After the meeting, individual Members of Council took the time to talk to me about the matter. I deeply appreciate that. None of the Members of Council were aware of the events I described, which surprised me.
Also, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am a participant in the Occupy movement, and am deeply sympathetic to those persons in that movement who are unjustly prosecuted, whether that injustice occurs here in Whatcom County or anywhere else.
I remember the "mic check" event this Council was subject to, on February 28th. I was there.
I didn't participate in the event, because I know most of you personally, and I knew you would have taken great personal offense if I had participated.
But my decision not to participate was not based on the possibility that I might be criminally prosecuted if I did.
The person who led the February 28th "mic check" is now being prosecuted for the crime of "disorderly conduct with intent to incite violence."
You could have knocked me over with a feather when I discovered this. It has taken me several weeks to reconcile this, and I've kept quiet about the matter... until now.
Minutes before the February 28th Council meeting was called to order, I was handed a copy of the text to be read at the "mic check". The language I read, and the language I heard, didn't strike me as language intended to incite violence. It may have been strident, and critical. But it wasn't a call for violence.
Over the years, I have seen people be disruptive in this chamber. I haven't seen it very often, but I have seen it.
I recall one meeting where the Chair, then Seth Fleetwood, appealed to a particularly strident and particularly animated group of citizens that their conduct could have a chilling effect on those other citizens who were giving public comment.
The reply from one member of that crowd was, and I quote, "we're here to have a chilling effect on you." I don't recall if they succeeded in having this desired effect, I do recall that they tried.
What I also don't recall was any effort to criminally prosecute anyone for that blatant and intentional attempt at intimidation.
One person in the gallery on February 28th was being disruptive by physically interfering with another citizen's attempt to document the "mic check". I saw that citizen very nearly slap an iPad out of someone else's hands. That citizen's disruptive actions were not brought to the attention of the County Prosecutor. Instead, the Council appointed that person to the Lummi Island Ferry Advisory Committee a few months later.
A citizen could be forgiven for now believing that there are two standards of conduct for citizens attending Council meetings. For a citizen who holds political views in keeping with a plurality on Council... for a citizen who is well-coined and willing to cut checks during an election cycle... some disruptive conduct will be tolerated... because it has been tolerated. Repeatedly. I've seen it.
Anyone else who is disruptive may be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The prosecution of some persons' conduct on February 28th... and the conspicuous lack of prosecution of other persons' conduct during that very same incident... sends a chilling message to the public at large.
Shame on the County Prosecutor for this excessive reaction.
And I urge the Council to be informed by this incident should you ever feel the need to draw the County Prosecutor's attention to a conflict in the future.
:-) thank you...feet to the fire.
ReplyDeleteI've been at a lot of lively county council meetings over the years. I was sitting right behind 'mic check guy' in February. It was annoying, but at no time was it threatening.
ReplyDeleteWe don't prosecute people for being annoying. The County Council should look back at how well it played out for the City Council 10 years or so ago when they prosecuted a group of citizens for wrapping yarn and bike locks around themselves at a council meeting.
I would be very interested to learn of the CC's response to your information. Will they have the courage to tell the prosecuter to back off? It sounds to me as though a frivolous case such as this could easily be thrown out of court.
ReplyDeleteMcEachran needs to justify his failure to charge Greg Brown, who actually was violent, and yes, I personally witnessed this.
ReplyDeleteSeveral Council members wanted to permanently ban those who participated in the mic chek from attending any more Council meetings. It must have been very scary to have members of the public who cared about more than their property rights and profits regularly attending Council meetings and speaking out.
I personally think that the actual exercise of First Amendment rights, even when boisterous, is generally less scary than the threat of exercising Second Amendment rights. A Tea Party member who had made a gun threat once attended a Planning Commission meeting, and we didn't prosecute anybody. The sheriff's office had asked me what I thought before the meeting; I said that I thought that she was emotional and overwrought; he said "thank you, ma'am" and sent a couple of officers to the meeting. It was not fun to be on that podium that night, but everybody was fine. Democracy is messy.
ReplyDeleteThe following comment has also been posted on the Herald's Politics Blog @
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/politics/politics/roth-charging-of-occupy-protester-shows-double-standard-for-citizen-conduct-at-council-meetings/#comments
It’s a shame the prosecutorial sideshow has overshadowed the headliner message. And it’s a shame that Council appears neither willing nor able to learn from this teachable moment.
It takes courage to speak truth to power. Did this group actually threaten Sam Crawford or any other Councilmember? Or did they simply participate in the public process in a unique way?
More importantly, does their message convey truth?
Is it despicable, irresponsible, unethical, and a total betrayal of the public trust for Council to make decisions affecting the welfare and well-being of the community without first hearing the community’s concerns?
Do Council’s changes to the public comment process raise questions about Council’s interests and loyalties?
Shouldn’t Council be held to an ethical standard?
These are questions Council should be required to answer. They should also ask themselves:
Why would Daniel Lee Young and his cohorts risk being prosecuted to convey this important message?
Where has Council failed? (Or has Council determined themselves infallible?)
Is Council capable of learning from this teachable moment?
Well said, Shane.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you brought this to everyone's attention. The meeting Jean talked about was quite scary to me. Staff would not sit with their backs to the audience and my cell phone was set to call 911.
ReplyDeleteIn another situation, I received threatening emails. I forwarded them to the Prosecutor who told me to chill. These were real threats. The mic check sounds like it was nothing of the sort I experienced and the Prosector dismissed.
It is time that the Council gets off their pedestal and get real -- with all viewpoints.