La Center council rejects resolution banning ribbon display

Posted

Controversy over the placement of ribbons supporting law enforcement of La Center came to a head with city council voting down a resolution that would have prohibited any expression of speech on city infrastructure had it gone through.

La Center City Council voted 3-2 against the resolution during their Aug. 26 meeting. Had it passed, the resolution would have kept the public “from attaching or displaying expressions of speech or messages on any (c)ity-owned infrastructure such as, by way of example and limitation, light standards, guardrails, railings, walls, flagpoles, traffic-light standards and traffic control devices.”

The resolution was the result of a recent change in a display on Northwest La Center Road Bridge that has existed for more than a decade. Mayor Greg Thornton said yellow ribbons had been displayed on the bridge since 2005. A report from The Reflector in 2016 indicated the ribbon placement resulted from the request of a high school student to show support for U.S. Armed Forces in the Middle East.

Recently, blue ribbons were placed alongside the yellow ones without the knowledge of the city, Thornton said, though he believed they were affixed in good faith. The mayor said he was contacted by citizens with concerns about the placement and meaning behind the blue ribbons — support of law enforcement during a time when police have faced increasing scrutiny over allegations of systemic racism.

Thornton reinforced that the resolution was not about any specific expression carried by the yellow or blue ribbons, but whether or not expression of speech was appropriate at the site as a whole.

The resolution generated about three dozen public comments via email that were completely against its approval, citing the history of ribbons on the bridge, approval of the messaging and potential impacts on other displays such as Christmas decorations should it be enacted. Other comments included two residents who were in favor of the resolution and removal, while others showed support for maintaining yellow but not blue ribbons — one public comment suggested putting the removal up to a vote of La Center citizens.

Thornton acknowledged the large opposition to the resolution, though he said the city had concerns should council not have an opportunity to address regulation of expression of speech on city property.

“This resolution is really to address the public forum,” Thornton said.

City attorney Bronson Potter said that traditional public forums such as parks and sidewalks had the strictest scrutiny on what could be regulated, usually something like direct threats or obscenity. He said that state and federal case law would back that the bridge railing was considered infrastructure and not a traditional public forum, however, though he believed it could fit into designated public forum criteria given past permission by the city for the display.

A designated public forum could be regulated by time, place and manner, Potter explained, but content regulation was still prohibited.

Regarding other displays such as Christmas lights or American flags, Potter believed the city itself could continue to put up such displays should the bridge be closed as a public forum, though he did not have an answer as to whether or not private groups would be able to at that time.



Councilor Elizabeth Cerveny was in support of the resolution, noting the potential for escalated demonstrations such as what has been seen elsewhere in the region and nation.

“My fear is if we turn a blind eye at the council level, we’re not really taking any protective measures for the community at-large,” Cerveny said. She said it was evident that La Center was supportive of the military and police, citing her own family’s five generations of service in some form of law enforcement.

“I think it’s just inevitable that one day certain ribbons or signs or whatever they are, they’re going to show up on the bridge,” Councilor Doug Boff commented. “If that were to happen tomorrow, what would we do?”

“The last thing I want to see is an anti-police … sign put on the bridge,” Boff added, noting he’s supported the current displays.

A staff report by city attorney Bronson Potter noted that if free speech was allowed on city-owned property, the city could not regulate the content of the speech, regardless of how offensive it may be.

“If the Nazi party puts up some sign that’s reprehensible, tough. You’re going to have to live with it, because any removal or regulation would be content or viewpoint-based,” Potter remarked. 

Potter said some cities have looked at enacting limited public forums, though he acknowledged those faced greater complexity than traditional or designated ones. 

The resolution almost passed due to a connection error. Councilor Tom Strobehn had lost his connection to the remote meeting just prior to the vote, leading to a 2-2 tie. In order to break the tie, Thornton as mayor stepped in, voting to approve the ordinance.

A few minutes later, Strobehn reconnected, after which council voted to reconsider the approval. Strobehn would end up voting “no” alongside councilors Jon Stimmel and Randy Williams. Councilors Cerveny and Boff voted for the resolution.

Though the resolution was defeated, council directed Potter to continue to look into limited public forums, and what private citizens or the city could place without needing a more broad forum designation.