Joel EngelhardtJuno Beach clamps down on comments during public meetings, raising fear of free speech violations.
Juno Beach has been beset by political turmoil that has spilled over into what residents can and cannot say at public meetings.
Mayor Peggy Wheeler announced her intention to enforce decorum standards at the Sept. 25 Town Council meeting. Public comment, she said, “is not a forum to attack council members, staff or citizens.”
While a recent federal appellate court decision casts doubt on government power to restrict First Amendment rights, Juno Beach plunged into the debate by redacting portions of written comments meant to be read aloud that night.
Resident Andy Spilos emailed a four-paragraph statement to register his concerns over the misdemeanor battery case of Town Council Member Marianne Hosta.
“She has continually attacked residents and council members in her blog and now she has been convicted of physical assault on Bianca Cooke, the former mayor’s wife. She has been sentenced to community service hours and an anger management course,” he wrote, although the judge withheld adjudication.
“She has proven to the community she is unfit for office and her behavior is a detriment to the Town Council. I am again demanding she resign from the Town Council! If she refuses to resign the alternative is to initiate a recall election to have her removed.”
During the meeting, those two paragraphs were reduced to a single line: “I am again demanding she resign from the Town Council!”
What constitutes an attack?
The redactions alone infuriated Barbara Petersen, Florida’s preeminent expert on public meetings, who served 25 years as director of the First Amendment Foundation before co-founding the Florida Center for Government Accountability.
“The council canNOT place vague restrictions on what a member of the public can say at a public meeting,” Petersen told Stet News in an email. “By vague — what does ‘personal attack’ mean? I read the letter from Spilos and would consider his remarks valid criticism, not a personal attack.”
They angered Spilos, too. So much so that he showed up two days later and tried to read the letter aloud, leading to a clash with Wheeler.
Wheeler, responding to questions from Stet about Spilos’ comments, explained, “Council members are here to set policy for the town, and personal attacks disrupt that flow of business and impacts council members’ ability to do their job when they are personally attacked, intimidated, or harassed by the same individuals repeatedly.”
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Britt Grant, writing for the majority in an Oct. 8 ruling in Moms for Liberty against the Brevard County School Board, found the school board could not arbitrarily restrict speech.
“No one likes to be called evil, but it is not ‘abusive’ to use that term,” Grant wrote. “Restrictions that bar offensive or otherwise unwelcome speech are impermissible, regardless of the forum in which the government seeks to impose them.”
Citing a 2011 decision, Grant added: “To be sure, sometimes meetings can get tense — no one enjoys being called out negatively, and some may even dislike public praise. But that is the price of admission under the First Amendment. Rather than curtail speech, as ‘a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.’”
Turmoil in seaside town
Juno Beach, an oceanfront town of about 4,000 squeezed between North Palm Beach and Jupiter, has been split since a divisive March election pitting Wheeler against Alex Cooke for mayor. It was the first time the mayor’s seat was determined by popular vote, rather than council appointment.
Development opponents argued that the town buckled when it recently approved Pulte Homes’ plan for 40 townhomes on a long-vacant 4.7 acres along Donald Ross Road.
In 2022, approval of Caretta across the street, sparked fears. It allowed 94 units and about 25,000 square feet of commercial space on 5.4 acres at Donald Ross and U.S. 1.
An anonymous group called Concerned Citizens of Juno Beach formed and started emailing residents to draw attention to town issues. A September newsletter said, “There are urgent concerns regarding the current direction of leadership in Juno Beach. The character and qualities of the Town of Juno Beach will be altered forever if we don’t take action.”
Wheeler has critiqued some of the group’s arguments in her newsletter and has called out Concerned Citizens for misinformation from the dais.
“As your Mayor I believe in truth and facts,” she wrote. “I do not believe that deceiving our citizens is acting in a concerned manner but rather in a divisive and obstructive way. So, be aware of emails using alarmist strategies because they do not always portray accurate or unbiased information.”
The legal troubles for Hosta, 79, stemmed from an incident in which she approached then-Mayor Cooke’s wife, Bianca, who was videotaping her husband at a campaign event. The judge ordered her to attend anger management classes, perform 30 hours of community service and stay away from Bianca Cooke. If she does, her record will be wiped clean.
Residents say they’ve been subjected to Hosta’s wrath in an online newsletter she distributes.
Under apparently unrelated circumstances, Town Manager David Dyess and the town’s finance director recently resigned. The Town Council debated for hours before asking Planning Director Frank Davila to step in as interim manager.
