Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 45
some civility. So this while it may be coming now | think is probably something that is probably overdue.
And | can say that | think it was something that should have been put in by other Boards. | witnessed
meeting where, at times, things got out of hand. So | think this is a way of being able to give the public the
right to speak but yet make it more concise and not repeat the same thing over and over and over again
within the speaking time.
Alderwoman Kelly
Thank you. | want to start out by saying that | support this Ordinance, most of it, as everybody has pointed
until my turn here | had some questions around the wording around being rude. And | just wanted to
potentially bring up again what my concern was and ask if Attorney Bolton would potentially be able to
answer my question. So my concern was this, | absolutely think that we should allow people to have a time
limit all those things. My concern is that the term “rude” is very subjective and that it will allow (inaudible)
the meeting and while | know Alderman Wilshire does an incredible job, to shut people down because of
their definition of rude and | am concerned about that. So my question is, do you see, obviously your office
wrote this but do you see the same concern from a legal standpoint.
Attorney Bolton
Yes. | am not only concerned with the word “rude” | am concerned with the word “civil”, | would have to say
that some of the discussion tonight heightens that concern. The fact is you are talking about creating a
public forum. When Government creates a public forum, it cannot regulate the content of the speech. You
can have reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, thinking probably cut people off if they are
shouting uncontrollably, if they are making threats of violence or try to incite other people to violence. |
think you can probably prohibit profane language, although | don’t know that | would advocate you doing
so. | absolutely am of the opinion that you cannot stop someone from criticizing a public official or
employee.
If you let Mr. X get up and say, | think the City Clerk does a wonderful job and the election went wonderfully
and she’s great, which she is, then Mrs. Y wants to get up and say, | had a horrible experience and | think
the City Clerk ought to have done something more to prevent that and goes on and on about how inefficient
she thought the situation was and how poorly it was handled. You’ve got to allow all of that. And if
someone wants to criticize the Mayor one of you, you have to allow that. And | think someone could speak
pretty strongly and pretty forthrightly and you still have to allow that criticism. If you start letting people
heap praise on officials and employees, you’ve got to allow for the other side. You cannot base whether
someone has the right to speak on the content of the speech.
You don’t have to allow it. You don’t have to create the public forum. You could only have it at Committee
Meetings, you could only have it at the end of a Board of Aldermen Meeting, you could only have it at the
beginning. You could restrict it on things coming up that evening. There are a lot of things you can do. But
using words like “civil” and “rude” to prevent people from saying things you don’t like, you cannot do that.
Myself and the other lawyers in the office will be in Court day after day and it can cost money. The other
side gets attorney’s fees in cases like this and they are not hesitant about presenting big bills. So | think
this is something to be very careful about when you’ve got these words like “rude” like “civil”. It is fine if
they are applied neutrally, but it is awful easy to slip into when you are getting praise, to let that person go.
But when it’s criticism well that’s the definition of uncivil or that’s the definition of rude. | would caution you
not to do that and as | say, some of this evening’s discussion about | don’t think City Employees should be
criticized or | don’t think someone’s neighbor should be criticized, you are not going to have the opportunity
to prevent that and still have a public forum. So | would recommend you be careful.
Alderwoman Kelly
| would, given Attorney Bolton’s response, and thank you for that, I’d love to put it to the maker of this
Ordinance to potentially send it back to Committee.
