Latest Guides

Education

Controversial Pasadena City College Bylaw Proposal Redrafted, Goes Back Before the Board on Wednesday

Published on Tuesday, December 13, 2016 | 5:51 am
 

Wednesday, the Pasadena City College Board of Trustees will hear a freshly rewritten proposed bylaw detailing how its members should interact with the media after an earlier version sparked condemnation by some Board members, the campus community, local activists and a local newspaper.

The original proposed bylaw would have markedly restricted media’s access to news and information about Pasadena City College, in large measure by stripping Board members of the right to be interviewed by or even respond to the media about controversial issues.

The revised draft of Media Relations Bylaw 2771 now includes a provision saying that “Board of Trustees members have the right to express themselves individually and respond or be interviewed by the media as individuals.”

It also now prescribes that the Board President will be the sole spokesperson for the “official statement” of Board of Trustees; the previous draft did not include the “official statement” classification and simply stated the Board President will be the sole spokesperson of the Board.

Another noticeable change in the draft is the elimination of the “controversial issue” and “non-controversial issue” classification for statements that Board members may or may not comment on when responding to media inquiries or interviews.

The first draft considered in November had said Board members are to refer all media inquiries, “especially those relating to controversial issues,” to the Board President or the Board Vice President; it also said Board members “have the right to respond or be interviewed by media for non-controversial issues.”

Trustee James Osterling, a vocal opponent of the original proposed draft who had said it has dangerous ramifications for the First Amendment, said the changes are movement in the right direction.

“I think it’s a credit to the Board of Trustees collectively that we can have an open and civil debate on an important matter,” Osterling said in response to the new draft. “I think that that debate we had on our last meeting and the coverage of the news media, including Pasadena Now, has helped to move it into a more appropriate direction.”

Osterling added he is still at a loss to understand what is driving other Board members to push for the proposal.

Citing the Board’s current Bylaw 2715 which already covers media inquiries, Osterling said proponents of the new bylaw should still be made to explain what defect in that bylaw the new proposal is trying to address.

Osterling, however, said he is less than supportive of one important provision which was retained in the new draft: namely, that the PCC Superintendent-President has to be the one to confirm that the Board President is not available to comment to the media on any matter before the Board Vice President could stand in and be the sole spokesperson for official statements of the Board.

“I don’t want to split hairs, but I don’t think it’s necessary for the Board Vice President to inform the Superintendent of any information requested by the media; that infers incorrectly that the Board reports to the Superintendent, when in fact it’s the other way around,” Osterling said. “But this is a dramatic improvement over the prior version.”

The PCC Courier, the college’s student publication, was among the first to react when the first draft was agendized for discussion at the November Board meeting, saying the draft bylaw was “a gag order on themselves,” referring to the Board of Trustees, “with such overarching ramifications for free speech and freedom of the press.”

An editorial on the publication indicated that the Courier could not even get an explanation from the college administration or the Board as to how the proposal came about. The editorial pointed out that PCC already has a Board bylaw 2715 which includes similar language and makes the draft bylaw redundant, which “casts further doubt on the intentions of the Board.”

Pasadena Star-News Public Editor Larry Wilson wrote that PCC’s trustees “need to vote this misguided muzzle law down faster than a throw from former Lancer Jackie Robinson to first base.”

“This is nuts,” Wilson wrote. “Muzzling the very watchdogs we elect to run the revered college at the heart of our community? What prompted the proposal?”

It soon turned out the proposed bylaw came out of a subcommittee report which was not brought up as an information item in any meeting before the November 30 meeting.

David Snyder, an attorney with the First Amendment Coalition, said if the effect of the draft bylaw is simply a recommendation that board members ignore if they so choose, it’s acceptable; but if it’s a required mandate, the Board could face legal woes.

“We see this from time to time where a government body, including educational bodies, attempts to corral or reign in its members and to serve a limit in the way they can speak to the public or the press,” Snyder said.

“As long as it doesn’t actually purport to prevent speech or to prevent board members from speaking to the press or the public at all, they should be read as recommendations that members of the board, or whoever the elected officials are that the policy applies to, are free to disregard,” Synder explained. “But it would be crossing the line if the elected official couldn’t speak to the press or to his constituents.”

Local civil rights attorney Dale Gronemeier said while the new bylaw might be constitutional, “it still has the odor of bureaucratic pressure for groupthink.” He particularly criticized the bylaw draft’s preamble which mentions a “special mission” of the Board members to “protect the integrity of the institution.”

“The press and public aren’t stupid as the resolution assumes; they can distinguish between a Board majority vote and the opinion of a single Board member, so there’s no need to instruct Board members that they ‘should’ draw such a distinction when they talk to the press,” Gronemeier said. “Board members don’t need to have a resolution prescribing that their content with the press ‘should’ include expressing ‘their support for the legitimacy of the democratic process.’”

Gronemeier said the new draft is an improvement over its “plainly unconstitutional predecessor,” but it remains to be something of which the Board should still be wary.

“It remains an insult to the independence and intelligence of the individual Board members, the press, and the public and stays on the border of illegality by trying to prescribe content that elected officials ‘should’ include in their interactions with the press,” Gronemeier continued. “But ‘should’ is less obligatory than ‘will,’ so it is unlikely that a Board member could be disciplined for ignoring the offensive attempts to control press interactions in the resolution.”

The Board of Trustees are scheduled to meet on December 14, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Creveling Lounge on the campus at 1570 E. Colorado Blvd. in Pasadena.

Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.

Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.

Make a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

 

 

buy ivermectin online
buy modafinil online
buy clomid online
buy ivermectin online