jimhanson 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 09 2004,3:58 pm |
|
  |
Fair enough, Collector.
| Quote | | Is rule 19 illegal? Not according to the settlement and offer to change the language.. |
Nobody challenged the existence of Rule 19 ITSELF--only the Constitutionality of some of its PARTS. When the County took out the objectionable PARTS, the rest of the rule was acceptable. Nobody asked for compensation. Nobody challenged the right of the County to conduct its meeting. Nobody challenged the 5 minute per speaker rule.| Quote | | Is it the best thing for the county the way it was? Probably not. Was it good to get it changed? Probably. If the whole rule was illegal, there wouldn't have been a settlement and the MCLU would have kept pursuing. |
The fact that the County made the change would seem to indicate there was a problem with the language and the uniform enforcement of the rule to begin with.| Quote | | The language is now changed to be legal. Does the current wording make everyone happy? No. Is it legal? Apparently |
Who's unhappy? Obviously, the PLAINTIFFS are happy, or they wouldn't agree. Same for the COUNTY. In any case, the LANGUAGE is now legal, and if the APPLICATION of that language stays legal--there won't be any problems.
It IS indicative of a problem, however, that RON chose to fight this for over a year, rather than work it out with the MCLU as he was invited to do at least 8 times at County Board meetings, and by the Plaintiff's counsel.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
