Disparate voices

Mayors and city councils alike across our state should take heed of a First Amendment lawsuit resolved in Paragould recently. It’s illegal for city government to prevent a citizen from addressing their public meeting because they may not agree with his expected message.

The problem here, according to the lawsuit filed by Joey McCutchen of Fort Smith on behalf of John Williams of Paragould, arose when Williams was prevented from speaking on a matter of unfinished public business during the Sept. 13, 2021, Paragould City Council meeting.

But this wasn’t just some ordinary matter about potholes or stop signs. Instead, Williams was wanting to revisit and update previous comments he’d made to them a month earlier in his effort to persuade the local government to switch from a nonpartisan to a partisan system with party affiliation.

Williams had returned after having spoken at the August council meeting where officials had offered no substantive feedback nor action. He wanted to be heard again.

But the lawsuit says this time he was stopped immediately by Mayor Josh Agee who asked, “Are you here again on behalf of partisan politics?” When Williams responded yes, Agee told him “OK, we have already heard your argument, we appreciate your time but we are not going to hear that again tonight.” When Williams asked if he could pose questions to the council, he was told he couldn’t ask “about anything at all,” then added the council had taken the matter “under advisement.”

Yet after Williams was stopped because he had previously spoken on the issue, another citizen was allowed to speak on an issue he’d previously spoken to the council about during the Public Comment Section. This demonstrates Williams was further deprived of rights guaranteed by the Arkansas and United States Constitutions, while a person who was a pastor with political speech was allowed to speak.

Following the September public meeting, the mayor’s opposition to Williams’ political viewpoints became even more obvious after he wrote an opinion piece in the Paragould Daily Press on Sept. 20, 2021, titled “The Baneful Effects of the Spirit of Party,” which stated in part: “Recently a small but vocal few have expressed their desire for the Paragould City Council to pick a political side and to pledge their allegiance to a party over their allegiance to our citizens. I thought I would take a short minute to talk about this issue and address it head-on and hopefully enlighten our citizens on how and why our local government system works and how it benefits all citizens, regardless of political affiliation.”

The lawsuit says, “Mayor Agee voiced his opposition to partisan elections in a series of emails to members of the Paragould City Council and other Paragould city employees before the Sept. 13, 2021, public meeting. On Aug. 11, 2021, Agee sent an email to several Paragould city employees seeking input on his news article before it was published. In his email, speaking about his news article, Agee states:

“I would appreciate your input on the following. This is what I came up with this morning but I’m not sure that [it’s] appropriate and wonder if just a simple “cities don’t have partisan issues” type of answer would be best. This answer may have a ‘Barbra Streisand effect’ and make it a bigger issue than it really is.”

In response, then-Paragould City Council member Aaron Camp (now deceased) agreed with Agee and urged him to publish.

“On information and belief,” the suit reads, “Mayor Agee was also involved with the ‘Keep Government Local’ committee that was established in opposition to the Paragould Partisan Election Amendment. On Oct. 21, 2022, Mayor Agee made a related post on Twitter urging his followers to vote against partisan local elections.”

McCutchen, in the lawsuit naming Agee, emphasized it was evident Williams was stopped from speaking at the meeting because the defendants, including the mayor, disliked Williams’ viewpoint, or that Agee anticipated he would again publicly express. “This is improper viewpoint discrimination,” McCutchen wrote, “because it singled out [Williams’] particular perspective — advocating partisan elections — for suppression. It is well-established that government officials ‘may not discriminate against viewpoints when it disfavors certain speech because of the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker.’”

“The city voted on July 24 to reject Williams’ offer of $1 and an admission of violating his First Amendment rights to resolve the case. Instead, the council elected to make him a $2,500 offer of judgement, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs,” said McCutchen.

He accepted that and considers this offer an admission of liability on the part of Mayor Agee and the city, McCutchen added. “We hope this lawsuit will send a message to other mayors and city councils that they cannot pick and choose which speech government allows based upon the political whims of the mayor and governing body.”