Laserfiche WebLink
AGENDA REPORT <br />CITY OF COLTON <br />For City Council Meeting of <br />September 17, 1996 <br />September 10, 1996 <br />TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL <br />FROM: Julie Hayward Biggs, City Atto 4or <br />SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding Placement of Printed Materials in City Buildings <br />Background <br />As you requested, I have reviewed the,provisions of Resolution R-92-96 in light <br />of certain complaints received from various members of the community. Resolution R-92-96 <br />provides that only non-profit or City sponsored written materials may be placed for distribution <br />to the public in certain public buildings. It has been called to the attention of several <br />Councilmembers, however, that many health providers who distribute literature to senior citizens <br />t,r-1 are private, for-profit enterprises and that as a result of Resolution R-92-96, helpful and <br />informative publications of such companies can no longer be distributed in public buildings. <br />You have asked that I review Resolution R-92-96 to determine whether it can be amended in <br />some way to permit distribution of the materials in question. <br />Legal Analysis <br />As I have previously advised the City Council, because of constitutional limitations <br />relating to freedom of speech and potential censorship issues, it is essential that the City policy <br />with regard to such printed materials be content -neutral. The non-profit/for profit distinction <br />does not involve an analysis of the content of material distributed, but merely identification of <br />the corporate nature of the publisher. Thus, that restriction is content neutral and a valid <br />restraint on the distribution of printed materials. <br />Any system of control for distribution of printed materials that creates a situation in <br />which individuals must read the material first in order to determine whether it should be <br />removed from public buildings, however, is clearly not content -neutral. The issue that has been <br />raised, permitting health related materials and not others, would clearly violate that constitutional <br />requirement because a government official would have to consider the content of the materials <br />rN distributed in order to determine compliance with City policy. <br />ITEM NO. 39 <br />