Elmwood Park Public Library Director Michael Consiglio sought meeting room policy changes that would give him the authority to deny meeting room access to any group that engages in speech which he dislikes.
These were the folks that were elected by the community democratically to advance what they wanted In The local government. It may not align with what you see as the direction of the county but it is what the majority of those who choose to vote did want.
Does the ALA have the authority to supercede a elected official?
I would say if you feel you have a strong case you should move forward with finding a probono lawyer to assist. But I am not seeing how he is violating any actual laws here.
It would be a I treating case to follow to see if a new president could be set.
"These were the folks that were elected by the community democratically to advance what they wanted In The local government. It may not align with what you see as the direction of the county but it is what the majority of those who choose to vote did want."
I'm not sure I entirely follow, but it does seem like you are saying you're okay with village executives and elected officials who propose policies that may violate the free speech rights of residents. I don't know when anyone in Elmwood Park voted for that. —Kevin Gosztola
I have not seen were they are violating you first amendment rights. You can still protest outside on the sidewalk.
They should not block speech in the publily alloted time for comments. that I do see as a issue. But the limitations on room use and charging is well with the authority of those elected.
I was not a hundred percent on the ALA so I had to look up the orginization. They are not a official agency of the government. Basically a similar structure to to the ACLU they have a goal and work towards change but In the end outside of influence have no ability to enact change through policy.
If folks are not happy with it they can vote to change that next election. I would not say I am happy with 100 percent of any of the choices of the elected officials. But I will say they were voted into place and hold that ability to change policy's until they are voted out of those positions.
I am just trying to figure out were the first amendment violation is here outside of the possible change to public comments which I do not agree with.
Sorry I cannot add to the original comment. But the case you are referring to would only apply to if you were not allowed to comment during public comment.
It would not help much on the free use of the meeting rooms. Do you have a case that could apply to that?
These were the folks that were elected by the community democratically to advance what they wanted In The local government. It may not align with what you see as the direction of the county but it is what the majority of those who choose to vote did want.
Does the ALA have the authority to supercede a elected official?
I would say if you feel you have a strong case you should move forward with finding a probono lawyer to assist. But I am not seeing how he is violating any actual laws here.
It would be a I treating case to follow to see if a new president could be set.
"These were the folks that were elected by the community democratically to advance what they wanted In The local government. It may not align with what you see as the direction of the county but it is what the majority of those who choose to vote did want."
I'm not sure I entirely follow, but it does seem like you are saying you're okay with village executives and elected officials who propose policies that may violate the free speech rights of residents. I don't know when anyone in Elmwood Park voted for that. —Kevin Gosztola
Sorry that should have stated not country but local township. Miss typed that
I have not seen were they are violating you first amendment rights. You can still protest outside on the sidewalk.
They should not block speech in the publily alloted time for comments. that I do see as a issue. But the limitations on room use and charging is well with the authority of those elected.
I was not a hundred percent on the ALA so I had to look up the orginization. They are not a official agency of the government. Basically a similar structure to to the ACLU they have a goal and work towards change but In the end outside of influence have no ability to enact change through policy.
If folks are not happy with it they can vote to change that next election. I would not say I am happy with 100 percent of any of the choices of the elected officials. But I will say they were voted into place and hold that ability to change policy's until they are voted out of those positions.
I am just trying to figure out were the first amendment violation is here outside of the possible change to public comments which I do not agree with.
Sorry I cannot add to the original comment. But the case you are referring to would only apply to if you were not allowed to comment during public comment.
It would not help much on the free use of the meeting rooms. Do you have a case that could apply to that?