Abuse of Power at the JIPSD Commission Meeting

JIPSD Chairwoman Sandi Engelman and Vice-Chairman Donald Hollingsworth both refused to respect the first amendment rights of Alan Laughlin, a candidate seeking election to the JIPSD Commission in November.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Like most governmental bodies, the James Island Public Service District Commission allows citizen comments at their meeting.   This provides an opportunity for citizens to exercise their first amendment rights, specifically, the right to free speech and to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."   

The Chairwoman of the JIPSD, Sandi Engelman, and the Vice Chairman, Donald Hollingsworth have decided to impose censorship on citizen comments to prevent all criticism of any Commissioner or the Commission.

What is their rationale?   The JIPSD rules of procedure which include:

Rule 23  Purpose of Public Comment.  It is the purpose of this agenda item to
permit the public to address the Commission, not to debate or berate the Commission or
its employees.  

Rule 25  Decorum.   Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or
who becomes obnoxious or disruptive while addressing the Commission may be barred
from further presentation before the Commission by the presiding officer. 

Chairwoman Engelman and Vice Chairman Hollingsworth have interpreted these rules to prohibit all criticism of any Commissioner or the Commission.

There are two problems with this censorship.   Most importantly, the JIPSD is an elected, governmental body fully subject to the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.   Any JIPSD rule that prohibits citizens from sharing concerns about the actions of  a Commissioner or the Commission is unconstitutional.

However, the existing JIPSD rules do not come close to prohibiting criticism.  Chairwoman Engelman and Vice Chairman Hollingsworth are violating the Commission's own rules as well as the U.S. Constitution.

To "berate" is to scold or criticize angrily.   Even harsh criticism can be delivered in a reasonable and calm matter.   "Impertinent"  means rude or showing disrespect.   Again, criticism may be provided in a respectful manner.  "Slanderous" means false and malicious.   A truthful criticism can never be slanderous.

What happened?

At the August meeting, Alan Laughlin was recognized for his three minute public comment.   He began to address the Commission.   He stated Commissioner Kay Kernodle was at the August meeting of James Island Town Council.  As soon as he mentioned her name, Chairwoman Engelman interrupted and said that he could not criticize any Commissioner.   Laughlin then began without using Kernodle's name, stating that a Commissioner had attended the August Town Council meeting.  Engelman again interrupted stating that she would not allow anyone to criticize any Commissioner. 

Alan Laughlin wasn't even given the opportunity to make any criticism, much less berate the Commission or be impertinent or slanderous.     It was obvious that Engelman had a good idea what Laughlin was going to say, and she was going to prohibit him from speaking.

At the September meeting, Laughlin tried again.   He prefaced his remarks by saying that he wanted to bring up a concern about the behavior of the Commission's official liaison to the Town at the August James Island Town Council meeting.  Engelman told him that he could not criticize the Commission or any Commissioner.

Commissioner Kathy Woolsey stated that Engelman was violating Laughlin's first amendment rights.   Vice Chair Hollingsworth said the Commission rules prohibit any criticism of the Commission.   Commissioner Woolsey asked what rule states that no criticism is allowed and asked that it be read.  Hollingsworth then read the rule 25.   Since Laughlin hadn't done more than mention the Commission liaison, he had no opportunity to be impertinent much less slander anyone.  Engelman said that Commissioner Woolsey was out of order and pointed to the sheriff's deputy at the back of the room and said that she would have her removed. 

What grievance was Alan Laughlin trying to share with the Commissioners?

At the August Town Council meeting, Commissioner Kay Kernodle signed up for the Town's public comment period.   She handed a letter to the members of Council and then turned her back and began to address the audience.    I asked her to address Council.   She refused, stating that she didn't want to address Council and wanted to address the audience.  Rather than insist that she follow the Town rules, I just let her go on for her three minutes.   She spent the three minutes thanking Mayor Tecklenburg for agreeing to adjust the City's boundary with the Town so that the new JIPSD fire station would be entirely within the Town. I thought she made a fool of herself with her impertinent behavior.  I was just baffled that she failed to use this opportunity to request that Town Council agree to a boundary adjustment.

Alan Laughlin believes that Commissioner Kernodle's lack of respect for Town Council was inappropriate, especially because such behavior would never be tolerated at a Commission meeting.   I imagine that is what he planned to say to the Commissioners at their August and September meetings.  I think it is highly likely that is what Engelman expected him to say as well. 

Surely, that is why she censored Alan Laughlin in clear violation of his first amendment rights.  And her vice Chairman, Donald Hollingsworth, backed up her abuse of power.

Isn't it time for a change?