Legality Concern Raised : More Study Ordered on Speech Limit Plan

Supportive of a plan to limit public appearances before the San Diego City Council but concerned about its legality, a council committee Wednesday asked city attorneys to study the proposal further.

By a unanimous vote, the Rules Committee directed the city attorney’s office to conduct another round of research on the legality of City Manager John Lockwood’s proposal to limit an individual’s appearances before the council or its committees to 100 times per year.

Lawyers in the city attorney’s office have already advised the council that they believe the plan is legally sound. But some lawyers and constitutional law professors disagree, prompting the committee to ask city attorneys to search for legal precedents that could be used to justify the proposed restriction on public speeches at City Hall.

The limitation is needed, Lockwood told the rules panel Wednesday, to prevent the council from wasting its time and energy on extraneous testimony from people who abuse the council’s public comment procedures by speaking on multiple topics at most meetings. Lockwood admits that his proposal is aimed primarily at limiting the public appearances of City Hall gadfly and perennial mayoral candidate Rose Lynne, a 73-year-old former teacher who frequently addresses the council.

“It’s necessary to establish some reasonable rules . . . so that no one or two people dominate council meetings,” Lockwood said.

Charging that the plan “slanders me and violates free speech” guarantees, Lynne interrupted Wednesday’s meetings on several occasions, producing an angry response from Councilman Ron Roberts.

“It doesn’t allow you to interrupt this meeting anytime you feel like jumping out of your chair,” Roberts said. Then, turning toward the audience, Roberts added: “I think you’re getting an illustration of the reason why we’re having this discussion.”

Of the four council members present Wednesday, only Councilwoman Judy McCarty expressed reservations about the proposal. Several of her colleagues praised the plan’s intent but voiced concern about the questions that have been raised over its legality. Some lawyers, for example, have warned that the proposal raises troubling legal questions touching on free speech and citizens’ access to their public officials.

“I think your logic is flawless,” Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer told Lockwood. “I guess my question is, even though it’s logical, is it legal?”

The city attorney’s office is scheduled to report back to the council committee in several weeks.