One aspect of the aftermath of the shootings in the Kirkwood, Missouri Council Chambers is that it has reminded city officials everywhere to review their processes and procedures for managing unhappy citizens, thinly veiled threats, overt threats, citizen input at Council meetings and safety & security of public meetings - among many things. We have reviewed our policies and procedures here in Eden Prairie. While it is difficult to predict this kind of tragic event, I believe we have put in place reasonable safety and security measures that does not eliminate an open dialog between citizens and their elected officials at our public meetings.
Earlier this week, city officials in Minnesota received the following advice from League of Minnesota Cities executive director Mr. Jim Miller. We will be reviewing Mr. Miller’s advice on this matter with our City Council at the March 4 Council meeting. Here’s what he had to say:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
February 13, 2008
To: LMC Members
From : Jim Miller, Executive Director
Last week’s tragedy in Kirkwood, Missouri, reminds us that at times our public service as mayors, council members and administrative staff can take on serious overtones. Fortunately, such tragedies are rare. It is, however, advisable for city officials to consider their own options for dealing with the rare constituent who may cross the line from expressing democratic views-to actual disruptive, threatening and potentially physically violent behavior. Rachel Carlson, one of our LMC research attorneys who has advised member cities in this matter, offers the following:
Disruptive or Threatening Behavior at Public Meetings
A city council is authorized to preserve order at its meetings. The mayor, as the presiding officer, is also vested with some authority to prevent disturbances.
While council meetings must be open to the public under the Open Meeting Law, no individual who is noisy or unruly has a right to remain in the council chambers. When the council decides that a disorderly person should not remain in the meeting hall, law enforcement officers may be called to execute the orders of the presiding officer or the council. In addition, the disruptive individual may be charged with the crime of disorderly conduct.
Perhaps the most effective way to prevent or mitigate disturbances or disruptive behavior is to plan for citizen commentary, by providing a public comment period and exclusively limiting comments to this period. Additionally, many cities find it helpful to impose time limits on individual speakers. A number of cities have adopted written meeting rules governing the public comment period. Failure to follow the rules can be grounds for removing an individual from the council chambers.
If the city anticipates that an upcoming issue is particularly contentious, the city should discuss ahead of time its procedures for dealing with disruptive behavior. In particular, the city may wish to have law enforcement on hand or standing by. The city may also wish to consider in advance its procedures for recessing or adjourning a meeting if the meeting becomes too disruptive for public business to occur.
These issues and more tips for public meetings can be found in the LMC Governing & Managing Information Memo “Meetings of City Councils” available at http://www.lmnc.org/pdfs/LMCResearchMemos/Meetings_of_City_Councils.pdf on the LMC web site.
Disruptive or Threatening Behavior at City Hall or Worksites
Many city officials maintain office hours and encourage constituents to approach them with concerns. Additionally, city staff may have frequent, regular interactions with the public while at the front desk of city hall, or-as in the case of the public works employee-as they go about their day fixing streets or maintaining city property. In these situations, it is also possible to encounter the constituent who crosses the line from voicing his or her concerns to more troubling behavior.
Dealing with these types of situations can be even more problematic (and potentially frightening) than behavior that occurs at a public meeting. Often city officials and staff are scrupulous about allowing their constituents to exercise their free speech rights. They are deeply concerned that citizens be afforded an opportunity to speak and be heard, and often simply try to overlook abusive behavior.
However, free speech rights do not justify harassing, threatening, abusive or noisy conduct.
When confronted by a constituent who is acting inappropriately, cities have options available to them. Cities should discuss with their individual officials and staff any safety concerns they may have. Those concerns may easily be mitigated by making sure more than one person (or law enforcement officer) is present when the constituent interacts with city staff or officials. If this is not practically possible (for example, a small office where normally only one person is working on site), it may be necessary to require the constituent to set appointment times, so that additional staff may be on hand during those times. If the constituent will not comply with appointment times, he or she should be asked to leave.
In more extreme instances, the constituent can be charged with the criminal offense of disorderly conduct. Under the Minnesota criminal code it is a crime to “. . . in a public or private place . . . alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of peace . . . [through] fighting . . . or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger or resentment by others.”
In the alternative, individual officials or city staff may pursue a civil restraining order against the constituent. Restraining orders are available after a single incident of physical assault or after repeated incidents of “intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect . . . on the safety, security and privacy of another.” A restraining order may prevent the harasser from visiting city worksites or attending public meetings where the city staff or official may be present.
In most instances, the city official or staff will need to individually petition the courts for the order. Once a restraining order has been granted, local law enforcement officers are able to arrest, without a warrant, any person that they reasonably believe is violating a restraining order. Violation of the order itself becomes a crime with significant criminal penalties.
If you have any questions about how to safely deal with potentially threatening constituent behavior, please feel free to contact our LMC Research Services by phone at (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 or through our online inquiry form at http://www.lmnc.org/researchanalysis/question.cfm.
