City Council has withdrawn a proposed ordinance that would have barred political activity on all city-owned property after council members raised concerns about free speech, enforcement and process.
Council President Donna Reed, the sponsor of the bill, said at the committee of the whole meeting Tuesday that she was pulling the measure from next week’s agenda because it needed additional work and clarification.
“I still want to move something forward,” she said, “but I understand folks’ concerns.”
Reed emphasized repeatedly that the intent was not to restrict First Amendment rights.
“This is not to prohibit any kind of freedom of speech,” Reed said.
Instead, she framed the issue as a question of whether the interiors of municipal buildings should be available for political use, even if public streets, parks and exteriors remain open forums.
Reed argued that if city facilities are available for political events, they must be equally available to any group, including those with extremist or hateful ideologies.
“We have to open it to everyone, whether they’re extremists, whether they’re middle of the road,” she said. “Do we want any of our city buildings marred by people who do not respect the human dignity of all?”
She acknowledged such scenarios might be unlikely, but said students of history can understand what has happened in the past.
The proposal prompted questions from other council members about how the city could determine which groups might be considered extreme and whether the ordinance would create legal and practical problems.
Reed noted the difficulty of enforcement, asking rhetorically: “Who are we to determine if someone’s going to use it for that purpose?”
Councilman Jaime Baez Jr. pushed back strongly, saying council members had not been consulted before the ordinance was introduced.
“I’d love to hear you say working with everyone, but it’s apparent that before this ordinance was presented I didn’t receive a phone call or an email or discussion about this,” Baez said.
Baez also questioned whether a blanket prohibition was necessary, noting that laws already exist to address safety concerns.
“If it’s not broken, why are we trying to fix it?” he asked.
City Solicitor Fred Lachat said the ordinance would require significant discussion because restrictions on political expression must be handled carefully.
“If we’re going to get into banning political expression, or allowing any political expression, you have to be content neutral, which then opens the door to everybody,” he said.
Reed said she hopes to work with the administration and solicitors to draft a revised version that council could support.
“We’ll work on a new ordinance and try to get one where everyone can feel comfortable,” she said.
Other business
Council reviewed several proposals tied to public safety and budget adjustments.
Among them was a proposed bill updating Reading’s fire prevention code to match the state’s adoption of the 2021 International Fire Code.
Fire Marshal Jeremy Searfoss said the city’s dense urban environment requires stricter local amendments.
“We have specific amendments that increase the safety over some other municipalities,” Searfoss said.
Council also reviewed a budget amendment recognizing stronger-than-expected EMS billing collections.
Officials said there have been changes in the billing services and practices.
Council members also praised public works crews for working overtime to remove snow after the recent storm.