Two policy issues worth attention

Mental Subtitle: "The Eternal Quest to Get Worcester To Abide by Civil Rights Cases Already Decided"

Two issues related to fairly recent court decisions were discussed this week in relation to Worcester, and I do just want to flag them (pun, as you'll see, intended) for those perhaps not familiar. 
As always, I am not a lawyer.*

There was a chat stemming for Tuesday's Council meeting on a comment Mayor Petty made to a speaker during public comment about the limits put on public comment. T&G reporter Marco Cartolano tweeted this:

Homeless speaker reads a letter with an expletive directed at Colorio. Petty said it's their last time being allowed to speak

— Marco Cartolano (@marco_cartolano) January 9, 2024

Now I wasn't there on Tuesday, so it's entirely possible that the Mayor, acting here as chair, was responding to something else. It appears as though this is responding to what Councilor Colorio was called, however, and that's what the online discussion was about. 

There is a common conception that public comment in meetings must be civil and respectful. Many public boards have had public comment policies that have outlined this.

In March of last year, however, the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts found for the plaintiffs in a case stemming from just this question in the Town of Southborough. The case is Barron v. Kolenda.
While I really recommend reading it for any who have a particular in the topic or in Massachusetts history, I'd at least note the following.
The Court found: 

Although civility, of course, is to be encouraged, it cannot be required regarding the content of what may be said in a public comment session of a governmental meeting without violating both provisions of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which provides for a robust protection of public criticism of government action and officials.

The decision goes on to note that length of time provided for public comment in the meeting of a public body, when the time is provided, and prevention of the disruption of others' speech is allowed. After noting that this provision was written by John Adams in consultation with his cousin Sam Adams, the court (on page 14) outlines this history:

The assembly provision arose out of fierce opposition to government authority, and it was designed to protect such opposition, even if it was rude, personal, and disrespectful to public figures, as the colonists eventually were to the king and his representatives in Massachusetts. 

Our interpretation of the text, history, and purpose of art. 19 is further informed by the words and actions of Samuel and John Adams, who not only theorized and commented upon the right, but were historic actors well versed in its application during the revolutionary period, particularly in the towns.

And as the Court notes towards the bottom of page 17:

"Peaceable and orderly" is not the same as "respectful and courteous." There was nothing respectful or courteous about the public assemblies of the revolutionary period. There was also much that was rude and personal, especially when it was directed at representatives of the king and the king himself.  

Public bodies across Massachusetts have revised their public comment policies in response.  

The second issue is outlined by a useful piece in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette on a recent MMA presentation on towns responding to a Supreme Court case lost by the City of Boston in 2022. The case is Shurtleff v. City of Boston; in the decision: 

...the court found that the city had discriminated against a Christian organization on the basis of religion by denying the group access to a municipally controlled flagpole for its banner in 2017.

Boston had had a "anyone can sign up" process, and then denied a group access.
The group sued, and won.

As noted in the article: 

“If municipalities want to control the message (on flagpoles) they need to adopt a policy surrounding their use,” Reich said. Lacking a written policy and having a history of allowing outside groups and entities to raise flags dictates that they must honor all requests.

“If that door is opened, municipalities are subject to all requests and are not allowed content review,” Reich said. It results in political statements or the position of a political group flying a message to the public at the top of a flagpole for all the world to see. 

...which makes Worcester's lack of such a policy, as described at the end of the article rather alarming. If the city indeed does allow a first come, first served policy on one of the poles outside of City Hall, they are opening that flagpole up to any and all who ask for access, as already found by the Supreme Court. 
_________________________________________________________

*I'm just a citizen interested in not having my city lose civil rights cases already decided by the courts.

While all of the above speaks to the municipal side, note that school committees do have (most of them: revised!) public comment policies, and that committees set policies for schools, including for school flagpoles.