Below is an email from my inbox this morning from Stanley Stahl titled "Why WE MUST ELECT NEW POO COMMISSIONERS." It details efforts by activists to show a movie during the public comment period of the port commission meeting.
Scroll down for the original movie and a video reaction to the commission's strange reaction. I wish I had seen this before I'd voted.
I have taken this opportunity to go through my email contacts in an effort to stump for the replacement of the two existing port commissioners who are up for election this year. In light of the most recent moves by the Port of Olympia to accelerate it's expansion into Maytown, Tumwater and the peninsula at Olympia, without proper Environmental Impact Statements recognizing and mitigating major impacts, this assault will impose a major hardship on our respective communities -
A four part series of video shorts has been produced about the port commissioners refusal to allow a visual aid to accompany three citizen's public comments regarding the proposed South Sound Logistics Center (a partnership of the Port of Olympia and the Port of Tacoma), violating our first amendment rights. Here is a summary of that series -
At the regularly scheduled port of Olympia Commissioners' Meeting on September 24th, three citizens asked to run a video clip on the Port's TV screen while they delivered their oral comments from the lectern. After much hemming and hawing all around the central question, the Commissioners decided that they would not allow anything to be shown in public without their first viewing it privately to make sure it was OK. Given that public testimony at the lectern had never before been subjected to this requirement, the three citizens considered this a denial of their right to free speech and declined to accept the requirement of having their material pre-screened as a condition to presentation.
Commissioner Bill McGregor was afraid that "...somebody wanting to put a CD up there and then narrate what's being shown in some respects could open a Pandora's box of what's on it." Commissioner Bob VanSchoorl told us, "The purpose of public comment is for somebody to stand up at the microphone and make some comments on items, uh. It's a slippery slope when we all of a sudden open ourselves up to a broad range of multi-media presentations ..." What are the Commissioners afraid of? Other government jurisdictions do it. Perhaps they have less reason to be afraid of their constituents.
Again on October 8th, three citizens renewed their request to use the same presentation equipment available to the port staff, other public officials and a continuous parade of people representing groups with private business interests. Again they were denied, "It is inappropriate to think that the public is in the same category as port staff or anyone else that the port may place on a meeting agenda to present or discuss matters relating to specific port business under consideration or review at the time." The Commissioners apparently forgot that the public is indeed always on the agenda under the item PUBLIC COMMENTS and in this instance had not asked for anything beyond their standard 3 minutes per person allotment of time.
On October 22nd, two citizens once again asked for respect and given the same access to the same tools of expression as all others appearing before the port commission.
Following is a link to a 7 1/2 minute embellishment of the first video clip that so concerned the commissioners that they were afraid to air it without prior approval and instead opted to violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The 9 minute sequel is the comical effort of the port commission to censor this video and prevent its showing to the public at a port meeting.
Hope you will click on the above links to see the latest effort to save rare prairie land in Thurston County from "development" by the two ports, and the subsequent censorship of citizen's objections to locating the logistics center where it is proposed to go.
Soon to come, the October 8 and October 22 port commissioners meetings are the follow up sequels to these two shorts.
Comments
show up with tctv
Emmett Your rush to judgment
Thank you,
I'm known for my world class
I'm known for my world class rush to judgement ;) The key is stretching.
Either way, I was just passing on something that was sent to me, all I was saying is that I'd wish I'd seen this before I'd voted. Had I, I would've voted against McGregor. His comments in the second video about the risks of showing movies during public comment periods was weird. I had already voted against Van Schoorl.
You're contention that the port or the port chair would be in trouble with the PDC had there been a blantant political message in the video is troubling. In a short visit to the PDC website I couldn't find anything regarding behavoir during public comment periods. I'm wondering if Telford wouldn't have gotten in trouble had anyone said "vote for this guy" verbally instead.
Splitting hairs between a longer verbal public comment vs. a movie seems silly.
I've seen multi-media used
I've seen multi-media used during public comments in Olympia. Even if it wasn't allowed, the commissioners should have invited the group to present it during business time, though perhaps at another meeting. It was very clear here that the commissioners were not too interested in getting anything beyond a token of public input. I think the public deserves better.
The Canaanite's Call
Emmet, Call the PDC and ask
If I understand your logic,
If I understand your logic, (and I don't doubt your statement regarding the PDC), then why wouldn't the chair of a local board or commission ask for a preview of any spoken testimony at the mic?
I'm not getting the difference here between what is spoken in public comment and what is shown by way of video.