Editor’s note: The town has announced it will not be enforcing the new policy banning political activity pending a legal opinion from the Maine Municipal Association, according to a town official today.
FARMINGTON – A pesky petitioner during a park concert has resulted in selectmen adopting a policy that bans political activity on properties owned by the town.
The 3-2 vote this week has supporters arguing there are plenty of other places for political activities to take place in town, while others worry that the policy has gone too far in that it also may restrict the right of free speech.
Selectmen were responding to a complaint from two members of the Old Crow Band who were approached by a person trying to gather signatures for a petition seeking to repeal the same sex marriage law. While the band was on a break, a woman climbed up the steps of the gazebo in Meetinghouse Park on Main Street, where the band plays every Monday night in the summer, and tried to solicit signatures.
After receiving the complaints, Town Manager Richard Davis drew up the policy and brought it up at the selectmen’s Tuesday night meeting under the last agenda item, “To discuss other business.”
Below is the policy approved by selectmen 3-2, in its entirety:
“It is the policy of the Town of Farmington to prohibit any political activity, including but not limited to, petitioning, signature gathering, and placement of campaign signs on any property owned by the Town of Farmington. The only exceptions to this policy are those activities that are allowed in accordance with state law (21-A M.R.S.A.) at the Community Center on Election Days.”
“Selectmen have the authority to set policy as they have control, custody of town property,” Davis said. He added that he is currently seeking an opinion from the legal department at the Maine Municipal Association on “whether or not the policy is enforceable,” he said Thursday and added, “it may be challenged.”
Town-owned properties include Meetinghouse Park, Hippach Field, all municipal parking lots, the municipal building and the landfill. The ban does not extend to the sidewalks or other right-of-ways, Davis said, and allows for petition gathering on election days at the Farmington Community Center.
Stephan Bunker, chairman of the Board of Selectmen, voted with the majority to approve the ban.
“We don’t want to quash political activities, but there are plenty of other opportunities and places in town. The park should be free of those types of distractions,” Bunker said. “There should be a few selected places for non-political activities, so bands are free to play without having conflicts.”
Several concerts have been scheduled to play at the gazebo this summer. All the musical groups sought and received the selectmen’s permission to play at the park.
Voting against the political ban measure, Selectman Ryan Morgan said he was concerned with limiting the opportunity for petitioners to gather signatures. As stated, the policy recognizes a state law provision that allows for the gathering of petition signatures at polling places on election days.
“Signature gathering is a form of free speech,” Morgan said. “I didn’t like the idea of limiting that right.”
Neither does the Maine Civil Liberties Union.
“Political speech is the most highly protected speech under the First Amendment,” said Shenna Bellows, executive director of the MCLU. “We are concerned they may be over broad in their decision and we are investigating the issue.”
Selectman Dennis Pike said he believes the board’s decision was within its authority to ban such activities on town property. Selectmen have banned campaign posters at traffic islands, citing the numerous signs that tend to spring up in the fall create a traffic hazard to motorists.
“We’ve already restricted political ads on town property,” Pike noted. “And we continue to allow petitions outside the community center at polls and it does not effect the sidewalks.”
As for the free speech issue, “this doesn’t restrict anyone,” Pike said. “There are other alternatives.”
Editor’s note: As per a reader’s request, selectmen voting for the ban were Bunker, Pike and Jon Bubier; those opposed were Morgan and Nancy Porter.
well, the daily bull dog, like so many other media and so called news outlets is showing its biased. (Media Malpractice! great movie, ask for it at your local video store, if they don’t have it ask them to order it)
I wonder why this petitioner has been labeled as pesky? is it the cause of her petition, i don’t remember the legalization of pot petitioners being labeled as pesky or even provoking a town “policy”, i hope this goes to court and cost the town millions of dollars. i wonder what the fine is for breach of town policy?
A few points to note:
1. This topic was not on the Selectmen’s pre-published agenda. It was brought up by Richard Davis at the tail end of a Board meeting, with only about 5 or 6 members of the public in the room. No opportunity was offered for other members of the public to make an input.
2. Nobody present had been at Meetinghouse Park on the occasion spoken of. Nobody knew whether the person collecting signatures had actually done anything disorderly.
3. Any complaints made about the People’s Veto signature collecting were probably politically motivated. By choosing to act upon those complaints alone, Richard Davis was in fact taking sides in the political controversy, not keeping the town neutral as he claimed.
4. So far as I know (but I would welcome confirmation or correction by Woody Hanstein or other legally informed readers), Tuesday’s action has no legal standing at all. The Board of Selectmen has no authority to make new laws for the town.
5. I found it interesting that the Selectmen’s vote split 3-2, simply because it is so unusual for them not to vote as a bloc.
