Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges county official sought to 'censor' public speakers; cites federal remedy
Summary
A resident alleged a county official used email to mobilize opposition to a public speaker and said the conduct could rise to First Amendment retaliation actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; committee members did not take formal action on the allegation at the meeting.
A resident told the committee he believes a county official used the power of the office to suppress disfavored public comment and said that, if true, the conduct could be the basis for a civil rights lawsuit.
David Young told the committee that public records show that Mavis Bates used her county email to call others to action against a speaker whose comments she opposed. “FOIA records show that Mavis Bates made a call to action from her county board email simply because she disagreed with viewpoints shared by a person speaking during public comment,” Young said.
Young said those emails and a subsequent proclamation alleging “hate speech” amounted to First Amendment retaliation and described the three elements a plaintiff must show: protected expression, adverse action by a government official, and motivation by the protected speech. He asserted those elements had been met in this case and cited 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the civil remedy. Young also referenced a case he called Bennett v. Hendricks and said the plaintiffs in that case were initially awarded $3,600,000.
The committee did not announce any investigation or formal response during the meeting. Members asked questions and discussed FOIA and process issues generally but did not vote on any enforcement or disciplinary action in response to Young’s assertions.
