Rose Lynne-Inspired Proposal Would Limit Speech Before Council

The topic sounds innocuous enough as listed on today’s agenda of the San Diego City Council Rules Committee: “Proposed changes to the permanent rules of Council.”

City Hall gadfly and perennial mayoral candidate Rose Lynne, however, has a catchier way of describing the subject at hand: “Deadwood and the Bubblehead are teaming up to try to gag me.”

Within that semantic chasm lies a dispute that both sides agree could redefine the constitutional right of free speech and citizens’ access to their public officials.

In a debate over what City Hall insiders refer to as the “Rose Lynne bill,” the council’s Rules Committee is scheduled to review a proposal today that would limit an individual’s appearances before the council or its committees to 100 times per year.

Inspired by Lynne

Inspired primarily by Lynne’s frequent and oftentimes rambling speeches to the council on “ombudscience”--which she defines as the “study of how and why people resist new ideas”--the measure is designed, advocates say, to prevent the workings of government from being unduly slowed by people--specifically Rose Lynne--who abuse the council’s public comment procedures by speaking on multiple topics at most meetings.

But some lawyers, constitutional law professors and others warn that the plan raises troubling legal questions with ramifications that extend far beyond attempts to stifle Lynne, whose ubiquity at council meetings over the past five years has come to be viewed by many city officials as an increasingly irritating nuisance that adds little other than occasional comic relief to the proceedings.

“This is ludicrous--it’s one of the most asinine things I’ve heard of,” said University of San Diego law professor Robert Simmons. “Whether some people think Rose Lynne is flaky or a bother to the council isn’t the point. To put a numerical limit on the number of times that any citizen can speak to the government strikes me as an unenforceable and undesirable infringement of free speech.”

The annual limit on appearances before the council was proposed by City Manager John Lockwood, whom the 73-year-old Lynne, a former teacher, calls “Deadwood” because he refuses to speak to her. Like others in City Hall, Lockwood’s patience has dissipated over the years as, week after week, he has watched Lynne file requests to speak on various agenda items, then proceed to berate the council and city administrators for refusing to take her two-hour “community genius training course” that she claims could “save millions of lives and billions of dollars.”

‘We Lose Several Hours’

“Without some reasonable method like this, the council and the city end up wasting a lot of time . . . with Rose or other gadflies,” Lockwood said. “If someone speaks 10 minutes at every meeting, it’s not just that 10 minutes you’re losing. Because when you multiply that by nine council members and a manager and staff, we collectively lose several hours every time that happens.”

From Lynne’s perspective, the other chief villain in what she views as a joint assault on her and the First Amendment is Mayor Maureen O’Connor, whose attempts to keep council meetings proceeding on schedule often force her to curtail Lynne’s remarks, sometimes by turning off the public microphone when she refuses to quietly take her seat after her three-minute limit per topic is reached. As a result of those and other run-ins with the major, Lynne often derisively dismisses O’Connor as “Bubblehead,” even in her public remarks.

“This time, Deadwood and the Bubblehead have gone too far,” Lynne said. “They’re conspiring to violate my constitutional rights. You don’t have to be on the Supreme Court to see that. The whole country will be laughing at San Diego if they try to go ahead with this.”

Although some skeptics of Lockwood’s plan are admittedly a bit skittish about aligning themselves with Rose Lynne, they find themselves agreeing with her on the basic philosophical question posed by the 100-appearances-per-year proposal.

‘Getting Paid to Listen’

“I think it’s offensive and unconstitutional,” said John Murphy, president of the San Diego affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. “After all, these people are getting paid to listen. What’s their problem? . . . This may be one of the irritants of a free society. But if we didn’t have the irritants, we wouldn’t have the freedoms.”

Similarly, Alex Landon, head of Community Defenders Inc., expressed concern that the measure “could chill the ability of citizens to communicate with their government.”

Lawyers in the city attorney’s office, however, have advised the council that they believe the proposal is legally sound, and argue that such a rule is needed to prevent the council from continually wasting its time and energy on extraneous testimony from the likes of Rose Lynne.

“The Constitution doesn’t say that anyone has an unfettered right to speak before his local legislative body,” said Assistant City Atty. Curtis Fitzpatrick.

‘We Think It’s Valid’

Noting that citizens cannot testify before the Legislature or Congress unless specifically invited to do so, Fitzpatrick added: “It’s difficult to see how giving someone 100 opportunities a year to speak to the council could be construed as unreasonable. What we’re saying is, as a matter of law, we think it’s valid. As a matter of policy, that’s the council’s concern.”

Concurring with that opinion, Michael Parrish, a history professor at UC San Diego, likened the proposal to the limits on speaking time and topics that typically govern legislative debates.

“Courts have generally granted broad flexibility to legislative bodies to set their own rules of debate, so long as they don’t shock the conscience,” Parrish said. “I think this idea might stand up under that reasonableness test. Also, this doesn’t prevent (Lynne) or anyone else from making her views known to the council through other means, such as letters. I suspect this could pass muster.”

Lockwood also has a ready response and challenge to those who question the legality or propriety of his proposal.

Subjective Figure

“If any of these law professors had someone who wanted to come in every day and take up three minutes of a 50-minute class, I think they’d probably say that’s an infringement of the class’ time, and I bet they’d do that long before you ever got up to 100 times,” Lockwood said. “So I’d like to meet the rational person who argues that 100 times a year is unreasonable.”

Fitzpatrick admitted that the 100-appearance figure is a subjective one that was selected in an effort to balance concerns over public access to the council with the desire to keep the city’s business flowing smoothly, unimpeded by speakers who become as much a fixture at the council meetings as the council members themselves.

With roughly 200 annual meetings of the full council or its committees, the proposal, if adopted, would enable individuals to speak at only about half of those sessions. Lynne is the only person who clearly would be affected by such a restriction, though a handful of land-use lawyers and lobbyists who frequently address the council conceivably also might have to more carefully manage their appearances.

“If the manager had suggested that the limit be 25, I’d have said, ‘No way,’ ” Fitzpatrick said. “With 75, I might have said, ‘Time out.’ But 100 sounds about right. But I guess whether the number is reasonable is in the eye of the beholder.”

Doubts Voiced

While sharing Lockwood’s frustration over Rose Lynne’s antics, some council members expressed doubts about his proposed solution.

“I think our democracy is strong enough to survive someone testifying whenever he or she wants to,” said Councilman Bob Filner, laughing as he pointed out that he defends Lynne’s right to unlimited appearances before the council even though she often criticizes him as “strictly linear.”

Before his former service on the city school board, Filner noted, he frequently testified at board meetings. “I’d have been pretty upset if someone told me I couldn’t do that,” he added.

If the council were to adopt Lockwood’s proposal, some logistical details would need to be worked out, such as who would keep track of an individual’s speaking appearances before the council. Law professor Simmons, for example, half-jokingly questioned whether the city would have to hire a “scorekeeper” and whether offenders would be “gonged into submission” upon reaching the 100-speech limit.

That particular problem, however, could have an easy solution.

“Don’t worry--I’ll keep track,” Lockwood promised.