1st Amendment News

A&A: Public right to to speak denied at school board meetings

Q: I need help defending theĀ  public’s right to speak at open meetings. At school board meetings, board members will not let members of the public comment for the established time of three minutes. School district staff speaks for three minutes and then the public gets three minutes. Often times the chair does not allow the public the chance to speak at all. The chair always interrupts the public speaker. I have audio and visual recordings, but I would appreciate any advice or help that you may provide me.

A: As background, California’s open meeting law, known as the Brown Act, requires that “[e]very agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.” Gov’t Code section 54954.3(a).

The scope of comment permitted at a regular meeting includes not only agenda items, but any item within the body’s jurisdiction that has not already been considered at a previous meeting where public comment was permitted. The Act’s public comment requirements create a “limited public forum” under the First Amendment. See Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified School Dist., 936 F. Supp. 719, 729 (C.D. Cal. 1996).

Spaces such as sidewalks and parks have traditionally been used for conduct protected by the First Amendment, and are considered “public forums,” and therefore conduct in these forums is protected by the First Amendment and can only be restricted if a high standard is met.

The other end of the spectrum is the “non-public forum,” or places not traditionally open to the public for speech or petition-related activities. Restrictions in non-public forums need only be reasonable and are generally upheld. In between these two extremes are “limited public forums,” or areas that traditionally have not been made open to the public, but have become public forums for at least some purposes because the government body that regulates a particular area has made it available for use by the public.

The same high standard that applies to public forums — the restriction must be narrowly drawn and serve a compelling interest — also applies to limited public forums where the conduct fits within the time or purpose for which the place has been made open. See Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983). The finance commitee meeting would fit into this “limited public forum” category since it is governed by the Brown Act.

The Brown Act permits legislative bodies to adopt “[r]easonable regulations” for public comment periods, including regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker, but the body may not “prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body.” Gov’t Code section 54954.3(b), (c).

The First Amendment also limits the ability of legislative bodies to restrict speech based on its content. In order to restrict speech in a public forum or limited public forum, reasonable time, place and manner regulations are permissible, but restrictions must be “content neutral” (as opposed to “content based”) and narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and must allow ample alternative channels of communication. Perry Educ. Ass’n, 460 U.S. at 45. Restrictions on speech in a public forum “must be justified without reference to the protected speech’s content.” ACLU v. City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784, 792 (9th Cir. 2006).

Content-neutral restrictions are those that are both viewpoint and subject matter neutral, i.e., do not contain any restrictions based on either the ideology of the message or the topic of the speech, whereas content-based restrictions are those that endeavor to restrict or prohibit speech based on either the viewpoint or subject matter. See, e.g., Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 320 (1988).

Regulations related to public comment, therefore, must be neutrally administered. Baca, 936 F. Supp. at 728-29 (if access to the forum is limited based on subject matter or speaker identity, limitations must be reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and must be viewpoint neutral).

One caveat to this high standard are situations where the moderator may limit speech in order to maintain order at the meeting. In public meetings, “[c]itizens have an enormous first amendment interest in directing speech about public issues to those who govern their city. It is doubtless partly for this reason that such meetings, once opened, have been regarded as public forums, albeit limited ones.” White, 900 F.2d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990).

However, this is balanced with the public body’s need to “be addressed and deal[] with its agenda. Public forum or not, the usual first amendment antipathy to content-oriented control of speech cannot be imported into the Council chambers intact.” Id. While the governmental body may not stop a speaker from speaking because the moderator disagrees with the viewpoint expressed, it may stop the speaker if his or her speech becomes irrelevant or repetitious. Id. A speaker may also be stopped where he or she becomes “disruptive” in a manner that would not meet the test for “actual breach of the peace … or of ‘fighting words’ likely to provoke immediate combat.” Id. Disruption may occur where the speaker speaks too long, is unduly repetitious, or extends discussion of irrelevancies so that the legislative body is prevented from accomplishing its business in a reasonably efficient manner. Id. at 1426.

Under these standards, it is possible that a board that prevents speakers from fully utilize their three minutes during the public comment period because of interruptions from the board motivated by the content of the speech would be said to be violating the First Amendment rights of those speakers by preventing them from sharing their viewpoint with the board. In situations where the public is not allowed to comment at all, this is likely a violation of the Brown Act, given that the Act requires a public comment period at some point during noticed meetings.

As far as CSD staff getting additional time to comment as members of the public, this, too, may be indicative that certain viewpoints are being favored over others, thereby violating both the Act and the First Amendment.

If this board member continues to violate the Brown Act, you may want to make the district attorney aware of those violations. Either a citizen or the district attorney may sue to compel the local agency to comply with the Brown Act; obtain a ruling that a particular practice of the local agency violates the Brown Act; or obtain a ruling that the local agency is violating the free speech rights of one or more of its members in seeking to silence that member. Gov’t Code section 54960(a).

Please note, however, that the Brown Act imposes fairly strict requirements on the enforcement of the Brown Act, including deadlines for taking certain necessary actions. You might find the information on the FAC’s web site at http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/category/resources/access-to-meetings/ useful for proceeding.

To find an attorney who might be willing to represent you in this matter, you might try using the FAC’s Lawyer Assistance Request Form at http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/legal-hotline/lawyers-assistance-request-form/.

Holme Roberts & Owen LLP is general counsel for the First Amendment Coalition and responds to FAC hotline inquiries. In responding to these inquiries, we can give general information regarding open government and speech issues but cannot provide specific legal advice or representation.

Your contributions make our work possible.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments are closed.