07.30.08
Greg Windham Asked To Leave Podium At Commissioners Court Meeting Yesterday – UPDATED
It appears that Greg Windham, Democratic candidate for County Commissioner Precinct 3, is getting under the skin of the GOP Commissioners Court. So much so that County Judge Dan Gattis, Sr., interrupted him while he was speaking and asked him to leave the Commissioners Court meeting podium on Tuesday, (See clarification by Greg Windham in Comments). Going so far as to threaten him with contempt.
On his blog Windham states he was told there was “to be no political ‘campaigning’ during citizens comments” and was threatened with contempt if he did not leave. Reading over the WCCC’s Rules of Procedure, Conduct & Decorum, political campaigning is not specifically mentioned as being against the rules. Here’s what it say Section IV:
E. It is not the intention of the Williamson County Commissioners Court to provide a public forum for the demeaning of any individual or group. Neither is it the intention of the Court to allow a member (or members) of the public to insult the honesty and/or integrity of the Court, as a body, or any member or members of the Court, individually or collectively. Accordingly, profane, insulting or threatening language directed toward the Court and/or any person in the Court’s presence and/or racial, ethnic or gender slurs or epithets will not be tolerated.
It would appear that these vague rules have been interpreted to include a commissioners opponent speaking at court meetings. And, of course, how these “new” rules would be interpreted was a concern from the beginning. From yesterday’s actions it’s pretty clear that the commissioners no longer want to allow Greg Windham to speak at their meetings, and they’ll use their rules to make sure he doesn’t. Here’s what he would have said had our elected officials allowed him to exercise is First Amendment Right.
gregry17 said,
July 30, 2008 at 10:08 am
Thanks WC…I want to clear up a point. I was not asked to leave the Court, just the podium. If I misstated that at some point, sorry. In his mind, I think Judge Gattis was protecting the integrity of the court. I was wearing a lapel sticker and had many supporters in the audience. Judge Gattis interrupted my comments, verified I would be held in contempt if I spoke anymore concerning the upcoming election. I think one of my supporters that alerted you and the Eye may have interpreted Judge Gattis’ action as a request to leave,,,,and maybe he did ask me to leave. I did leave. Clicking my boot heels all the way out.
FedUp said,
July 30, 2008 at 11:03 am
Even if Windham was “not asked to leave”, he was told he would be in contempt if he did speak! As pointed out by EOW, the rules do not specifically mention a thing about political campaigning.
I viewed the video, and I did not hear any “VOTE FOR ME”. Instead it is about the issues that we citizens in Williamson County have and are facing. A lot of what is mention is on issues that have now come to light thanks to those who attend these Royal Court meetings and are willing to fight for us.
I’m afraid to say with this little trick out of the WCCC’s bag or should I say gag of tricks, it’s only the beginning for those running against them.
wcnews said,
July 30, 2008 at 11:37 am
Thanks for the clarification Greg.
wilcowatcher said,
July 30, 2008 at 1:41 pm
From http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/personal/topic.aspx?topic=speaking_meetings
“Many government meetings are open to the public and reserve a “public comment†time for citizen commentary on issues. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals explained in its 1990 decision White v. City of Norwalk: “Citizens have an enormous First Amendment interest in directing speech about public issues to those who govern their city.†These meetings, particularly the “public comment†period, are at the very least a limited public forum during which free-speech rights receive heightened protection.”
…
“Unfortunately, many situations arise in which citizens are silenced because of the content of their speech or because they have disagreed previously with a government official. This raises the specter of censorship. Government officials may not silence speech because it criticizes them. They may not open a “public comment†period up to other topics and then carefully pick and choose which topics they want to hear. They may not even silence someone because they consider him a gadfly or a troublemaker.”
…
“Other issues
Courts have also been wary of laws, rules or regulations that prohibit criticism or personal attacks against government officials. A federal district court in California invalidated a school district bylaw that prohibited people at school board meetings from criticizing school district employees. In Leventhal v. Vista Unified School District (1997), the court wrote: “It seems clear that the Bylaw’s prohibition on criticism of District employees is a content-based regulation. … It is equally clear that the District’s concerns and interests in proscribing public commentary cannot outweigh the public’s fundamental right to engage in robust public discourse on school issues.â€
Similarly, a federal district court in Virginia struck down a school board bylaw that prohibited personal attacks during public comments at meetings. (See Bach v. School Board of the City of Virginia Beach, 2001.)”
—
Accountability is indeed coming…
remerson said,
July 30, 2008 at 2:49 pm
There are actually two gross abuses of power at work in this exchange;
1. Gattis is an administrative officer, not a jucidical one. He has no authority to cite anyone for contempt. WCCC is not a judicial body, unlike other commissioner courts in smaller counties. And he has been enlightened of this fact but, in keeping with his reaction to many facts presented to him, he chooses to ignore it.
2. The previous post provides great history and law on the gag rule WCCC retains, counter the basic First Amendment guarantees. Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) even cautions against such restrictions, citing First Amendment. Gattis has taken the training in the TOMA, but continues to do it his way.
It is wondrous that WCCC has gotten away with it this long. Now with some opposition, perhaps we can begin to clean up this outrageous abuse of power.
doctorj said,
August 4, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I’d like to see a strong show of support at all these meetings from now till Nov….We should all arrive with a prepared comment that exceeds the time limit, and all get up and speak. Let’s show these Bullies that we’re not afraid. We’ll make them wish they had never interrupted Mr. Windham, as we hold up their business all morning long.
Every Tuesday at Gtown Courthouse 9:30am. I personally could ramble on about equality for as long as they’ll let me.
wcnews said,
August 4, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I would recommend not being too combative. It’s obvious now that they’re looking for any reason to limit GW’s speaking time at the WCCC meetings. Trying to turn WCCC meetings into a circus will only allow them to stop public comment all together. And if it turns into GW speaking 20 or 30 seconds and then being threatened if he doesn’t leave the podium, that’s not very effective.
I understand that some form of protest/tactic needs to be tried. But I think it would be much more effective to work within their rules to take them on, for now. Beat them at their own game.
doctorj said,
August 4, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I agree. But I do think that people should attend these meetings like never before. Even if it means taking the morning off from work at least once before the election.
I think most moderates would be floored by the rhetoric at these meetings???
wcnews said,
August 4, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I’m with you on that 100%. Not only the moderates, all citizens of WC would be floored by what goes on there. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and government in the dark is bad for everyone.
I’d like to see the WCCC meetings streamed over the internet w/the video archives available online. That would be open government.
doctorj said,
August 4, 2008 at 5:03 pm
You’ll have to excuse me being combative. I guess 8 years of living in a Bush/Cheney America, especially Texas, has made me that way. Not being combative has been one of the rights’ constant complaints of our party. They are critical of our peaceful approach. Maybe it’s time to come out swinging.?
wcnews said,
August 4, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I’m not saying don’t be combative. I’m saying it’s pointless to be combative in the CC meetings. They run the show there right now and it would be better to fight on your turf.
But it’s only my opinion. If that’s the strategy you want to apply go for it.