HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 1 TILLER DAYS 1989 08-07-89DATE: Ju'l¥ 31, 1989
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
William &. Huston, City Manager
administrative Services Department
POLITICALLY RELATED ACTIVITIES: 1989 TILLER DAYS
RECOMMENDATION: Pleasure of the City Council·
BACKGROUND:
·
The City Council adopted Policy No. 7-01, March 2, 1981, which
states:
"No City facilities are to be used for any partisan or
non-partisan political purpose which promotes selected
candidates or issues, nor to raise funds for such
candidates or issues. Not prohibited are community
services programs of a politically related purpose, such
as candidate nights sponsored by neutral civic
organizations wherein all candidates are given equal
opportunity to be present and heard."
·
Prior to the election year of 1988, this policy served the
City well, in that "blatant" partisan political purposes were
banned but non-partisan or "equal opportunity" candidate
nights were allowed on City facilities.
·
However, in 1988 a City Council candidate stated that he would
file a lawsuit if the City did not allow him to have a
partisan booth at Tiller Days. Staff response at that time
was that past practice was non-partisan booths were
acceptable; partisan booths were not. As you will recall,
the candidate referred to the fact that Orange County
Supervisors Stanton and Vasquez had booths at the 1987 Tiller
Days. Staff attempted to differentiate between those
Supervisor's booths as. being community-oriented and
informational, but the candidate did not accept that.
Complicating the matter further, the candidate also claimed
that there were two "partisan" booths at the 1987 Tiller Days,
one for the Republican party and one for the Democratic party,
to register voters--and, they each distributed campaign
literature.
Page 2 of 3
·
By consensus, the City Council allowed all candidates to have
booths at the 1988 Tiller Days as an exception to Council
Policy 7-01. Six candidates took advantage of the City's
offer, of which three were candidates for the Tustin Unified
School Board and three were City Council candidates. The two
political parties also had booths to register voters.
·
The City attorney has advised staff that the City Council
should make a decision regarding the restriction, the
exception that was made in 1988, and just what direction the
Council wanted to go. Since it was an election year for three
Council members, the Council was reticent to act at that time
for fear of appearing biased.
DISCUSSION:
i ·
Preparations have begun for the 1989 Tiller Days; the
Republican party has applied for a voter registration booth.
The Tiller Days committee has been in contact with the
Republican party informing them that their application has
been taken under submission, pending advice from the City
Attorney and potential action by the City Council.
·
It is appropriate at this time for the City Council to decide
what direction they wish to take.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Do nothing.
This will lead to problems similar to last year regarding
interpretation of the restriction. For example, what is the
difference between an "informational booth" and a "partisan
booth?" The City Attorney has concluded that the City would
not be on sound legal ground to have prohibited the 1988
Council candidate from maintaining a booth, in the face of our
current restrictions and past practice. The distinction is
vague.
·
Adhere strictly to the "no political activities" prohibition
of the Council policy.
The City Attorney has advised that if the City wants to avoid
being the potential subject of criticism, possibly adverse
publicity and even a lawsuit, the safest route is not to
permit even such a "political activity" as registering voters
or holding a candidates forum.
Page 3 of 3
3. Revise the policy and permit all political activities.
The Attorney has advised that this could be a safe course of
action, although the Council may have other objections to such
a policy. Some of the potential risks involved in this type
of revision would be applications received from groups
incompatible with the values of this community. When other
cities across the nation have had a policy to allow all
political groups, it was found that they could not deny use
by groups whose viewpoints and values disagreed with the
viewpoints and values of the community and/or the City
Council.
4. Revise the current languaqe.
The Council Policy 7-01 approved by the Council March 2, 1981,
was a reaction to a previous prohibition. The Council at that
time felt that as long as both sides could be heard, the
policy would be fair. This might lead to another alternative,
which is to refine the current language to clarify that a
candidates forum where both viewpoints could be heard would
be the only political use acceptable on City facilities. (A
narrow interpretation of current language would have the same
result.) In effect, political activities of any kind would
be banned from activities such as Tiller Days; however,
candidate's forums could still be held at City facilities.
o
R yl~n ~. White, Director
Comm~ and Administrative Services
RAW:kd
cc: Susan Jones
RAW: T I LLRDAY. wp