Council Rejects Use of City Hall Chambers for Televised Forum : Burbank: Officials fear that opening the room for a cable-TV candidates debate would set a precedent that extremist groups could later exploit.

After a heated debate on the merits and pitfalls of free speech, the Burbank City Council voted against allowing a forum for council candidates to be held at City Hall where it would have been broadcast live on the city-owned cable TV service.

The 3-2 vote came Tuesday night after the city employee unions requested permission to hold the forum in the council meeting room, where it would be broadcast live and also be taped for rebroadcast later. The unions sought to use the meeting room because it is set up to televise council meetings. They offered to defray the cost of taping the show in time for the Feb. 23 municipal election.

Opponents said that allowing the forum would set a precedent and might someday require Burbank to allow extremist groups such as Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan or Communists to use its cable facilities in the council chambers.

“Once you open the doors to one group, you would be forced to open it to everybody,” Mayor Robert Bowne said before the vote. “There are a lot of radical groups out there that would like to use this city to spout whatever kinds of radical anti-American ideas they have.”

City Atty. Joseph Fletcher told council members that if they began allowing some political groups to televise events in the chambers, the city could not later prohibit an extremist group from holding a candidates forum as well. Under previous court rulings, he said, municipalities cannot restrict political activities based on content but only in “the time, place and manner” of the event.

Fletcher cited several cities’ efforts to prevent Klan or Nazi rallies in public areas as a worst-case scenario that could happen in Burbank.

But he qualified his advice, adding, “If you decide that after a onetime use for this election that you won’t make it available anymore . . . I don’t think the courts will have a problem with that.”

Bowne joined council members Michael Hastings and Thomas Flavin in voting against the televised forum, while council members George Battey and Tim Murphy backed approval. No incumbent council member is on the February ballot because Flavin, Hastings and Murphy decided not to seek reelection.

Hastings said that it was not just political extremists he was worried about. He said such forums could give the appearance of nonpartisanship but often included slanted questions. If partisan groups were allowed to tape a show in the council chambers, some viewers might think the city was endorsing some candidates, he added.

“I don’t know if I want to be part of that kind of free speech,” Hastings said, citing a bad experience four years ago. “After living through it, it’s not as apple pie as it seems.”

Battey and Murphy called the argument against the televised forum overly cautious, saying it is unrealistic to fear that Nazis or Communists would try to make use of the Burbank City Hall.

“If the Nazi Party held a campaign forum here, who would show up?” Murphy said.

And the city could run a disclaimer across the bottom of the television screen, telling viewers the city was not endorsing any candidates, Battey said,

“I think it would be a pity if the PTA of this city wanted to hold a candidate forum . . . and we say you can’t,” Battey said.

Neil Hancock, president of the Burbank City Employees Assn., which along with the firefighters and police union sought to sponsor the event, said he was disappointed with the vote.

“I resent city employees characterized with Nazis or the KKK,” Hancock said. “We were going to ask all the same questions. It would be live. It would be a level playing field. It would be a community service.”