Council to consider limiting press access
By: NICOLE SACK -- Staff Writer
One newspaper singled out for proposed policy | ∞
TEMECULA ---- A proposed policy that would require city officials to communicate only in writing with one area newspaper has some First Amendment advocates fearing the move aims to censor news coverage.
The proposed policy, which was placed on the City Council's agenda at the request of Councilman Ron Roberts, would require all inquiries from the Riverside-based Press-Enterprise to be put in writing to council members and administrators. In turn, all responses would be provided in writing.
The City Council will consider adopting the policy during its meeting at 7 tonight in City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive.
Exempt from the proposed policy would be communications between reporters and representatives of the police and fire departments about life and safety situations while at emergency scenes, according to a staff report that outlines the proposal.
Roberts could not be reached for comment Friday or Monday to explain what prompted the proposal, which is described in the staff report as a way to "ensure accuracy and effective flow of communication."
Assistant City Manager Bob Johnson offered a similar explanation.
"I think there has been a concern with the accuracy and completeness of the stories that have been written. Because of this, we want to make sure that we are clear on what is being asked so we can provide accurate and concise responses," he said.
Johnson said the proposed policy has been reviewed and cleared by City Attorney Peter Thorson, who could not be reached for comment Monday.
Temecula City Councilwoman Maryann Edwards said the policy would be a way to ensure the accuracy of information being published.
"If you submit facts verbally, but some of those statements are omitted, what recourse do you have?" she asked.
While not specifically cited on the staff report, the communication clampdown comes about a month after an article published by the Press-Enterprise outlined ties that four of the five council members have with a prominent local developer and raised questions about possible conflicts of interest.
Neither the editor nor the publisher of the Press-Enterprise returned calls from The Californian on Monday.
Government watchdog groups see the proposal as a way to limit the newspaper's access.
Terry Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware ---- a nonprofit group specializing in public forum law ---- said that while there is no law that requires public officials to answer questions, it is common practice for most government bodies to cooperate with the press.
Francke said it is discriminatory to single out one news organization and make its reporters jump through hoops to attain information. He said that to impede the news-gathering abilities of a single media outlet is a violation of the First Amendment. He said a blanket policy that effects all news agencies equally would be constitutional, but is not desirable for the sake of public access to information.
"To admittedly discriminate against one player is the problem," Francke said.
Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, a public interest organization that advocates free speech and open-government rights, described the proposal as "legally suspect."
"It's sort of a gray area," Scheer said. "On the one hand, the city does have authority, internally, to designate certain people to talk to the press so they can better keep track of inquiries going in and the substance of comments going out. What is problematic here is that it is directed to a single organization, not all media."
Scheer said that while he has seen similar variations of the proposed policy where communications from a particular agency are filtered through one spokesman or where sheriff's departments have restricted media access, he said that to subject a single news outlet to such regulation is troubling.
"It does raise serious First Amendment questions," Scheer said.
Contact staff writer Nicole Sack at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2616, or nsack@californian.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Violations of our Constitution wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:04 AM:If this were the 60's the John Burcher Society would be all over this.
All of the citizens and the press should contact their DA, their Congressmen, Assemblymen, and House of Representatives, 20/20, 60 Minutes, etc.
Does this have to do with press printing the Brown Act Violations of two or three months ago where the City Council were accused of Conflict of Interest by all working for Rancon Real Estate High Density Developer and Property Owner Severson?
The public who addressed these issues in the five minute public comments of the council meeting must have struct pay dirt and/or a nerve of all of them except Mary Ann Edwards, who works for a bank and is a Gospel Singer.
Our Local School Government Teachers Should Debate the Constitutionality of this wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:05 AM:Have their students go to the City Council Meeting and ask questions.
Have them discuss it.
Advertising Income? wrote on Jan 8, 2008 12:23 PM:Why is that the article can site the PE article, yet fails to site the parties involved? Is the editor afraid of reporting the whole story or only protecting advertising income?
92592resident wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:16 PM:First the Press-Enterprise, then NCT, then ???? Too many council members tied to Rancon and Mission Oaks Bank even if their votes and actions are legal. Fact is they should be bending backwards to avoid this type of press rather then trying to stop it. It is getting arrogant at city hall.
Should we report this to who? wrote on Jan 8, 2008 1:17 PM:Should we call or e-mail the Riverside Grand Jury? Or phone and/or e-mail the Fair Political Practices Commission? Is there a Brown Act or Ethics Division of the FBI in Riverside now?
I know...Let's tell Oprah...she'll make the country take notice of our Political Patton Place.
Why Hide? wrote on Jan 8, 2008 2:31 PM:Why would the city council ever consider such a ludicrous policy unless there was something to hide? The city's attorney seems to give legal advice in areas that are just on the side of legal, but certain ly argueable. Hey, Council, how about ethics and public perception? Quit digging a bigger hole and get out of this mess with some dignity. The conflict of interest issue can not be covered up no matter how arrogant the Temecula council and its sugardaddy.
Amazed wrote on Jan 8, 2008 3:04 PM:I cant believe this is even being considered. The idea of this is bad for the community and implies the council actually DOES have something to hide. If they did NOT have anything to hide - why do this? Very sad indeed. I hope they come to there senses and forget this bad idea before they become fodder for the national press.
Way to go Temecula wrote on Jan 8, 2008 3:09 PM:I guess the guilt of the council members in Temecula has prompted them to shut the media out! I would too if I were caught with my hand in the cookie jar. Whether we like it or not, the media play a huge part in our society, and although they are not always unbiased or correct, they don't lie. They report the facts as they have been presented to them. The article that was written and printed about them was very thought out, researched, and Im sure had plenty of sources.
