any
regulation can be placed as long as it is reasonable regarding what to allow for
reading material. The only restriction is that one cannot discriminate based on
viewpoint. Gratwick asked if the City had a policy that allowed all material
except those certain items. If that type of a policy was in place, how does one
define that exception. Hamer said the policy was drafted as presented as
drawing a line can be very difFicult. Distinctions can be made based on any
reasonable purpose. Barrett said that administratively the more types of
materials allowed with "except for"the more judgement enters into it. Farrington
doesn't feel it is a free speech issue and explained his thoughts. This is a non-
public forum. Controversy needs to be avoided in a dental clinic setting. He
noted that a patient was disturbed by the titerature at the clinic. Hawes said the
City is not trying to limit the publication of the paper in question. There are
other avenues of distribution. The City is attempting to establish a policy that is
fair to all citizens.
�
Senator Plowman said that the City Manager had asked her about the State's
• policy and she indicated there is no policy, nothing is restricted in state office
buildings. She also spoke with an attorney who indicated he is not aware of any
town that has such an ordinance or restriction. She said this is not a freedom of
speech issue or freedom of expression issue. She said it is a freedom of the
press issue which is written material available to be read or not to be read. It
causes a discussion on a person's mind that they may or may not find
objectionable. She feels that Bangor is censuring.
Simpson asked Gratwick to repeat a question that was not answered. Gratwick
asked what is the boundary of pornography, a boundary of incentive to violence,
what is the boundary of appropriate taste in terms of abortion posters, and who
. is going to make that decision. Simpson said there are definitions of pornography
of materials that incite violence. When the City starts getting into subjective
determination about appropriate tastes, it is on "squishy"ground. From a
practical point, she thinks it is getting into the absurd when discussing an office
that is overrun with so many newspapers/publications that it can no longer
operate. She doesn't understand how banning all newspapers and magazines
from public areas of public buildings is not a first amendment issue, not a
freedom of the press issue. Gratwick and Hamer discussed the definition of
pornography and where and how lines are drawn. Plowman spoke about
freedom of the press versus freedom of speech. Farrington asked Plowman if
• she was indicating that common good should hold out over individual rights.
Plowman said some things are disturbing but you can't decide that they can't be
reviewed; i.e. Life Magazine. It's only graphic to the person who opens it and
absorbs it.
LaBreque reviewed the proposed policy. If the policy is passed, where can
Bangor citizens exercise their first amendment right to challenge this
government. Hamer said any area that is a public forum which would include
parks, sidewalk, etc. LaBreque asked about the freedom of press to distribute.
Without one, the other is not good. Where can he distribute press in the City if
the policy is passed, he asked. Hamer stressed that this policy is strictly for City
office buildings. LaBreque said this is a issue of freedom of press and he doesn't
believe it's dealing with a forum and it isn't dealing with speech. It makes a big
difference. He indicated he would be hiring his own counsel and challenge the
final conclusion. Regarding the subject newspaper in question, he asked if the
good of the paper had been weighed against the harm. He also spoke of his
recent challenges with state agencies. Greene indicated it was not pertinent to
today's discussion. LaBreque asked the name of the individual who complained
about the newspaper being available at the dental clinic. Greene explained that
the proposed policy doesn't just pertain to a specific publication. LaBreque had
checked the clinic's waiting room and found many publications not dealing with
� their specific purpose, including Maine Democrats publication. Barrett spoke with
the Health and Welfare Director today suggesting that he put together a listing
� of the types of materials allowed by the proposed policy in the waiting rooms at
Health and Welfare. Barrett didn't asked Yardley to remove the items
immediately. LaBreque asked why the Common Sense publication get pulled so
quickly but yet others are still in the Health and Welfare waiting rooms. Barrett
said that he would direct Yardley to remove partisan, political magazines.
Hawes asked if the proposed policy could be legally challenged. Hamer said it
certainly it could be challenged but if not adopted the City could be challenged
legally.
Hawes made a motion to forward the proposed policy to the full Council for its
review and action. The motion was seconded. Gratwick feels it needs further
discussion prior a Council action. He asked for precedents of other municipalities
and states. He also asked for further clarification of freedom of press versus
freedom of speech and perhaps other legal views.
2. Penobscot Valley Council of Governments 2006 Officers Ballot and Call for
Nominations — General Assembly and Executive Committee
A motion was made and seconded to endorse the City's ballot supporting the
nomination of Councilor Anne Allen as Vice President of the PVCOG.
� 3. Dakin Pool Improvement Project Update — Scope of Work
The Dakin Pool Executive Committee provided an update on the proposed plan,
which will become the basis for future planning and fundraising activities. They
provided a description of the work, cost estimates and the proposed layout at
approximately $152,000.
Bill Sullivan addressed the committee. It was a great season for the Dakin Pool.
He went through details of the expansion. Donations have been made for
benches, umbrellas and bulletin board. The Dakin Pool group will be furthering
its fundraising activities and seeking donations from area businesses. Joe
Baldacci spoke of four categories to meet the $152,000 goal. One is donated
labor with a number of community organizations, donated materials, cash
donations, and the City's involvement. He stressed the need for the City's
partnership and he praised the City Manager, City Council and administration for
its support and assistance. There is a new perception of Dakin Pool. County
Commissioners have discussed donated labor through the sheriff's department.
Local technical schools and colleges will also be tapped. Mike Robinson said that
the pool attendance figures would be available at the next Government
Operations Committee. Average attendance has been 80 per day. Hawes
congratulated the group for its efforts. The citizens and community are working
�
together. Farrington spoke about setting an entrance fee for the future.
� Farrington and Gratwick both expressed appreciation to the Dakin Pool group.
There was no further business to come before the Committee and it adjourned at
7 p.m.
�
