MCLU Hails Victory in Augusta Free-Speech
Case Gray moves to repeal its own Mass Gathering Ordinance
By Elizabeth Prata
Gray--On Thursday, December 22, 2005, Bangor U.S.
District Court Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr., issued
an order striking down Augusta's restrictions on the
rights of peaceful protesters to march and gather
in the state capital, holding that protesting "commands
this Court's protection."
The Maine Civil Liberties Union Foundation (MCLU)
had challenged the City of Augusta's policy of selectively
imposing fees on marchers and protesters in March
2004. David Webbert, a civil rights attorney in the
Augusta firm of Johnson & Webbert, LLP, acted
as MCLU Cooperating Counsel, successfully arguing
the case before Judge Woodcock in June.
The case was brought by Timothy Sullivan of Castine,
one of the organizers of the March 21, 2004 "March
For Truth" in Augusta, which promoted peace,
end to war, universal health care, and benefits for
military families. Mr. Sullivan was charged almost
$2000 for the permit to hold the march. Larry Dansinger
also joined the MCLU lawsuit, after he tried to hold
a march for worker's rights in the fall of 2004, but
he was stopped by the enormous cost of the permit.
The MCLU originally filed this case, Sullivan et al.
v. City of Augusta, in March 2004, requesting a temporary
restraining order against Augusta's permit policy.
At that time, the Court imposed a partial temporary
restraining order, ending Augusta's policy of requiring
marchers to get insurance before holding an event.
The ruling found Augusta's permit policy unconstitutional,
citing evidence that Augusta only imposed fees on
certain groups, as well evidence of the extreme cost
of fees.
In Gray, the Augusta court case provided a motivation
for the Gray Town Council to review its own Mass Gathering
ordinance, more restrictive and expensive to an applicant
than Augusta's in many cases. The local ordinance
would apply not only to marches and rallies, such
as in the Augusta case, but any outdoor weddings,
events, fairs, and the like at which 500 people or
more were expected to attend.
Chair Gary Foster included the Order to repeal the
ordinance on the agenda almost immediately after the
court case was handed down, for discussion at Tuesday's
meeting.
Gray Town Councilor Dense Duda said that the ordinance's
enforcement on a Gray couple intending to put on a
Country Music fest had touched off her own interest
in repealing the ordinance. "I don't think we
need it in Gray," Ms. Duda said. "There
have been problems with it, and the State statute
trigger of 2000 is fine, I don't think we need more
than that."
The State of Maine has a mass gathering ordinance
in place, and the trigger is if 2000 attendees are
expected in a 12 hour period. Councilor Skip Crane
also said that the State law is satisfactory for local
purposes. The state law, Title 22: Health and Welfare,
Chapter 265: Mass Gatherings, section 1602, permit
issuance, provides oversight for health and safety,
sanitary conditions, wholesome food service, and fire
protection and traffic control.
At Tuesday's meeting all five Councilors voted to
move forward in the process of repealing the local
ordinance and relying exclusively on the State Statute.
The first reading of the repeal passed, and a second
reading and hearing will be held at the next regular
Council meeting on January 17.
The Augusta Court concluding order read as follows
in part:
"Section 13-5(a) of the Parade Ordinance and
Section 3-116(b) of the MOGO violate the First Amendment
and are unconstitutional to the extent that each requires
thirty (30) days' prior notice and a shorter time
frame only for "good cause" shown."
Gray's ordinance requires a 60 day prior notice time
frame.
Augusta: "Section 13-5(c) of the Parade Ordinance,
to the extent that it requires an applicant to "meet
with the Police Chief to discuss and attempt to agree
on the details on the route and other logistics",
violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutional."
Gray's ordinance required not only a meeting with
a police official, butt that the applicant hire adequate
police coverage for the event at the expense of the
licensee.
"Section 13-5(e) of the Parade Ordinance and
Section 3-120 of the MOGO, to the extent that there
is no provision allowing for a waiver of fees for
indigents, violate the First Amendment and are unconstitutional."
Gray also did not provide for a waiver of fees.
"Section 3-122 of the MOGO, providing an exemption
for athletic events conducted by the Board of Education,
Little League or other organizations, provided alcohol
is not available" violates the First Amendment
and is unconstitutional."
Gray also had declared that it would selectively apply
the ordinance, exempting itself from any mass gathering
permit requirements, and the School Department. Others
would be exempted as well, such as the American Legion,
at the Manager's discretion.
