<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6001.18203" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>By way of the Latah Eagle's sister paper, the
Boomerang, which has been at odds with the mayor over this for quite some
time over this.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Funny how Echanove will talk to the Trib, but not
to the Boom...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Here is the full text of the letter from the AG's
office, which we received March 24:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM></EM></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM>March 24, 2009</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM><BR>Mayor Michael Echanove<BR>Palouse City
Hall<BR>East 120 Main Street<BR>P.O. Box 248<BR>Palouse, WA
99161-0248<BR><BR>RE: Restrictions on Public Comment Periods<BR><BR>Dear
Mayor:<BR><BR>I am the Attorney General's Open Government Ombudsman and provide
assistance<BR>to the public and agencies for compliance with the state Public
Records Act<BR>and Open Public Meetings Act. I received a letter from the
Boomerang<BR>questioning the City's policy prohibiting public comment on
personnel issues<BR>of city staff. Any policy prohibiting comment on a
specific topic would<BR>have serious constitutional implications. I would
ask the city to consider<BR>my informal advice in this letter. <BR><BR>The
ability of citizens to voice their opinions about the performance of
the<BR>public employees and officials who serve the public is one of
the<BR>cornerstones of a free and accountable government. Particular
criticism of<BR>government conduct may irritate the city, but such criticism is
protected by<BR>the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and by Article I,
section 5 of<BR>the Washington Constitution. In the case of Mesa v. White,
197 F.3d 1041<BR>(10th Cir. 1999) a county refused to allow public comment and
criticism<BR>about the city manager. The court found that the restriction
was<BR>unreasonable, an attempt to silence opinions, and a pretext for
censorship.<BR><BR>A municipality that deliberately allows a general public
comment period<BR>during its meetings creates a limited public forum for
constitutionally<BR>protected free speech. The city may not restrict
speech it merely dislikes,<BR>but has some ability to limit public comment in a
neutral manner. The city<BR>may set time limits or noise limits to public
speech. <BR><BR>The Open Public Meetings Act allows the city to remove an
individual if they<BR>are being disruptive. RCW 42.30.050. A
municipality may adopt a policy to<BR>prohibit personal attacks such as insults
if they lead to disruption of the<BR>meeting. Steinburg v. Chesterfield
County Planning Com'n, 527 F.3d 377 (4th<BR>Cir. 2008). Yet even Steinberg
acknowledges that criticism may not be<BR>prohibited where the speech is
directed on a substantive idea. Personal<BR>insults should not be confused
with insulting criticism over the conduct of<BR>public officials or
employees. Moreover, Steinberg does not allow the city<BR>to prohibit
public comment on a particular topic when the public comments<BR>are neither
personally insulting nor disruptive.<BR><BR>The U.S. Constitution reflects "a
profound national commitment to the<BR>principle that debate on public issues
should be uninhibited, robust, and<BR>wide-open, and that it may well include
vehement, caustic, and sometimes<BR>unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and
public officials." New York<BR>Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270
(1964). If the city allows a<BR>general public comment period at its
meetings but prohibits comment on<BR>personnel issues, then the prohibition
should be repealed.<BR><BR>Sincerely,<BR><BR><BR>Tim Ford<BR>Open Government
Ombudsman<BR>Assistant Attorney General for Government
Accountability</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Tom Hansen" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>thansen@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:36 AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: [Vision2020] Palouse Gets Refresher in
Free Speech</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> Courtesy of today's (March 31, 2009) Lewiston Tribune by way of the
<BR>> Spokesman Review.<BR>> <BR>>
-----------------------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> Palouse gets
refresher in free speech<BR>> State warns mayor against limiting comments
during public meetings in town<BR>> By David Johnson of the Lewiston
Tribune<BR>> <BR>> PALOUSE - After receiving some unsolicited advice from
Washington state's <BR>> ombudsman on open government, Mayor Michael Echanove
on Monday declared a <BR>> resumption of free speech at city council
meetings.<BR>> <BR>> "Someone can always come in and say the mayor is a
bonehead," said <BR>> Echanove, who's been at the helm of this Whitman County
town since <BR>> 2001. "That doesn't bother me in the least."<BR>>
<BR>> But prior to receiving a letter last week from Tim Ford, assistant
<BR>> Washington attorney general for government accountability, Echanove had
<BR>> protected paid city employees from public criticism.<BR>> <BR>>
"Some years ago," the mayor explained, "a person took off on an employee
