Workers Groups Outraged by Compton Speech Curbs

Following months of tumult and council-chamber shouting matches, Compton officials have issued their employees a set of free-speech restrictions that some warn will stifle expression and invite court challenges.

The guidelines, contained in a two-page memorandum titled “Limitations on Public Employee Freedom of Speech,” were drafted last month by Compton’s city attorney, signed by the city manager and delivered this week to municipal employees.

The memo warns that employees face discipline--including dismissal--for “disruptive” statements that “detract” from the business of running the city. It also recommends that employees consult lawyers before talking or writing about civic affairs.

“Not all statements which regard a matter of public concern are protected by the First Amendment,” the memo says. “ . . . The city is allowed to balance whether or not these statements impose an unreasonable negative impact on the efficient provision of public services.”

Employee groups branded the memo a “gag order.” Late Thursday, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees--which represents many of the city’s mid- and top-level managers--authorized its lawyers to file a lawsuit against Compton early next week.

“This policy is off the wall,” said Richard Silber, a Huntington Beach lawyer who represents an independent union serving office and technical employees. That union also will sue, he said.

The guidelines are “a preemptive strike that violates not only freedom of expression but also the employees’ rights as union members,” he said. “You cannot adopt a personnel policy without appropriate notice and bargaining.”

The speech guidelines follow months of rancor over the city’s decision to close down its police department and turn patrols over to the county sheriff.

A city spokesman said the curbs on employee utterances are necessary to prevent personnel problems and lawsuits. But legal scholars say the guidelines are so vague that they may actually invite lawsuits.

“There are basic problems with the document that would result in it being held unconstitutional if it was challenged in court,” says Karl Manheim, a professor of constitutional law at Loyola Law School.

In addition to the two unions planning lawsuits, lawyers for two other unions representing Compton employees expressed concern.

“We want to sit down with city management and find out what the heck is going on,” said Robert Hunt, general counsel of the Service Employees International Local 347.

In recent years, Compton has come under criticism for a lack of open government. Activists claim they have been denied access to city legislation and contracts. Basic promotional brochures, handed out eagerly in other cities, require a formal public records request, officials told a reporter last week.

Employees approached in and around city hall Thursday declined to discuss the guidelines, citing the guidelines themselves. Even longtime critics were wary.

Police Chief Hourie Taylor, who was put on paid leave last year, and Fire Battalion Chief James A. Murphy both have lambasted the city in lawsuits. But they said the guidelines prohibited comment.

Mayor Omar Bradley said the guidelines are necessary because employees, encouraged by activists and the media, have been leveling “unfair” criticism of the city.

The fact that The Times was able to obtain a copy of the speech guidelines was an “ironic” example of how difficult it is to control employee speech, he added.

Bradley said the speech restrictions will allow civic leaders to focus public dialogue on the city’s accomplishments.

“We are trying to move forward, and we are trying to protect this town from being sued,” the mayor said. “There are dirty people, people internally in this government who will say things in order to destroy it.”

Legal scholars from Southern California universities who reviewed the guidelines warned the city was setting itself up for a court defeat.

“It’s an advance chilling of free speech,” says Kenneth Karst, a constitutional law professor at UCLA. “It’s an unusual document that sets out to prevent employees from talking before they actually talk.”

The scholars said the policy gives too much power to city officials to regulate employees’ speech, and the prohibition on the airing of “personal grievances” may violate union rights.

“Promulgating this policy could be an unfair labor practice,” said Catherine Fisk, a labor expert at Loyola Law School.

The academics say they were taken aback by the tone of the written guidelines. “I don’t know what the city is trying to gain here,” said Manheim. “This is an indication of a siege mentality.”