6. We have been enjoying concerts in the park for many years and will presumably enjoy them for many years more, without the need of new rules. A hot-button issue is before the public; some tension is inevitable; we can just live with it.
Licia Kuenning
licia@qhpress.org
http://www.megalink.net/~klee
“All my cats are in one basket.”
Dear Farmington Citizens,
I believe that the recent “petition banning” issue brought up by the Town Manager at the end of a selectmen’s meeting to be too important of a decision to be based on just one incident that had arisen, and one that was done too hastily by our selectmen without enough thought as to possible constitutional ramifications and infringements placed on everyone’s rights and the impact that may have on us being a government of, and for the people.
This should get a citizen’s review and perhaps a legal challenge. This is an outrage and a direct attack to our freedoms to carry on debate and public discourse.
From Answers.com:
“The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees ‘the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’ The constitutional right of peaceful assembly means that people can gather in public to discuss their opinions about government or other concerns. This right of assemble also guarantees the right of association in groups, such as political parties, labor unions, and business organizations. The right of petition means that individuals, acting alone or as part of a group, can freely send written criticisms or complaints to government officials. The right of petition also provides freedom to circulate documents for people to sign in order to demonstrate mass support for complaints against the government.”
The attempt at maintaining safety of vehicle traffic can not be compared to the loss of the basic rights from which this country was founded. There was no safety issue at risk in the park, and certainly “Meetinghouse Park” even has the citizen meaning right in the name of our park. If we allow this to stand, we will be allowing all of our rights to be seriously eroded by just a few. Please request this decision to be rescinded given its obvious flaws to our constitutional rights in this town, this state, and this country.
Sincerely yours,
Bill Crandall
I can’t resist – If all political activity except the elections are banned from town property, then where are the selectmen gonna meet? Same question for county commissioners and town meetings.
Although I wouldn’t go as far as Hutch in condemning the Daily Bulldog as just another “so called news outlet” showing its bias, I do agree that the use of the term pesky is unnecessary editorializing. The rest of the article makes no mention of any overly rude or obnoxious behavior by the petitioner, and yet the word pesky literally means “annoyingly TROUBLESOME.” Were they troublesome? If so, the reporter needs to explain why. Simply asking people to sign a petition (even if it is for a pathetic cause) is not “pesky” behavior.
The problem is made worse since the word is in the lead and is literally the first thing that a reader sees. So instantaneously the reader is confronted with the image of a troublesome, annoying petitioner, and their perception of the rest of the story will be shaped by that mental image. If there is evidence to support that the petitioner was pesky then so be it. But since none is given, it is really not a fair way to characterize the person in the story.
Editor’s note: The town has announced it will not be enforcing the new policy banning political activity pending a legal opinion from the Maine Municipal Association, according to a town official today.
We do not need the MMA (More Money Always) organization deciding for us what we all know is totally wrong with this type of decision or the process that was undertaken by the town selectmen to arrive at this decision. This was a policy that should never have been proposed by any Town Manager, especialy in an ad hoc way. Legal opinions from that organization (MMA) does not carry any weight with this citizen, nor should any other civic minded person feel that there is any room for any type of restrictions from the Town on our constitutional rights to be allowed.
This is clearly a wrong decision and should be recinded at the next town selectmen meeting.
The issue of political activity on town property is certainly a complex one, dealing with several issues within the framework of our constitution including the right to peaceably assemble as well as free speech rights. Unfortunately, in the discussion of what’s legal, we seem to have lost sight of what is appropriate and courteous.
For many years, people attending the Old Crow concerts have enjoyed not only the music but also the brief respite from the cares of everyday life. The greatest conflicts in the park have generally involved the children. Should tag or hide-and-go-seek be the game of choice on any given evening? Can we stay ‘til the end of the concert or will Mom drag us home to bed early? Gifford’s or McDonald’s for a post-concert treat?
That oasis of calm was diminished last Monday night. While the petitioner was not loud or pushy, her mere presence was a disruption. It would have been equally disruptive if those on the opposite side of the question had chosen to display their political views to the audience. It is a tribute to the patience of both the band members and the audience that she was not asked to quickly remove her table since her political activity during an evening devoted to entertainment was just plain rude. Is it too much to expect that for one night each week during the summer we can forget the conflicts and confrontations and enjoy a bit of peace and serenity?
Perhaps there are others who would prefer a “respite from the cares of everyday life” by enjoying a quiet night in the park, instead of hearing loud music. It’s a public space and what is appropriate or courteous is a judgment call made by individual users of the park. I might just as well view the band as being discourteous, but it’s a public space, and I appreciate that they have a right to use it.
Yes, it may well be that you (or the vast majority of citizens) would prefer to just hear a show, but to ban peaceful political activity is not an acceptable response to a small disruption. The principle of free speech should outweigh the principle of not being mildly disrupted by a petitioner.
