Who knew the City-County Liaison committee could be so interesting, and man, did this meeting make me miss Ben Masel! His input would have been really, really helpful. He really could have helped clear of some of the questions better than anyone I know. I suspect he would not have liked the outcome of the meeting and might have challenged it.
Supervisor Melissa Sargent, the county co-chair explains that this came up because of the signs in the windows at the City-County Building. She asked for it to be on the agenda to get clarifications in case they had questions from the media. Sargent is wondering what the staff experience was.
Sally Miley from the Mayor’s office says there was a complaint last week, they communicated with the city attorney, but the offices were county offices. She says she talked with the woman with the complaint and she said she would talk to the county. She says there were also some signs in the municipal building that day and they talked to the people and they took the signs down.
Sargent asked if the signs were political in nature?
Supervisor Paul Rusk asks if political in nature means they support the union or support so-and-so for office, or is there a distinction? Is there a difference? He also asks about interior or exterior wall, does that include the windows, he’s not trying to be difficult but when there was a flap on the TV, that was the distinction that was made. Is a sign showing solidarity with the union different? Are all the signs not supposed to be there or just some of them?
Supervisor Dennis O’Loughlin says that number 7 in the policy says no political activity, inside the building, hallways, lobbies, etc. That helps define that the literature should not be on the windows in the building. He’s not an attorney, but “etc” covers an awful lot, it gives us the power to say no. That is the intent of the author and it seems to include the windows.
Alder Mark Clear asks what constitutes political activity? He says everything that is done in the building is political of one kind or another, what they are doing now is political activity. He thinks support for candidates is where they draw the line.
Sargent says that some of the windows have flamingos and the backs of people’s pictures showing, this is our city-county building and it doesn’t looked polished when those things are in the windows. If they limit things int he windows, would that include plants? Where would they draw the line. The city bird is the flamingo, is that acceptable?
Alder Lauren Cnare asks if they are trying to make a decision or have people not put things in the windows.
O’Loughlin says both.
Alder Shiva Bidar-Sielaff says that she doesn’t like things on the walls and windows. As people put more and more on the walls and windows it looks tacky. As someone who works in a large institution, they have those kinds of rules in her workplace. They have a display area for posters about a bake sale or art sale. She doesn’t like the posters in the hallways by the elevators. She thinks that signs about meeting room changes seem appropriate. She says if they just limit signs, then they don’t have to worry about defining political nature.
Tim Saterfield, county board staff says that even if they fix the rule about hanging signs, they still have to deal with the issue that they can’t carry signs in the building. People ask if they can carry in a pencil and a piece of paper to make the sign. This is the rule they use to keep the signs out of the county board meeting.
Sargent says that they need to look at sections 7, 13 and 20.
(Later they talk about #6 as well, so here are the items)
6. Room Reservations: Requests for reserving rooms for non-governmental meetings shall be submitted in writing to the County Clerk’s Office for action by the Committee thirty (30) days in advance of the event. Requests for reserving rooms for governmental meetings are to be submitted to the County Clerk’s Office.
Download the Building Use Application Form
Room RulesNo partisan political activity
No news conferences concerning political activity
No smoking
No placards or signs shall be carried into the room7. No political activity or political news conferences are allowed inside the building proper, including hallways, entrance lobbies, etc. at any time.
13. No placards, signs or other devices shall be carried into the building or placed in any interior or exterior walls.
20. Nothing may be hung from the ceiling or on walls without permission from the Facilities Manager. Tack boards or bulletin boards will be installed upon request, if supplied.
Bidar-Sielaff makes a motion that they add in number 13 that can be carried in the building, but not placed in the building. In 20 she adds windows to the list of places something cannot be hung.
Clear asks what “other devices” are.
Cnare says it’s for holiday lights and the glowing Frosty the Snowman.
Clear says he is ok with those items being restricted.
Cnare says that they could say “signage or decorations”.
Bidar-Sielaff says that is friendly.
Rusk likes it because it doesn’t deal with the political nature of the restrictions.
Sargent says that is under number 7 and she is uncomfortable with that.
Bidar-Sielaff said she has the same concern. They point out again that what they are doing now is political.
The city representatives point out that what the county board does is political, the county board supervisors point out that what the city council does is political.
