Demonstrations, festivals and parades in the City of Poughkeepsie would be subject to stricter guidelines if the Common Council approves a new ordinance at its Aug 6 meeting.
Existing rules in the city’s charter consist of just two short paragraphs stating that a permit and application are required, as well as “any other pertinent fact or facts” required by the mayor, with approval left to the chief of police. But the proposed ordinance sets 16 pages of criteria and guidelines for gatherings of more than 10 people.
According to Stella Isaza, an attorney for the city, the proposal would improve the constitutionality of the ordinance and bring the city up-to-date with recent court rulings.
“When you have only a two-paragraph parade ordinance, (enforcement) is very difficult,” said Isaza. She described the proposal, modeled after a similar ordinance in the City of Newburgh, as a proactive step that would improve public safety and fairness. The city would be better able to plan for mass gatherings and would establish objective criteria for permission or denial of permits, she said.
Under the proposed ordinance, permits must be filed and approved 28 days in advance of the event, up from 15 days currently required. The city must approve the time and location, and the organization or individual must obtain insurance coverage of $2 million for bodily injury (in aggregate) and $100,000 for property damage – exceptions from the insurance requirement may be granted for indigent individuals or organizations. All others that can show they are unable to obtain insurance (because they were denied coverage, for example) may opt to place a security deposit of $10,000 in cash or bond in escrow. Additionally, the city administrator determines an appropriate security deposit for each applicant, which is held in escrow. The penalty for not complying falls between $100 and $1,000.
“It was high time for us to update the ordinance,” said Isaza.
Council: ‘More questions’
During discussion at a July 16 meeting, Common Council members raised several questions before Gwen Johnson (D-7th Ward) said she would block unanimous consent required for a vote that night.
“I just think there are more questions that need to be asked,” said Johnson following the meeting. Johnson was concerned that new rules might result in fines levied on gatherings of young people – who are without a youth center, she pointed out – or that an annual march in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. might be affected.
“While I recognize the need for the city to be able to plan for the necessary city services and the resources that may be required to support these public assemblies, I think we need to be very careful that we do not do so at the expense of that very important right to assemble and exercise free speech,” said Chairman Brian Doyle (D-4th Ward). The issue was tabled for consideration at an Aug. 6 meeting.
Dutchess County legislator and community activist Joel Tyner (D-Rhinebeck/Clinton) believes the proposed requirements could threaten his regular political gatherings. Tyner is hosting a press conference on July 30 in front of City Hall on Civic Center Plaza at 1 p.m. with Johnson and community leader Mae Parker-Harris to discuss the issue, and he also started an online petition at www.PetitionOnline.com/1STAMEND.
Parker-Harris, who is involved in the Martin Luther King Jr. march, questioned some obstacles she felt the ordinance would impose. “For us to get together to carry on Martin Luther King’s mission we’ve got to worry about some liability insurance? To me it doesn’t make sense. To me it seems to want to stop the act of speaking out,” she said. She was also concerned about the fate of a traditional candlelight vigil for the homeless. “You mean to tell me the city is going to say you need so many days permission for something like that?” she asked.
March organizer went to court
Dan Werner, legal director for the Workers’ Rights Law Center of New York, took an in-depth look at the existing ordinance when he defended a former Vassar College student who was charged with violating the parade ordinance, section 14-13(a) of the city charter. While Werner feels the existing ordinance is too vague, he also believes the new proposal is overly restrictive. A rule that formerly gave “unbridled discretion to city government in granting permits” would now “put insurmountable burdens on any person that wants to organize a march or demonstration,” he said.
Werner defended Chandra Russo in a criminal case after Russo was accused of violating the parade ordinance. Russo took part in the national May 2006 march and rally, “Day Without an Immigrant,” which preceded U.S. Senate consideration of immigration legislation. Intended to show the economic and political clout of immigrants, the march drew between 800 to 2,000 to city streets, and many similar events were staged nationwide.
