READING, Pa. – Reading City Council avoided what could have been a high-spirited debate when council President Donna Reed pulled a proposed ordinance before it was seriously discussed at the Committee of the Whole meeting Monday night.
The proposed ordinance in question was an amendment of the administrative code that called for the prohibition of all types of political activity at all city-owned properties.
The proposed ordinance was introduced at council’s Feb. 9 meeting and stirred controversy on social media platforms over the last few days.
Reed said she introduced the proposed ordinance because she feels strongly about using city-owned buildings for political activity because it could open the use to extremist political groups.
“Do we want any of our city buildings marred by people who do not respect the human dignity of all?” Reed asked. “We’d have to say OK to everyone’s political philosophy, to everybody’s position,” Reed said. “It might be heinous; it might be something that would be hurtful to the folks within our community.”
Reed said whenever such ordinances are introduced, they tend to take a life of their own on social media discussions.
She explained that she pulled the proposed ordinance from the agenda to allow council to discuss the matter in the future and craft a more fine-tuned ordinance, if a majority of members would wish to do so.
“Again, there’s plenty of time to work on it, and the will of the body is always what counts in the long run,” Reed said. “I am saying this seriously: This is not to impugn any one person’s right to freedom of speech. But I would hate to see this room, which is a place of governance, rented out for any particular political entity.”
City Solicitor Fred Lachat tried to clarify Reed’s position.
“I think what council president is trying to explain is that if we’re going to get into allowing any political expression, it has to be content neutral, which opens the door to everybody,” Lachat said.
Even though Reed removed the proposed ordinance, Councilmember Jaime Baez Jr. said he wanted to have input immediately.
“I love to hear that you want to work with everyone, but it is apparent that did not happen before this was presented,” Baez said. “No one wants extremist groups promoting violence or hate in our city; however, we do have laws that already prevent that.”
Baez also said he wanted to go on record and read an email exchange between himself and Ed Stock, representing the ethics committee.
Baez said that on Jan. 24, he asked Stock to confirm he would not be violating any rules or ethics requirements if he were to rent the field house in Pendora Park for a campaign fundraiser.
Baez said Stock responded, telling him he saw no problem with what Baez was looking to do.
Baez also pointed to additional correspondence from council’s solicitor, who he said cited concerns about First Amendment rights with the proposed ordinance as it was written.
“My email was sent on January 24, and the introduction of this ordinance was February 9,” Baez said. “Coincidence or not, what matters here is what council President Reed has so profoundly stated that she does not want to infringe on freedoms and rights.”
“In a democracy, people are supposed to be able to speak freely, organize freely, participate in the political process without government deciding who gets special treatment and who does not,” Baez added. “The rules are not being applied equally when people in power start to choose which locations are allowed and which are not based on who’s asking and who they agree with, and that is not fair; that is playing favorites.”
“We’ve seen this kind of behavior at the national level right under Donald Trump,” he said. “Government power is often used to punish people that he does disagree with and protect people who supports him. This isn’t about party, it’s about a mindset that says if I don’t like you, I’ll make the rules harder. That way of thinking is dangerous, and no matter who it is or who it comes from, this is how democracy gets weakened.”
“History shows us that authoritarianism systems don’t start overnight,” Baez continued. “They start when governments slowly limit speech control where people can organize and decide whose voices matter. That is why this matters, and why I will not support this.”
Reed responded, saying she understands the concerns and that it why she pulled the ordinance.
“We could all work on a subsequent one that might fill everybody’s concerns, so I’m open to working on another one and having the concerns addressed,” Reed said.
Councilmember Raymond Baker said he did have concerns about the proposed bill as it was written, as it would restrict free speech.
“I will say that if council president or someone else wants to introduce one that keeps partisan political fundraising and stuff of that nature out of our city parks and out of our city certain city buildings, I think that’s a reasonable request,” Baker said.