Clear says that they are prohibiting what happened in the capitol. The signs there were an important part of what happened there. Here they are restricting the potential for peaceful protests.
Someone points out that they already have done that and that they are not making significant changes.
Cnare points out that there is a distinction, she would not have gotten calls about a protest, but these were public employees. She wonders if it is different for citizens and employees. What if a citizen wants to hang a sign? She says the fact that it was employees is what was the objection.
Sargent says she was not able to vote for this because of what Cnare is saying. She believes they have the right of free speech, but not on city or county time. She says what they are offering is something she could accept, if they can’t do it while they are on the clock, but they can as a private citizen. She says if people don’t work in the building they should allow it.
Bidar-Sielaff asks if they could affix it to the walls?
Sargent says yes
Bidar-Sielaff says in 13 they can’t hang things on the walls and windows. She says she believe in the right to free speech, but they have to balance that with the need to clean up. (?????? really??????) She says they should have a separate number that says while on duty it is different than members of the public who can carry signs, but there is a strict prohibition in the chambers, but she questions that too.
Clear says they may be straying into work rules.
Bidar-Sielaff said something I didn’t hear.
Sargent suggests that they could distinguish between work areas and public rooms.
Bidar-Sielaff says they could allow it in public areas and hallways.
O’Loughlin says they need to take it to the next level, they need to be sure to think about the signs and adhering them to the walls. He disagreed with them hanging the signs at the capitol, he thinks taxpayer owns the building and they provide direction for our decisions and they invite them in, but when they comes to “our house” we have rules you have to live by and they are there to be fair to everyone. They are not prohibiting the use of the building, but saying there are rules, there will be no signs on windows or walls. Its not my building, its our building. He is worried about signs for peaceful protests because we would allow citizens but not employees. This is a special building owned by citizens and they can set the rules and not take anything away from people’s ability to express themselves. He is against the thought of allowing peaceful protests. Lets just be aware we are the governing body, we are the caretakers.
Cnare if people even know about the rules if they carry a sign through the lobby. If it is not rude or dangerous, even if it has a stick which she doesn’t think is dangerous, does it matter?
Sargent asks what if someone wears it on a t-shirt instead of a sign? Do we ask them to cover up?
O’Loughlin says that political paraphernalia is not allowed in the chambers.
Rusk says that the building is a polling place, so on election day we don’t was candidate signs, even if walking through the lobby.
Clear says that is covered by statutes already.
Bidar-Sielaff says it is more than election day, but for early voting as well.
O’Loughlin says that if someone comes in and is holding a sign that says “Fire the City Council” or “Fire the County Board” that is (IN?) appropriate. We can set the rules and still be fair.
Bidar-Sielaff says hard to have the discussion in this context, we have seen inappropriate responses and want to find a spot where we feel we don’t prohibit their rights, we want citizens to express opinion and engage in political activity. It they want to protest and be in hallway downstairs and if we (the council) said “no unions”, is there a permit process where we would be able to make exceptions. She can see how people might want to express their opinions, not in meeting rooms, but downstairs OK.
Clear says that maybe it could say no placards, signs or signage or decorations shall be affixed to or placed in exterior or interior walls, and can be carried except in meeting areas or in clerks office when voting, OK even in room before meeting convenes, but any other meeting would be a problem.
They discuss political activity and wearing buttons and distance from polling place.
Canre says we take the risk of an inappropriate sign, but that is who we are and what we do and she is OK with that.
Clear says have to put it away when the meeting starts. Clear says what about plan commission, are the boards signs or placards.
Clear now makes it a motion, Cnare seconds. Clear notes that he appreciates the courtesy second, because he doesn’t always get one.
Sargent says she is more comfortable with that.
Clear says it replaces 13.
Bidar-Sielaff asks if they are removing her motion, she withdraws it.
Sargent says that 13 is changed as read to them. It passes with only O’Laughlin voting no.
Bidar-Sielaff goes back to item 20 – she adds “and windows” to the language. No other discussion. It passes unanimously.
They go back to number 7, the definition of political activity.
Cnare says it says it should say partisan political activity – she suggests adding “partisan”.
Bidar-Sielaff says we are non-partisan.
Rusk says the same thing. We’re non-partisan, what you said about election is closer.
Sargent says campaign related political activity.
Cnare says “campaign-related”.