I hope the PE sues the city and makes an example out of them. They are arrogant and flamboyant down there in city hall, and their time for reckoning is coming!
Laughable wrote on Jan 8, 2008 3:43 PM:How hysterical is it that blogger "Advertising Income?" is questioning the extent of reporting yet twice misspelled a word as simple as "cite?"
To Laughable wrote on Jan 8, 2008 4:41 PM:Not half as hysterical as someone who wastes time and space writing a useless blog rather than commenting on the real issues that citizens care about.
Goebels wrote on Jan 8, 2008 5:37 PM:As a former minister of information, I had a major responsibility to make sure that only accurate and (onesided) information was diseminated for punblic consumption. The public needs to have data filtered or they become agitated and maybe even revolutionary. Screened data is good data. Don't confuse the public with data that is of no significance to them--give them only good news to keep their minds occupied and unquestioning. Our city council is doing the right thing and following in the tradition of the great propangandists--tilt the truth and fool the public. Bravo to Naggar, Washington, Comerchero, and Roberts. They are doing quite well in their relationship with developer Dan Stephenson and they are equally adept at masking their true intentions. They are following in my footsteps.
Beyond Laughable wrote on Jan 8, 2008 5:59 PM:Hey "Laughables", why don't you care that Temecula City Council is covering their behinds? Blogs are useful tools, and you are ignorant to state that this is not a real issue. This "proposed policy" aimed to harass the PE is what is hysterical and I am embarrassed for all of Temecula. Temeculans need to wake up and REMOVE this arrogant City Council before its too late!
Nothing Laughable wrote on Jan 8, 2008 6:57 PM:I think the comment above was a suggestion not to waste time pointing out spelling errors, and stick to commenting on the main issue presented. You can bet tomorrow's papers will have lots more to discuss on this topic after tonight's City Council meeting.
it is because wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:41 PM:The city attorney is paid by the city of Temecula and is going to give them an opinion that coincides with what they want to hear. How else do you keep your job?
To Nothing Laughable wrote on Jan 8, 2008 9:01 PM:Thanks for setting "Beyond Laughable" straight. You're exactly right. My intent was to bring attention to the real issue and not to grammar. The real issue of improper use of public policy, trust and personal financial gain by councilmembers should be a serious concern for every Temecula citizen.
Journalism? wrote on Jan 8, 2008 10:18 PM:I hope The Californian follows and fairly reports on the allegations of conflicts of interest by Temecula councilmenbers so as not to appear biased as with past articles written. As a publicist, it is my interest to learn public opinion on various issues. One issue in particular is on the Temecula Council using local media to publicly bash citizens and organizations that don't agree with them. In the past year, the Temecula council has manipulated the media to discredit decent community leaders while glorifying themselves. I hope The Californian puts an end to this type of reporting. On behalf of Temeculans, please keep journalistic ethics in front of political manuvering. Your reputation as a legitimate news source is where your alliances should lie.
Council wins! wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:32 PM:The city council members each cited constitutional concerns and did not pass the item. Further, they invited the Press Enterprise editors to partner in estabalishing a media subcommittee. You bloggers are stupid and jumped to conclusions before the council even met!! The joke is on you and the council did the right thing again!
To Journalism? wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:56 PM:You may not have noticed that the Californian has NOT reported on the "alleged" conflicts of interest BECAUSE THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND IT'S NOT A LEGITIMATE STORY!! Wake up. This is a whisper campaign by the failed education center hit squad. The Press Enterprise was dumb enough to fall for it and the council called them on it. The agenda item was proposed by Ron Roberts who wasn't even AT the council meeting. The three members present at the meeting defeated the item stating that they didn't want to limit speech. Further, they are now going to work WITH the Press Enterprise to get the word out on the REAL failed education center story. Stay tuned! The PE WILL report the truth on the Ed Center hit squad!
Bloggers jump to conclusions! wrote on Jan 8, 2008 11:59 PM:Yes friends. The bloggers weighed in and lost! The remaining three council members (Naggar, Edward, Comachero) defeated the goofy proposal. Each one said it was a bad idea and that Temecula residents need MORE news, not less. You bloggers are SO biased and hateful. You accused them before they even met to discuss the problem! Let's here all those positive comments now that the 3 council members have defeated the bad idea!
Violations of the Constitution? wrote on Jan 9, 2008 12:02 AM:There were no violations on the constitution. The city council voted NO on the Press Enterprises issue. What are you talking about?? Why do you comment so negatively before they've even discussed the thing?
Huh? wrote on Jan 9, 2008 7:25 AM:Why do you people insist this is a blog? It's not! Look up the definition! When will the councilmembers get a chance to talk to the grand jury? That should be on the front page of the Californian!
Interesting wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:06 AM:I find it quite interesting that so many comments about the council winning (duh, it was a councilman's proposal to begin with) appeared in this section after last night's council meeting. More interesting is that Robert's wasn't even there, but the Council comes out looking like heroes by spouting off about what a bad policy this would be. Gee, do you think there was already consensus about the vote before the meeting? All the council has to do is read these comments from the entire day to strategize on the next move. And then all of a sudden (and the next day) a barrage of "we win" comments appear? Sneaky but not very smart.
Concerned-1 wrote on Jan 11, 2008 2:27 PM:Kind of weird that a bunch of comments that were posted from the 9th, were removed. Whatever, this non-issue is moote.
Advertisement