According to a court memorandum filed in her defense, Russo helped organize the Poughkeepsie march that took place on May 1, 2006. March organizers had obtained a permit and were told by the police department that they should follow a route from the intersection of Hamilton Street and Main Street, west down Main to a rally at Waryas Park.
But Russo and a group of several hundred Vassar College students, faculty and staff were off the approved route when they gathered near campus and walked to the main march, carrying signs and shouting their political message. According to Werner, the participants were never told to disburse, nor were they told that they were violating any law.
Near the conclusion of the Waryas Park rally, a police sergeant approached Russo and handed her a document charging that she “helped organize” a parade that impeded traffic around Vassar College. In other words, the gathering of the Vassar community as it joined forces with larger group constituted a march, according to the sergeant – and the congregants had not obtained a permit. Russo pled not guilty.
In Russo’s defense, Werner argued that the parade ordinance was overly broad, vague and restricted her right to free speech. He also argued that the document used to charge Russo lacked crucial information and failed to establish that her actions occurred within city limits.
In his decision, Judge John Garrity of city court did not address constitutionality, but he agreed with Werner that the accusatory instrument – the paper issued by the sergeant – lacked sufficient information. Garrity dismissed the case.
Werner believes the proposed ordinance is overly restrictive – specifically, the requirement to provide $2 million in insurance coverage posed an “economic barrier” and proving indigence was too burdensome, Werner said.
“A labor union might not meet (the indigence criteria),” Werner said, because it has funds available for strikes and public policy initiatives, but “it shouldn’t have to spend … whatever it costs to have a $2 million insurance policy,” he said. Vassar College students might find themselves in a similar situation – not indigent, but unable to afford the insurance coverage, he added.
Werner also said the proposed ordinance left open questions, such as who would decide what constituted spontaneous free speech in response to topical events.
Isaza said that if Common Council members felt the ordinance was overly restrictive, they could request additional waivers or other changes to the draft.
But some organizers of annual events said they did not believe the proposed ordinance would mean a big change. Dominic Letterii, who plans the Poughkeepsie Italian Center’s Italian festival each year in September, said that the center already obtains insurance coverage for its event, including carnival rides and attractions. To obtain its permit each year for a festival and parade, the center contacts the city administrator, he said.
“We’ve always gotten (requested permits),” he said. “It’s never been a problem.” A rider under the center’s insurance policy covers includes the days of the festival. Letterii did not recall submitting a safety plan, but the center does employ security guards. Letterii did not think the new ordinance would have a significant impact.
“If it’s passed, we’ll just have to abide by (it),” he said.
Proposed Ordinance
• Rules apply to gatherings of more than 10 people.
• Permit must be filed and approval received 28 days in advance, with exception made for a spontaneous exercise of free speech such as those in response to a contemporary occurrence (for example, a declaration of war).
• Certificate of liability insurance covering the event and naming the City of Poughkeepsie as an insured party of $2 million in aggregate for bodily injury and $100,000 in aggregate for property damage (exceptions for legal non-profits/ charities or indigent groups/individuals).
• Those unable to obtain insurance coverage because they were denied (other than indigents) are required to pay $10,000 security deposit in bond or cash escrow.
• $25 fee.
• City approves time and location.
• A security deposit held in escrow amount determined by the city administrator taking into account history of compliance, special requirements, etc.
• Safety plan for events more than 100 people.
• Penalty for not complying between $100 to $1,000.
Current Ordinance
Section 14-13 Parades, demonstrations, assemblages.
(a) Permit required. No person shall conduct, address or otherwise participate in any parade, gathering, assemblage or demonstration, upon any street or in any other public place within the city, unless such parade, gathering, assemblage or demonstration has been authorized by a written permit from the Chief of Police.
(b) Application. The application for such permit shall be in writing and shall state the name and address of the applicant, the name of the organization, if any, which he represents, the purposes of such parade, gathering, assemblage or demonstration and the day and hour when and the place where it is desired to be held, together with such other information as the Mayor may require, and the Mayor may inquire as he may see fit into any other pertinent fact or facts.