During the 06/21/2021 Finance Committee meeting, the committee took up for consideration two resolutions.
The first was Resolution was #8-R-20 regarding the City of Appleton Brand Study. This resolution was introduced in April of 2020 and referred it to the Finance Committee which referred it to city staff which did research and prepared a draft Request for Proposals. The staff recommendations and draft RFP were now back before the committee.
Alderperson William Siebers (District 1) said that Finance Director Tony Saucerman had stated there was a possibility of getting some kind of funding for the brand study. As a result, the committee voted to hold the item until the July 12th Finance Committee meeting so that they could vote on the funding aspect as well as the other parts of the item.
The other resolution they took up was Resolution #5-R-21 regarding the display of political signs on city owned property. The resolution was submitted in April of 2021 by former Alderperson Kyle Lobner in response to the fact that during the aldermanic race the USA Youth Sports Complex in District 13, which rents its property from the city, gave permission to his opponent Sheri Hartzheim to display her campaign signs there.
City Attorney Behrens reviewed the recommendations which he had presented in a memo to the committee.
The city currently leases property to 5 entities, and the resolution broadly states that political signs will not be permitted to be displayed on any city-owned property, which would include the property leased by those 5 entities. The attorney reiterated that sign of any nature that aren’t authorized or permitted are removed. With regard to property leased from the city, that is more of a contractual arrangement between the city and the individual or entity that is leasing the property. The memo laid out those leases, all of which have contracts in place which expire over different terms. (He didn’t go into details, but, looking at the memo, one can see the earliest expires in 2022 and the latest not until 2038.) In order to prevent those entities from displaying signs on the property they rent from the city, the city would have to add a term to their contract when it comes up for renewal in which they gave up their right to display political signs. He said this would, of course, depend on the willingness of the lessees to add that clause. It may also depend on what the state law is regarding the display of political signs at the time the contract is up. The Attorney’s Office proposed some language that they believed would carry out the intent of the resolution which was as follows:
“That upon negotiating or renegotiating lease of City-owned land, the City Attorney’s Office shall endeavor to incorporate language limiting the posting of political signs by the tenant subject to any legal limitations, court decisions and the like in place at the time. A political sign shall be considered a sign erected for the purpose of soliciting support for, or opposition to, a candidate or a political party or relating to a referendum question in an election held under the laws of this state.”
Essentially, what that language would do is charge the Attorney’s Office with the direction and authority to go ahead and try to negotiate the inclusion of that term in future leases when those leases are negotiated.
A motion was made and seconded to recommend that language for approval by the Common Council.
Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) thought it made sense. If you lease property from a city you don’t waive your First Amendment rights, but they didn’t want to have people mistakenly believing that a message was being given by the city, so he thought it made sense to at least try to put this language into the leases. He thought political messages posted by some of the entities that leased property from the city would not result in that confusion [I would say Basil’s patio for example] but some might [possibly USA Youth or the Appleton Family Ice Center] so he thought it was worthwhile to put that term change out there.
Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) was not a member of the committee but he did attend the meeting and had some questions.
He first wanted to confirm that if this language was approved it would prohibit the lessees from being able to post any political sign on the property and it would not simply prohibit the situation which happened at the USA Youth Sports Complex in which they received and granted a request from a third party to display political signs on their property.
Attorney Behrens confirmed that that would be the limitation. He also wanted to make sure that people understood that in most cases the city as a governmental entity could not prohibit the exercise of First Amendment rights, but if it was negotiated and agreed upon then that would be permissible.
Alderperson Doran asked what would happen if one of the organizations the city negotiated with said that they wanted to maintain their ability to display political signs. He thought it was unlikely to happen, but if a lessee would rather walk away from a lease with the city than enter into a contract that prevented them from posting political signs, would the city have leeway to still work with them? Would passing this language require the inclusion of this term in future contract negotiations?
Attorney Behrens said that, without speculating too much about hypotheticals, they would take on negotiations on a case by case basis. If need be, they could bring an issue before the Finance Committee and the Common Council.
Alderperson Doran was also curious about city policy related to all city property. They prohibit political signs on other city property as well. He wondered if there was ever a reason the city would to put up some sort of sign to make a political statement about an advocacy-type issues would they prevent themselves from doing that if they wanted to use city property for that.
Attorney Behrens said the language being addressed here was specific to the language within leases. He didn’t want to speculate and was hesitant to address a very specific situation without knowing exactly what was proposed, what department might be affected, and what exactly they wanted to post.
[I will say, the resolution as originally written could very well have prevented the city from posting signs related to some kind of political advocacy issue. The vagueness regarding what constituted a “political sign” was a major flaw. The Attorney’s Office, however, gave an actual definition to political signs which was “a sign erected for the purpose of soliciting support for, or opposition to, a candidate or a political party or relating to a referendum question in an election held under the laws of this state,” so that would not seem to apply to general politically-oriented advocacy signs such as ones supporting BLM or pro-life causes for example. And, whereas, the original resolution applied to all city owned property, the language recommended by the Attorney’s Office applies only to the terms of leases for city-owned property, which would, in theory, leave the city free to post political advocacy signs, although that would be dependent on city policies and codes.]
The committee voted 3-0 to approve the language recommended by the Attorney’s Office.
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=859392&GUID=0B71BB4D-3151-4AE2-959C-2E93E930F3A8&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply