The American Civil Liberties Union Tuesday sued the Orange County Board of Supervisors over how it manages public speakers at its meetings and its policies regarding destruction of documents.
The lawsuit filed on behalf of the People’s Homeless Task Force, a local organization that was formed to advocate for transients when there was a large encampment on the Santa Ana riverbed, alleges that Orange County “has consistently ignored the voices of community members who are concerned about the county’s homelessness crisis.”
“The Orange County Board of Supervisors has not only ignored the pleas of its constituents, it has also actively attempted to silence the people, stifle debate and shield its members from criticism by erecting barriers to the people’s participation in board meetings and abusing the power vested in the board,” according to the lawsuit.
The county issued a statement explaining it “cannot comment on (the lawsuit) in its entirety at this time,” butt added, “We do believe that our rules regarding public comment and public records comport with state and federal law.”
It’s not the first time the ACLU has taken the county to court regarding public commentary at the board’s meetings. William Fitzgerald of Anaheim sued in federal court after he claimed he was wrongly cut off during critical remarks to the board and forced to leave the meeting.
U.S. District Judge James Selna ruled in August 2012 that Fitzgerald wasn’t forced to stop speaking or forced out of the meeting and said he lacked legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the board’s rules for public speakers. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Fitzgerald’s rights were not violated.
ACLU attorney Brendan Hamme said he was unaware of how the Fitzgerald case was different than the one the organization filed Tuesday.
But the current lawsuit takes issue with having public comments made at the end of the board’s meetings as opposed to the beginning of the sessions, which Hamme said makes it difficult for constituents to schedule their day, particularly if they have a job or childcare responsibilities.
“It forces them to wait around for hours for an opportunity to address their elected officials,” Hamme said.
The board’s rules were adopted in January 2009, and revised in October 2011, December 2012, February 2016, April 2017 and February of last year.
The move to revise the rules in December 2012 came after a gadfly asked to have every item on the agenda pulled for discussion so he could make a comment. It lengthened the meeting by an hour and drew the ire of supervisors, who limited the public to only commenting on three of the items on an agenda.
Three regular gadflies, including a man who dresses as a woman, attend virtually every Board of Supervisors meeting and in the past have attempted to take their personal beefs and attach them to agenda items that have little or nothing to do with their concerns.
As the homeless encampment was surging on the riverbed in 2017, the meetings drew scores of advocates who criticized the board’s response to the problem. When the county attempted to clear out the encampment, advocates for the homeless sued in federal court and both sides have worked to house the county’s transients.
Hamme alleges the board enforces its rules regarding public comments in a “discriminatory manner to shut down criticism of the board and its inaction, particularly on the issue of homelessness in Orange County.”
The ACLU is also making an issue of denial of Public Records Act requests for video of board meetings because the footage has been destroyed per board policy. At times when discussions have grown heated at meetings, the chair of the board has shut down the meetings to clear the room, and Hamme said footage during those gaps should be preserved and available for public records requests.
At times when a long line of speakers signs up for the public comments sectiom, the chair of the board has restricted commentary from three minutes to two minutes. This has also been done in an arbitrary manner, Hamme alleged.
“The board has cut public comments from three minutes to two minutes when there are 72 speakers and as few as seven speakers and there’s nothing whatsoever to guide their perceptions on who gets the time for public comment,” Hamme said, adding that the board does not have “unbridled discretion” to restrict public commentary at meetings.
The board needs a more specific policy regarding the limitation of time on public commentary, Hamme said.
Activists who have tried to meet individually with board members have been rebuffed, so the panel’s weekly meeting is the only opportunity for them to address their elected leaders, according to the lawsuit, which challenges the board’s rule restricting the addressing of individual board members.