(And I have no beef to carry for the petitioner, either. I have absolutely no use for those who would oppose equal rights for their fellow citizens, and I agree that it would be more pleasant if they stayed home. But the issue isn’t whether we want them to be there or not. It’s whether we should be allowed to ban them by law from being there and “peacefully assembling.”
Have to agree with Tom Dean. The way this is written, the town council can no longer meet on town property, nor can town meeting take place on town property. But I suppose if they’d thought it through well enough to write a law that did what they wanted it to, they’d have thought it through enough to realize that it’s a fundamental violation of the Constitution.
Have ya heard the Old Crow Band? I would rather hear free speech!
Woodstein, you have twice impugned the purpose of the petitioner, and I didn’t reply the first time because I figured that was “off topic,” so to speak, in the present context. But since now you’ve done it a second time, writing that you “have absolutely no use for those who would oppose equal rights for their fellow citizens,” I would briefly point out that I signed that petition, and I am not opposed to equal rights for my fellow citizens. The issue isn’t rights, although the political rhetoric keeps saying that it is. Political rhetoric doesn’t always reflect reality. I would go on to discuss what I think the issue is, but I doubt this is the place for it, and anyway I am work on a pamphlet which will cover the subject better than I can do here.
You can say it’s not an equal rights issue, but that’s because you view it one way and have convinced yourself that banning same-sex marriage is not a cut on the rights of those that should be allowed to be married. But as you said, that is a topic for another time.
My point in saying that was just to make it clear that from a purely political standpoint I am not on the petitioner’s side. But that despite vehemently disagreeing with her cause, I think it’s blatantly unconstitutional to ban that type of political activity on town property. (To the point that I’m embarrassed to have town officers who would try to pass such an absurd law.) And that I also think it was poor journalism on the Daily Bulldog’s part to label her as “pesky” — a word with clearly negative connotations — when there appears to be absolutely no evidence that she was any more troublesome than a normal petitioner.
So we probably won’t agree about same-sex marriage, but at least we’re on the same side about this “law!”
Boy it is amazing what can be stirred up in such a short amount of time! I’m sadden to see that 2 peoples opinion in the band can reflect so negatively on the band it self. The Old Crow Band has always been a family oriented organization that welcomes all to come and enjoy the evening. It is a public place and the band has always been grateful to the town for the use of the gazebo and public for its support.
It is ‘my’ opinion that this is America… the land of the free! A simple “no thank you I’m not interested” would be sufficient to those trying to get support whether it be a petitioner, a church group, and children selling a fund raiser or any other individual.
In the defense of the writers choice of adjectives in the article, I have had a few “(I) eye-witness” accounts of the petitioner and I must acknowledge that the term “pesky” is being used accurately and validly. If one was to do a survey (better yet a lineup with a jury) judging the level or degrees of ‘pesk’ that the petitioner exhibits, I am confident that the petitioner would be found guilty of ‘peskivity’or ‘peskinism’ on all accounts of/and relating to peskiness. Hello, has anyone actual seen this person, you can almost smell the over powering essence of pesky.
As for the issue that the petitioner was petitioning for, I have a simple solution that doesn’t involve giving anyone any “special rights”. I would rather see a removal of all “special rights” and just have everyone (preferably legal citizens) be protected and have the same economical/legal rights. No more two for one deals. Just think of the amount of revenue and legal profits that could be generated. $$$$$$$
Woodstein, you write,
“You can say it’s not an equal rights issue, but that’s because you view it one way and have convinced yourself that banning same-sex marriage is not a cut on the rights of those that should be allowed to be married. But as you said, that is a topic for another time.”
Then you should have left it for another time and not tried to state my views. I reject your characterization of my views as I do your insulting expression for how they were formed (“have convinced yourself”). At the right time and place I will state my views in my own words.
And Woodstein, I use my real name; I don’t get coy about my identity. Are you Woody Hanstein?
Hutch
You should help her gather signatures if you feel that strongly about what she is petitioning for.
She looks lonely in front of the P O.
You seem to forget that the Bulldog was championing her right to petition. The “pesky” label was added based on descriptions of others.
I believe that when I express my freedomw to say no that the “pesky petitioner” respect my wishes. She doesn’t so therefore keep the law!
Although this is late in coming, I see that still nobody has corrected the false rumor that the petitioner got up on the bandstand and pestered members of the Old Crow band. On June 16 she wrote to me, “I really was very quiet about approaching people and for sure I never mounted the steps of the bandstand. That is an outright lie!”
First that blogger gets kicked out of Sugarloaf for speaking his/her mind, now this?!?! What in the hell is going on here in Franklin County??