Banning critics’ presence goes too far

By The Gazette Editorial Board

----

We understand where Cedar Rapids City Manager Jeff Pomeranz, the police and other city officials are coming from as they consider an ordinance that could ban disruptive people from city facilities.

City officials have taken some very harsh criticism over the past few years. Some fair. Some unfair. And some, frankly, unhinged. We sympathize with the city manager's desire to shield staff and officials from people who might seek to threaten, intimidate or harm them.

But we believe this proposed ordinance, which would allow the city manager, in consultation with the police chief, to ban certain citizens from city facilities, goes too far. Citizens who violate the ban by attending a public meeting could be prosecuted for criminal trespass.

A private business has wide latitude in setting the ground rules for how it dispenses its products and services, and how it interacts with customers. But when it comes to government, the rules of engagement with citizens are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and its Iowa counterpart. And they are spelled out clearly.

We agree with County Attorney Jerry Vander Sanden, who contends that banning citizens from facilities where open government meetings are held violates the fundamental First Amendment right of Americans to petition their elected officials for a redress of grievances. Vander Sanden contends that such a policy runs counter to the idea of democratic, representative government. And is likely unconstitutional.

We worry that such a law would also have a chilling affect on free speech, potentially causing citizens to watch what they say to city leaders - or decide not to speak at all - for fear that it would result in a meeting with the police, or a ban.

Pomerantz, to his credit, contends that the ordinance would be used sparingly and with extreme caution. He argues that he and the City Council have no intent on denying anyone's constitutional rights. That may be the case now, but an ordinance stays on the books long after this cast of leaders is gone. There is no guarantee that such a potent process would not be misused in the future.

And it's unnecessary, in our view. Laws already in the Iowa Code taking aim at disorderly conduct and assault are sufficient to handle those who would disrupt city meetings or business. The laws are clear that unruly, violent behavior in a public setting is not acceptable. And the county attorney says he is prepared to prosecute anyone who violates them.

The city ordinance at issue is still in its initial drafting stages. It's been discussed by the City Council's Public Safety Committee, but not the entire City Council. We respectfully ask the City Council to turn away from this well-meaning, but constitutionally misguided, proposal.

n Comments: editorial@sourcemedia.net or (319) 398-8262