MCLU says county violated Constitution
Published 12:00 am Saturday, July 12, 2003
On Friday the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court against Freeborn County, its county board and its commissioners individually, on that basis that one of the county’s rules violates free speech protected by the Constitution.
Filed on the behalf of four Freeborn County residents it requests the Minneapolis District Court declare the rule invalid and make an injunction to bar its use.
Two portions of the rule in question allow board members to ban people from speaking in front of the board if they go over a time limit, speak on a topic more than twice in year, try to engage commissioners in conversation, or make &uot;personal, impertinent, offensive, slanderous, quarrelsome, challenging, profane, abusive or boisterous remarks tending to reasonably alarm, arouse anger or cause resentment in others.&uot;
&uot;It’s too broad, too vague and it acts a prior restraint on speech&uot; MCLU director, Charles Samuelson said.
He said the rule gives commissioners an unreasonable ability to restrict speech before it happens, and doesn’t give people a specific standard.
&uot;[The commissioners] can’t tell you what it is.
But they’ll know it when they see it. That’s scary.&uot;
He said that the rule is overly punitive and has intimidated the four plaintiffs from participating civilly for fear of being banned. The Plaintiffs are James P. Hanson, Chad T. Hayson, Shon J. Olson, and Michael R. Simmons.
Much of the controversy on the subject results from Roger Bok, a civic-minded Freeborn County resident, who has been banned from speaking at board meetings several times in the last few years. Bok is not listed in the lawsuit and said he is neutral on the topic.
&uot;This lawsuit is not about what Roger Bok said or didn’t say it’s about the rule on its face,&uot;
MCLU staff legal counsel Teresa Nelson said. According to the complaint, &uot;The restrictions in Rule 19 are not legal time, place, and manner restrictions because they are not content neutral, and not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and do not leave ample alternative channels for speech.&uot;
Freeborn County attorney Craig Nelson said that it’s well established that speaking at county board meetings is a priviledge not a right. &uot;The board has the right to conduct its own meeting.
They have to keep to an agenda,&uot; he added.
He said that board rules allow for people to speak on agenda items or ask for action. He said that Roger Bok’s violations resulted from; statements and questions that didn’t pertain to the board agenda, his repetitive insistence for answers, his comments going well over the time limit, and his sometimes hostile manner.
He said he could not speak on the specifics of the lawsuit, since he hadn’t seen it.
County Administrator Ron Gabrielsen called the lawsuit &uot;frivolous.&uot;
&uot;Every time rule 19 has been used by the board we have had just cause,&uot; he said. &uot;If we’re using it justly how can the lawsuit be with merit. How many people have been affected by rule 19? One. And he’s been allowed to speak dozens of times.&uot;
He said the rule gives order to meetings and keeps them to a reasonable length. He asked how fair was it for one person to keep those attending the meeting waiting, particularly if the subject is irrelevant to the board’s agenda and powers.
He also said he doubts one of the plaintiffs, Jim Hanson of Clarks Grove, is really threatened.
&uot;If Jim Hanson said he feels he is intimidated by what goes on at county board meetings, he is bordering on a lie,&uot; he said.
Gabrielsen felt that no one was being silenced since Roger has always been welcome at county workshops where people are allowed to engage in dialogue and has been able to answer questions outside of board meetings. He also noted that plaintiffs never requested that rule 19 be put as an agenda item or a workshop topic.
When asked, Gabrielsen said he plans on recommending that the board fight the lawsuit.
&uot;Absolutely, it’s going to be expensive and I hope [the defendants] think it’s worth it,&uot; he said.
One of the plantiffs, Michael Simmons, said that there are several issues that he has spoken on twice and would like to speak on again but can’t for fear of banning. He said that he feels speaking publicly about things serves as an important avenue. &uot;We just want to make sure that everything is in the public eye so they can see what’s going on and decide for themselves,&uot; he said.
Another plantiff, Jim Hanson, said, &uot;I don’t feel to intimidated myself. But it has a chilling effect on public.&uot; He said that residents often request that he speaks at meetings because they are afraid of the humiliation of being banned. He said that in that respect the rule is &uot;oppressive.&uot;
Commissioners did not comment on the lawsuit and none had seen the lawsuit. Commissioner Dan Springborg said he thought the rule was appropriate but said the board would abide by any decision by a court. Commissioner Dan Belshan said he has opposed the rule from the beginning and has made motions as recently as February to remove the two offending portions of rule 19. One motion was never seconded, the other was voted down four to one. Commissioner Dave Mullenbach did not return phone calls.