The year 2002 will go down in history as a banner year for Tulsa City
government ignoring the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

First it was Mayor LaFortune declaring the 'official religion' for the
City of Tulsa and now the City Commission wants to get into the act by
preventing the citizens of the city from speaking before it.

[Begin quote of 1st Amendment]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[end quote of 1st Amendment]

[begin partial quote of 14th Amendment]

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[end partial quote of 14th Amendment]

The US Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the 14th Amendment
subjects state, county and municipal governments to all constraints
imposed upon federal government as specified by the US Constitution
and that US citizens enjoy the same rights before state, county and
municipal government as they do before the federal government.

Therefore any move by city government to 'limit' the ability of the
citizens "to  petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is
on its face unconstitutional.

Well, excepting in Oklahoma where Supreme Court rulings are considered
mere 'suggestions'...

Don't it make you so proud to be an Okie?

[Snipped from the Tulsa World]

City Council may limit who can speak
By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
7/3/2002
The City Council is considering a measure that would restrict public
comments for certain agenda items and allow the council to muzzle
disruptive speakers.

The proposal, spearheaded by Councilor Randi Miller, would amend the
council's Rules and Order of Business.

If it is approved, only people who are involved in an appeal to the
council, the appellant's representatives and city administrators would
be allowed to address the council.

On code enforcement and zoning appeal items, residents in the
neighborhood directly affected by the action and official neighborhood
association representatives also would be allowed to speak.

At present, any person who signs up properly to speak on such items
can address the council.

Councilor Tom Baker said he had a problem with "writing rules for the
actions of one person."

None of the councilors at Tuesday's committee meeting would name the
person or people who prompted the proposal.

James Alexander, however, said Tuesday that the proposed rule changes
were designed to stop him and his wife, Bernice, from addressing the
council.

The Alexanders regularly attend council meetings and often speak on
nearly every agenda item, including appeal issues that don't directly
affect their property or neighborhood.

Alexander said he and his wife were actively "involved in everything
in the entitlement area," where many code enforcement issues occur.

Most of the people don't know the (city) process, and we're going to
help them," he said.

The proposed measure also would permit the council chairman to force a
speaker to forfeit the remainder of his or her allotted time for
disruptive behavior or threatening language.

Bernice Alexander has, at times, been admonished for her language and
the manner in which she addresses the council.

The council changed its rules earlier this year to start the five-
minute clock when a person is called to speak. The amendment came
after several months in which Bernice Alexander took several minutes
to walk up to the speaker's stand.

P.J. Lassek, World staff writer, can be reached at 581-8382 or via
e-mail at pj.las...@tulsaworld.com.

Seems they are the only ones that really should be there.
Ivan
=========

Sounds like a good idea.
Ivan
========

Why should someone slow the process of the meeting by taking their own
sweet time to walk to the speaker's stand?
Ivan
=========

news:6n36iukfd4hcjmjialtdon7d9ipbba75ld@news.alt.net...

Heck, that's the way we do things around here.

--
**************************
Mercutio Jones
ICQ# 26667824 Wobbly # X354183
**************************

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 11:13:51 -0500, "Mercutio Jones"

And that's the way we've always done it.
The Okie Mantra(t) says it all:
"Anyone that doesn't like it should just move".

I don't see this as a violation of the 1st or 14 Amendments. You couldn't go up in a
court of law and start cussing out the judge. IMO, this is the same thing. If the
speaker shows respect and common courtesy, they can speak. Once they break the rule
and create a disruptive meeting, they should lose their time.
Really, this ruling doesn't change anything. Once they become disruptive, the City
Council [and any City Council in the nation] has the power to shut them up to
restore order.

--
jeff fisher

<snip>

The proposed rule and my point regarding it does not involve *only*
disruptive speakers.   It involves all speakers.

Have you ever been to a Tulsa City Council meeting?

If so attended a few years ago, you are likely aware that citizens
were able to 'sign up' before the meeting and address the commission
on any matter involving city government.    Then the rules were
changed to restrict the public to addressing the city commission only
on those items on the agenda and then only for five minutes.

Now evidently they wish to eliminate even that option.

Under this new 'rule' that process is eliminated.
Got a complaint about bad streets?
They don't want to hear it.
Got a complaint against the proposed city budget?
They don't want to hear it.
Got a complaint about the Mayor declaring Christianity the official
religion of  city government?
They don't want to hear it.

Wish to be heard regarding an item on the meeting agenda?
They don't want to hear it.

In other words, just stay home and let us 'represent you' and we don't
really want to hear you views.  Just trust us.  We know what's best
for you anyhow...

Now explain to me again how that doesn't violate the 1st Amendment.

And yeah, Bernice Alexander can be outspoken and possibly even
disruptive.

The issue of her spending so much time walking to the speakers stand
just might be because she's handicapped.  Old folks and even young
ones are like that sometimes.  Of course one would know that if ever
they had been to a city council meeting at which she spoke.

It's kind of nice to be able to just go up there and speak about something, even though
the audience is rather limited.But it's easy to see where this can make the meetings
terribly long, as they sometimes used to last 2-1/2 to 3 hours, and they're certainly
boring enough as it is.  That was the original reason for the time limit.
  Still, anybody can contact their city councilor outside of the meetings, or they can go
to the Tuesday committee meetings.   However, since the council meetings are primarily
for having the council vote on things, then probably the best thing they could do would
be to have *separate* public forums, perhaps once a month, specifically for people to
speak to city officials.  I know that they'd be sure to have at least two people speak.
;-)

On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 17:16:10 GMT, "Michael A. Clem"

<snip>

A reasonable time limit is certainly justifiable.
In a bigger context requiring the speaker to address only those issues
on the meeting agenda is also justifiable.
To me what is not justifiable is cutting off all public input on items
on the meeting agenda.

At least two, maybe more.

I kinda' like the idea of *separate* public forums, provided they were
freewheeling meetings in which the general public could raise those
issues of importance to them and with a reasonable time limit per
speaker.

You know, I used to bitch about Susan Savage...

Now that LaFortune is in office, I officially take back every mean thing I
ever said about her.

On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 19:29:34 GMT, "siouxdax" <sioux...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Yeah.

I suspect that before LaFortune's term(s) are over that we will see a
lot of people begging for Mayor Susie to come back.

Personally, I'd prefer to see Roger Rabbit(tm) make a come back...

In message <fj6hiukvaslq8kvavdh7t150t534tc4...@news.alt.net>, Uncle Jerry wrote:

Now, now, you have to let the up-and-coming political idiots have their turn in
office, too!

On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 21:22:28 GMT, Michael A. Clem <mc...@vigoris.net>
wrote:

<snip>

Well Mayor LaFortune has his 'moment of idiocy'.
That will serving as Tulsa County District Attorney.

When DNA testing revealed that Timothy Durham was *not* the guilty
party in the rape of a 12 year old girl, a crime for which Durham was
convicted and sentenced to in excess of 3,000 years LaFortune greeted
the revelation of Durham's innocence as follows:

"We have very strong, independent evidence of his guilt in the
eyewitness testimony of the young girl, as well as some hair evidence
of our own."

LaFortune indicated he wanted to subject Durham to a second trial,
inspire of over-whelming DNA evidence of his innocence.
In the end sanity prevailed when the FBI refused to conduct a second
set of DNA test as requested by LaFortune.

Evidently LaFortune figured if he kept testing long enough that the
DNA would mutate enough to convict an innocent man, a second time.