Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Events Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Red Lodge committee reviews draft public-events ordinance, debates picketing definition and permit limits
Summary
The Land Use & Planning committee reviewed proposed edits to the city's public events ordinance (Title 8), proposing a broader definition of "picketing," clarifying exemptions for user groups with MOUs, and preserving a strong presumption for spontaneous expressive activity while asking staff to clarify an unexpected "less than 10" picketer threshold found in the packet.
The Red Lodge Land Use & Planning committee on April 27 reviewed proposed changes to the city's public events ordinance (Title 8), focusing on how the city defines picketing, how groups holding memoranda of understanding (MOUs) are treated, and whether spontaneous expressive activity should require permits.
Chair opened the discussion by reading an intent statement that will appear in the draft: "It is the intent of the city of Red Lodge to encourage and allow the citizens freedom of speech and expression and has no intention of hindering that right or limiting the citizen in their ability to protest." Committee members discussed whether the ordinance's definition of "picketing" should remain narrowly associated with labor disputes or reflect broader demonstrations.
One provision in the packet drew particular attention: a line stating the definition applies when the number of picketers is "less than 10." Committee members said that clause appeared in the circulated packet without clear documentation of who added it. Chair said that line will be removed or clarified after staff (Dennis) explains the edit and that the committee will wait for staff's summary of packet changes before a final vote.
The draft would also exempt user groups that hold MOUs for recreational facilities from some permit requirements, but members questioned whether that language would effectively give MOU holders exclusive control over city property. "If someone has an MOU, specifically ... they would have to coordinate directly with the user group," the chair said in explaining the concern. Members suggested moving any coordination requirements out of the exemption section and into application or permit rules so that the city's permitting process—not private contracts—remains the default.
Committee members debated notice requirements for spontaneous expressive events. Under the draft, demonstrations involving solely expressive activity may occur on city property without a permit provided three conditions are met, including that the event take place on property not occupied by a permitted event and that a spokesperson should provide written notice and an estimated crowd size so the city can assess public-safety needs. One member suggested a minimum notice period (for example, three days) to allow planning; others said leaving the timing flexible better protects spontaneous First Amendment activity.
Public questions during the discussion illustrated practical concerns about exclusive use. A resident identified as Jesse asked, "So we're saying basically that you don't have to get the approval of the city to hold an event?" The chair replied the exemption is strictly for expressive activity such as political demonstrations and that exclusive use still requires a permit.
No ordinance vote was taken. Members asked staff to (1) provide a redline summary of the packet changes (the committee specifically requested clarification about the "less than 10" language), (2) revise wording about MOU coordination, and (3) return the item for further committee review before sending any ordinance to the full council.