<BR>> and was going at it. Afterwards, I was told that I should have clamped
<BR>> down on that."<BR>> <BR>> But Ford, who could not be reached for
comment, wrote in his letter that <BR>> Echanove's ban has serious
constitutional implications.<BR>> <BR>> "The ability of citizens to voice
their opinions about the performance of <BR>> the public employees and
officials who serve the public is one of the <BR>> cornerstones of a free and
accountable government," Ford wrote in the <BR>> letter. "Particular
criticism of government conduct may irritate the city, <BR>> but such
criticism is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. <BR>> Constitution,
and ... the Washington Constitution."<BR>> <BR>> Echanove said he plans to
ask members of the city's policy and <BR>> administration committee to review
Ford's letter. But from his <BR>> perspective, Echanove said, he's ready to
accept Ford's advice, while at <BR>> the same time asking citizens to
maintain a level of civility in their <BR>> criticism of paid
employees.<BR>> <BR>> Ford wrote that his letter was in response to a
letter he recently <BR>> received from the Boomerang newspaper, questioning
the city's policy of <BR>> prohibiting public comment on issues regarding
city staff.<BR>> <BR>> "So I stand corrected," Echanove said. "People can
now bring any topic up <BR>> in the open forum, including personnel."<BR>>
<BR>> Open forum, the mayor explained, was started a number of years ago as a
<BR>> means for citizens to bring up issues that weren't, or should be, on
the <BR>> council's agenda. "It's where anyone on the planet can come in and
talk <BR>> about anything they want," Echanove said. "I'm the one that put
that <BR>> there, just to have open communication."<BR>> <BR>> Ford
wrote any municipality that deliberately allows general public <BR>> comment
during it's meetings has, in essence, created a public forum for <BR>>
constitutionally protected free speech. "The city may not restrict speech
<BR>> it merely dislikes," Ford wrote. But the city may limit comment in
<BR>> a "neutral manner" by, for example, setting time limits.<BR>>
<BR>> People who become disruptive may be removed from the meeting under the
<BR>> state's open public meetings act, Ford wrote. And cities may adopt a
<BR>> policy that prohibits personal attacks such as insults, if they lead to
<BR>> disruption. But personal insults, Ford wrote, are not the same as
<BR>> insulting criticism. Moreover, case law prohibits cities from banning
<BR>> public comment on a particular topic.<BR>> <BR>> Federal case law
also underscores, Ford wrote, that the U.S. Constitution <BR>> reflects a
"profound national commitment" to the principle that debate on <BR>> public
issues must be uninhibited, robust and wide open. Such debate may <BR>> also
include "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks" <BR>>
on government and public officials, Ford wrote.<BR>> <BR>> "If the city
allows a general public comment period at its meetings but <BR>> prohibits
comment on personnel issues," Ford wrote, "then the prohibition <BR>> should
be repealed."<BR>> <BR>> Echanove said he has taken the legal advice to
heart and wants to keep the <BR>> open forum. "I like people to walk through
the door and talk about <BR>> anything. So right now I'd say anything is fair
game."<BR>> <BR>>
-----------------------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> You know what
this means, dontcha?<BR>> <BR>> Item #3 on the Moscow City Council agenda
. . . the item marked "Public <BR>> Commentary" . . . is (as it always has
been) an open podium for the public <BR>> to air its grievances, whether that
grievance is focused at a particular <BR>> councilman or the city in general
. . . provided the grievance is <BR>> presented in a manner of civility . . .
unlike the manner in which <BR>> Councilman (and candidate for mayor of
Moscow) John Weber addressed <BR>> another council member a while back . .
.<BR>> <BR>> John Weber's idea of "civility"<BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVKtZJQZb9k"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVKtZJQZb9k</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> <BR>> Seeya round town, Moscow.<BR>> <BR>> Tom
Hansen<BR>> Moscow, Idaho<BR>> <BR>> Join us at The First Annual
Intolerista Wingding, April 17th, featuring <BR>> Roy Zimmerman and Jeanne
McHale. For details go to . . .<BR>> <BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://www.MoscowCares.com/Wingding"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.MoscowCares.com/Wingding</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> <BR>> Seeya<BR>> there.<BR>> <BR>>
---------------------------------------------<BR>> This message was sent by
First Step
Internet.<BR>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.com/"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.fsr.com/</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>> <BR>>
<BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.fsr.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.fsr.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
<BR>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
=======================================================<BR>>
<BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>