Last night I finally got the '01 MPRB approved policy on "constitutionally protected speech" at the MPRB meeting, and I am less certain of the unconstitutionality of the document than I was before I was able to read it (always the main issue for me). I can't help but think that if the "regulation" was readily available to those most likely to become targets of enforcement that the last week's events would not have occurred. This might have been as simple as a reference to the policy when candidates file to run for office representing folks in our fair city (nice, good looking, but not exactly honest and above board about a few things like this).
It was explained last night that enforcement of this policy has been going on since July of '91 when the sort of speech MPRB wished to regulate was recognized by park officials or complained of by others; of course this has been spotty over the years (not explained last night, but alluded to by some commissioners in describing their own campaign activities), but the longest serving MPRB spoke who spoke (I believe) said that this sort of enforcement existed since he came on board but a few years after the regulation went into effect. Still, one cannot read the thing and not be embarrassed as a US citizen--we can do much better--but as odious as the thing is, it might well be constitutional. What I think is really the problem as I stated before, How is one to know you are enforcing a given regulation fairly if nobody knows about the regulation? I have almost no doubt that the offending regulation has been selectively enforced by MPRB employees over the years for good or ill, so another issue here for me, especially given the fact that this issue surfaced because a candidate for MPRB was an enforcement target, How can you possibly say there is no conflict of interest on the part of our parks officials? That is a real problem that can be remedied with the resignation of the current Superintendent and fair enforcement and open disclosure of MPRB regulations to those who might be targets of that enforcement. As was stated last night, enforcement targets typically find out about the free speech rule only when they break that rule in the opinion of a given MPRB staff member or a someone complains of their activities to staff; that has been MPRB policy since July of 1991 and that is really odious. For Dann Dobson: I took no notes, but one motion from Commissioner Marie Hauser addressing John Gurbin's actions in the Jason Stone incident failed to pass (with only her one yes vote, I think). I too look forward to reading the accounts of those who provide us MPRB meeting details that happen outside the broadcast hours (this one lasted until around 9:30 p.m.). I think the consensus on Gurbin's actions in the Jason Stone incident was that since he was merely enforcing a rule that predated his tenure as superindentent, that he did nothing wrong per se; of course I disagree. One of these days, I hope to find complete minutes of all MPRB meetings on their website and available at their offices. I couldn't even find a sign-in sheet for the meeting at reception and was told it would be there eventually, even looking where Gurban told me it would be (another of my interesting encounters that night); as this was my first MPRB meeting, I don't know if this was SOP. Perhaps someone can tell me if the sign-in sheet for meetings is the same as the sign-up sheet for the public testimony section of the agenda; I was also intrigued by Chris Johnson's account of the unauthorized change from meeting night at four to Monday before the meeting for these speaker sign-ups. Bill Kahn Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
