Skip to main content

Kent County SPCA attempts to redefine the "public" in "public meetings"

The Kent County SPCA is unhappy with the comments made online by the IPOD's Doug Beatty, Cathy Samarzda, and Carol Furr (although, to be honest, I don't know if Carol is formally associated with IPOD), and so has moved to bar the three from its grounds:
“Please be advised that due to your past and ongoing efforts to publically [sic] defame the Kent County SPCA, the Board of Trustees, our employees and me; the decision has been made to prohibit your access to the grounds of the Kent County SPCA,” read the letter, signed by [Shelter director Kevin] Usilton. “We are a privately held organization, and as such we are within our rights to deny your entry on our property.”
Unfortunately for Mr. Usilton's position, the Attorney General's office has already issued an opinion that, since KCSPCA receives state funds and has compliance/arrest power in certain circumstances, the organization's board meetings are public meetings.

This makes the situation a bit murkier, as you have to have a pretty damn good reason to bar somebody from public meetings, which usually involves a threat or a disruption of the process, and that apparently has not happened:
[KCSPCA Vice President Steven] Schwartz said the organization is barring the three from monthly board meetings “so they don’t have the opportunity to gather information that can be falsified,” though he acknowledged that they never caused a disruption during a meeting.
So Beatty, Samarzda, and Furr have never disrupted any public meeting?  And the point of the ban is to keep them from getting information that is disseminated at a public meeting?  Information that, presumably, they could easily get by simply having someone else attend the meeting to take notes or record?

What exactly have these three done?  Apparently, KCSPCA is responding to comments by one or all of the three in online forums or Beatty's Blogtalk radio show, the Independent News Hour.

This is an issue that puts me in Voltaire's position, or at least that of the quotation apocryphally attributed to him:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
To explain:  first, I have not listened to the portions of Beatty's radio show that deal with the KCSPCA.

Are they incorrect and libelous?  I can't say.

But I do have a distinct opinion on Beatty's conduct at such meetings, based on personal experience.



In reporting on another public meeting (hearing, actually) that Beatty and I both attended (on different sides), I completely disagreed with his memory, his observations, and his analysis.  I thought he got several factual points exactly wrong, and I thought his characterizations of certain people were way off base.

But so what?  I'm equally sure that if I wrote down a competing narrative he would find just as much fault with my version, which is a testimony to both the vagaries of memory as well as the unfortunate influence of personal agendas on memory (both his and mine).

Yet I regularly castigate News Journal articles for precisely the same thing, and I am sure that people who have attended public meetings have sometimes read the coverage of them and wondered just what meeting the reporter attended ("He sure as hell didn't see or hear the same things I did").

Just because people take what you say in a public meeting and use it against you, that's not an acceptable reason to bar them from the meetings, because there still is this little thing (shreds of it at least) called the First Amendment.

So while I personally believe that Beatty et al have the capacity to be completely and utterly wrong in their analyses, that's not the issue.  The issue is that they have the absolute right to attend public meetings so long as they do not cause a disruption at the meeting.

Finally, let me say this:  having spent over sixteen hours in a public hearing that Beatty attended (and, remember, he and I are on opposite sides of the issue that was at hand), I can say unequivocally that he was never (a) disruptive; (b) impolite; or (c) anything but a gentleman in terms of his behavior.

If KCSPCA believes that Beatty, Samarzda, and Furr libeled the organization, then let the organization bring suit to try to prove it.

But public meetings must remain open to the public, and if the SPCA Three are arrested and charged for trying to attend one, I'll be supporting their defense.

Comments

Doug said…
Thanks Steve,

I'm totally speculating here, but my opinion is that my debut on WGMD on Saturday June 8, 2013 is what 'sent them over the edge'. Cathy Samardza and I discussed the NCC audit of KCSPCA on air.

I don't think Carol Furr is an IPoD member but I've never asked her what her political affiliation is.
Anonymous said…
I still dont understand why Dover Downs showcases such acts as Earthquake (who the hell is Earthquake) when you've got a stadium that hold a hundred thousand people and could hold major summer acts on teh infield like Dave Matthews, Kenny Chesney, Jimmy Buffett, etc. That seems like a larger draw than Earthquake.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...