Spilos interrupted
So with the heat ratcheted up as the town prepared for the final vote on the Pulte project, Wheeler set out the rules for public comment, leading to the redactions in Spilos’ letter.
Spilos, listening to the meeting, became incensed. He showed up two days later at a special council meeting to correct the record.
He didn’t get far.
“When Dimi (his fiancee) and I met Marianne Hosta we felt she was the right candidate for Town Council. We supported her campaign and urged our friends and neighbors to support her.
“Now we regret that decision,” he said.
Wheeler interrupted. “Mr. Spilos, if I could stop you for a second. We’re not going to be making any comments that are derogatory, disrespectful to any council member. So based on that I prefer that you don’t make those comments if that’s what you intended to do.”
Spilos: “Well, my comments are not derogatory, they’re factual. They’re not inflammatory. You keep trying to censor what I …”
Wheeler: “Go ahead, I’ll let you continue. I’m just letting you know what we decided at the last meeting.”
Spilos (under his breath): “It’s unacceptable.”
He continues: “I’m afraid that in my opinion she’s unfit for office, her behavior is a detriment to the town, she’s continually attacked residents …”
Wheeler: “Mr. Spilos, I’ve asked you not to speak disrespectfully to any council member. If you want to say something that’s not regarding something that’s disrespectful to a council member you can continue. But if you’re going to continue like that, I’m going to have to ask you to sit down.”
Spilos: “That’s unacceptable. You’re trying to censor what I have to say and that’s unacceptable.”
Wheeler: “Well, we’re not going to be attacking council members, staff or citizens during these proceedings.”
Spilos: “I don’t appreciate you stepping on my First Amendment rights. You’re not a dictator. You’re an elected official. I have a right to speak. All right?”
Wheeler: “You do have a right to speak. But not to be disrespectful to any council member.”
Spilos: “I’m just stating facts.”
Wheeler: “Did you want to continue or …?”
Spilos walked away.
Council debate
But the issue didn’t die there.
Council Member DD Halpern, a member since 2021, asked town attorney Len Rubin if the council can legally censor public comments.
“You can prevent people from making personal attacks,” Rubin said.
Member Jacob Rosengarten, who joined the council in January, wondered where the line is drawn between factual and disrespectful.
“It’s a very slippery slope,” Rosengarten said. “We all signed up for in political office is we don’t have a glass jaw. The public has a right of redress. It’s not always pleasant to hear but the public does have those rights.”
Responded Wheeler: “Len (Rubin) and I have had many conversations about when and how and the position that we should be taking when this happens. That was the decision I think is right for this council. I think it’s right for our community. I think the people in our community are tired of hearing it. Attacking anyone is not right. We want to keep respect.”
As for the concept of the “slippery slope,” she told Stet in an email: “I do not see it as a slippery slope. Most individuals understand the concept of respect and refrain from personal, abusive, or politically motivated attacks, or intimidation.”
What does state law say?
She cited state law for giving town councils the right to develop their own procedures.
“Members of the public shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on a proposition before a board or commission,” state law says. “This section does not prohibit a board or commission from maintaining orderly conduct or proper decorum in a public meeting. The opportunity to be heard is subject to rules or policies adopted by the board or commission, as provided in subsection (4).”
But subsection 4, Petersen points out, is limited.
“Those rules can prescribe the amount of time each speaker gets to address the council, require speakers to fill out a speaker card, and the amount of time that will be set aside for public comment,” she wrote. “That’s IT.”
Rules for public comment are on the agenda for the council’s next meeting, Wednesday, Oct. 23.
In a memo, Rubin reasserts the council’s right to “enact content-based restrictions on free speech so long as they are reasonable and viewpoint neutral.”
“Members of the public do not have the unrestricted right to free speech at Town Council meetings,” he wrote. “And the council may enact rules regulating the behavior of participants to ensure that its meetings are conducted in an orderly and efficient manner.”
He recommends revisiting rules that the council rejected in 2022, including:
- While a speaker may speak strongly in opposition to another’s views or actions, the character and integrity of the other person should not be attacked.
- A speaker’s tone of voice and word choice should be appropriate for a formal, civic meeting. The use of profanity or vulgarity or the making of defamatory, abusive, or threatening comments shall not be tolerated.
- No person shall be allowed to become aggressive, belligerent, or boisterous or engage in disruptive behavior, such as calling out from the audience, clapping, or whistling.
Also on the agenda Wednesday? A moratorium on mixed-use development projects.
