Loading...
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 Outdated materials will be removed on a viewpoint neutral basis.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. � �