After being discussed in the Legal Committee meeting last week and subsequently revised by Crystal Peck, counsel to the Council, the proposed law making harassing City officials a Class B misdemeanor is expected to be introduced at tonight's informal Common Council meeting. The revised law can be found here.
Tiffany Greenwaldt-Simon reported on the discussion of the law at last week's Legal Committee meeting: "Revised harassment law to go before Hudson Common Council." Her report omitted a few interesting details. Among them that the City Clerk's office keeps a list of people who come in and scream at them. That list has the names of about a dozen repeat offenders.
As Greenwaldt-Simon reported, Hudson resident Ronald Kopnicki questioned how the law might affect freedom of speech, but she didn't report the specifics of the discussion that followed. Making explicit reference to Bill Huston being banned from attending Common Council meetings, Kopnicki asked if questions that are critical and hence considered annoying would be subject to the law. He further asked, "Could it be applied to a blog and comments on the blog that could be considered annoying?"
Peck told Kopnicki there are "clear speech protections in state and federal law."
Councilmember Margaret Morris (First Ward), who chairs the Legal Committee, said there needed to be a tighter definition of "annoying a city official" in the law. She continued, "I'm an annoying person. Do I have to go to court and defend myself for being annoying?"
Hudson resident Matt McGhee also expressed concern about "the potential of the law to dampen speech" and said he feared it would "inhibit freedom of speech."
Morris asked Peck to revise the law to "add protections for speech."
The law as it was originally proposed can be found here. The revised law can be found here. Although the word annoy does not appear in the revised version, no protections for speech have been added.
Also of interest, although at its meeting on November 19, the Council, "in light of some of our experiences last week," wanted the law to apply to them, it appears that the law applies only to a "City Officer or City Employee who is engaged in the performance of their duties."
COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK
Crystal...
ReplyDeleteJust make sure you run this by a constitutional expert...
CC President DePietro already violated residents' first amendment rights by discriminating based on "view point" in a public forum and if you had not advised him to reverse that decision it would have been the perfect lawsuit.
That whole fiasco lead to litigation funders who are looking to set a 1A precedent in a New York State.
These phony politicians don’t care if you sue the local and county govt, it’s not their $. Sue them personally and you will see a whole different coward!
ReplyDeleteI was arrested last Tuesday on Warren Street by 3 HPD officers who each arrived in separate vehicles. I was immediately handcuffed. When I asked what the charge was, I was told it was a "DISCON" with no further details, but I didn't need details. I asked the arresting officer if Disorderly Conduct was a crime or a violation but got no response. They might as well have said, "tell it to the judge, Bill." "Why am I being handcuffed?" also got no response. My belongings were removed from my pockets and my hot untouched coffee was taken from my hand. (That may have hurt the most). Then I was put in a vehicle and driven to the city court holding cell where I was read my miranda rights and told to remove my shoes and belt. My court appointed lawyer soon explained to me that though the disorderly conduct charge against me was a simple ticketable violation, the 5 council members who had orders of protection against me made the charge more serious. Thus the arrest and the handcuffs for speaking out of order at a council meeting three weeks prior, or what HPD officer Kevin Keyser described as "disrupting a council meeting" in the criminal complaint he filed.
ReplyDeleteMy case was immediately brought in front of Judge Connor, and I was allowed to put my shoes back on thanks to a decent cop. The case was adjourned for two weeks so that the DA could get details, evidence, witnesses and discovery, etc to figure out how to approach my case. On Friday, just 3 days later, my attorney informed me that the DA's office was going to offer us an ACOD, also known as an Adjournment with Contemplation of Dismissal if I stay out of trouble for 6 months. In other words, DA Chris Conant and one of his assistants likely watched the video of the November 12th meeting, realized the charge against me was absurd and wanted nothing to do with it. I imagine that conclusion took all of 12 minutes. Maybe just 6. "Mr. Huston spoke out of line at a public meeting, did he? That's not disorderly conduct. It might be rude, but it's not a DISCON and we can't be bothered with such nonsense. Can't HPD give us anything better than this baloney?!"
It may sound crazy to some, but I'm thinking that throwing a bag of dog shit at a mayor in city hall is harassment and/or disorderly conduct, but speaking out turn is not.
I want to thank Tom Depietro for all my wasted time dealing with HPD and the city court (and their time wasted on me). When it comes to public participation at meetings, he does a god-awful job. He doesn't state the rules of decorum before the meetings start, so no one knows what the rules are. Speak out of turn or ask one too many questions? "Arrest him and handcuff him, take off his shoes and belt and never let him back in a meeting of mine again."
Hmmm.... now who is the real harasser?
Those of you interested in the above story might roll your eyes at this too: While I was in court for ten minutes handcuffed in front of Judge Connor last Tuesday, about a half hour after being arrested on the sidewalk, the 3 arresting officers were standing quietly to my left observing the process the entire time. There was also a bailiff and another security personnel nearby.
DeleteI know for a fact that one of the HPD cops in attendance (a sergeant or lieutenant!) made over $100,000 with overtime last year. By my calculations, someone with that salary is paid more than one dollar every minute they are on duty. The total salaries of those 3 law enforcement officers last year and likely this year was/is in the $250,000 - $300,000 range, or about $2.50/minute.
3 cops, one judge, one public defender, one DA's office, one "annoying" and involved resident asking too many questions, one ACOD 3 days later! And you wonder why the budget and property taxes never stop rising here in tiny Hudson.
"A person is guilty of HARASSMENT of a city officer when, with intent to HARASS or alarm..." This sounds like an MC Escher drawing. Where is the dictionary?
ReplyDeleteRestart the blog, Bill. The pen is mightier than the sword!
ReplyDeleteThe question being asked during the legal committee was: is the harassment coming from a specific person or are there many doing the harassing. I said there were many people who harassed (dozens). I misspoke in saying there was a list. There are two mugs shots of people have been threatening. The staff often feel unsafe and are harassed and berated daily. No one should have to work under that kind of cloud. That kind of stress is terrible for your mental and physical well being.
ReplyDeleteI understand concerns over free speech but when that speech (and behavior), interferes with the rights of another human being to work and feel safe we should examine the law and make sure that everyone’s rights are being considered. Laws such as this exist in other municipalities and with the help of our city’s lawyer we are trying to craft something that fits the needs of our community and all of the people in it, including those who work for the city.