Bidar-Sielaff says no election related political activity, so if local 40 wants to have a press conference is that political activity? The committee says that is not campaign related.
O’Loughlin asks if the activity is about the capitol, he would say it is political.
Clear says campaign related is not broad enough then.
Saterfield says doesn’t know if he has anything to add, but another thought is to use the statuatory definition of “political”, that goes back 500 feet from polling place. (WRONG, its 100 feet) He can’t think of any requests from an outside group for a political press conference which this committee would have to approve. He says on the County Board side, there are frequent press conferences for advocating for a resolution promoting x y or z or even “my colleagues resolution stinks”. But he doesn’t think if people announce they are running it is done inside. They do that outside. If arguing against a proposal or calling on the mayor to put something in the budget is that political? He says 6 and 7 are somewhat different. Not sure who is governed by 7, but 6 to rent a room to have a press conference those are the rules they have to follow and they need a room reservation.
Rusk says that when they updated the ethics ordinance, they modeled it on what Tim just said, campaign-related activity outside fine, but not inside, He says that was very clear.
Saterfield says that is similar to the staff, can’t use the building as a prop, OK on exterior, not interior.
Bidar-Sielaff asks Rusk if OK if labor union holding press conference to say this should be taken up by council or state legislature.
Rusk says that is OK, she says then campaign event is the issue, if Sierra Club wants to have a press conference for or against whatever is going on, they can do that. Orf any of us can.
O’Laughlin says look at the dotted line connection, he doesn’t care what side you are on, if I watch that press conference on TV from Windsor and someone is advocating gin the building I would think the people in the building support this.
Clear says he doesn’t agree with that – all kinds of similar activities happen in the capitol, that doesn’t imply endorsement by governor or legislature. He says definition of campaign activity is broad enough, otherwise come to them for permission and they could make a judgment at that time, but perhaps it would be arbitrary.
Bidar-Sielaff says Sierra Club can have a press conference in support, as long as the campaign has nothing to do with it, they could advocate on plastic bag ban.
Cnare says it is clear when running for office, what about referendum item?
Clear says still a campaign.
Cnare says anything on the ballot? Cnare tried looking up the definition of politicial activity.
Saterfiled says to look in chapter 11 which is campaign finance.
Clear and Cnare can’t find a definition.
O’Laughlin asks if Sierra Club can have a press conference if the county board rejected 300 acre plat in Town of Oregon, the next day at 9am they can come inside the building and have a press conference against the workings of the county board?
Bidar-Sielaff says yes.
Clear says yes as long as they come to us to use the space.
Bidar-Sielaff says that argument for that, this is not a building to support the work of the city council or county board members, it is to allow the public to express their thoughts and for us to do ourwork, both by coming to meetings but also hold a press conference on that.
Sargent asks if mayor or county exec can hold a press conference.
Clear says that it could be the same topic.
O’Loughlin says that they are elected and they ahve the right to do that.
Clear says it is a part of a public building.
Sargent says it doesn’t seem to say people in the building can do it. She says it doesn’t talk about members of public vs employees.
Rusk says from a practical standpoint they meet so infrequently they won’t get it approved for the Sierra Club.
Clear says if it happens spontaneously , without permission, would someone call the police and have them hauled out? Clear adds in 6 they should replace partisan with campaign related, in 7 insert campaign related after “no” He makes that a motion, Cnare seconds – they add it to 6b as well. Passes unanimously
Rusk asks if there is a way to publicize the changes, can Travis Miron send out a memo, can city and county send out something saying they clarified the rules.
Mironr says they got voluntary compliance so far.
O’Laughlin asks about loitering and being here without an official purpose. He is concerned about the homeless people they let sleep here.
Clear notes there is a difference between tolerated and allowed.
Miron says if they cause a disturbance they are asked to leave, otherwise allowed.
Bidar-Sielaff asks if the new rules will be sent to all the employees – city and county.
Miron says the rules are on the website, so he’ll send a link. There is a way to send to city and county.
Sargent asks for them to also get updated rules.
Cnare asks if this is only for this building, not other facilities, if works on Emil st, they don’t have to pay attention?
Yees, this is only for this building.
She asks if there are rules for other buildings?
Clear says this committee only deals with this building.
And with that they wrap it up.
