Kathleen Greig, village
clerk RE: Request
for hearing/appeal of Village Attorney Pollen’s decision regarding
notification of meetings and agendas Dear Ms. Greig: This letter is a request
for a hearing/appeal of the Village attorney’s decision to single me out for
charges to notify me of irregular committee meetings and provide me with
their agendas. I would like to take
this issue to the next level and it is not clear to me where one goes to
appeal a policy established by the village attorney. Do I go to the I want to appeal the
village attorney’s decision because we do not license the press in this
country; we all have the same rights. Furthermore, I function as
the press, as Mr. Pollen well knows, since I just sued him, his firm and the
Village as “the press.” Is it Mr. Pollen’s contention that unless a citizen
writes “the press” on a piece of paper constitutional rights may be denied? And furthermore again, every
American citizen is entitled to be “the press.” I am not even aware of
any definition of “the press’ in the Village ordinances, or an ordinance that
excludes “the press’ from the ordinance that establishes a fee for copies.
But since it is the practice of the Village to give requestors who identify
themselves as “the press” notices of meetings and agendas without charge,
what is the basis for charging some people but not others? That I should have to
pay a dollar a week is unreasonably petty on Mr. Pollen’s part – to put the
Village at risk of litigation over what is clearly a de minimis amount
seems to be retaliation by Mr. Pollen for articles I have written challenging
his understanding of constitutional rights, fairness, the role of the press
and the public records act. It seems I am being discriminated against in
violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, the United
States Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the press is entitled to no
special access.[1] However, since it is the
policy of the Village to give the press documents without cost, I appeal Mr.
Pollen’s decision to exclude me from what is generally provided to citizens
sharing my standing in the community. If Mr. Pollen is unable
to research the law before shooting from the hip, I must challenge his
uninformed, petty, arbitrary and unconstitutional policy. Very truly yours, Geoff Davidian 414 964-8871 |
[1] “It has generally been held that the First
Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access
to information not available to the public generally. Zemel v. Rusk, 381
U.S. 1, 16 -17 (1965); New York Times Co. v. United States, 403
U.S. 713, 728 -730 (1971), (STEWART, J., concurring); Tribune Review
Publishing Co. v. Thomas, 254 F.2d 883, 885 (CA3 1958); In the Matter of United
Press Assns. v. Valente, 308 N. Y. 71, 77, 123 N. E. 2d 777, 778 (1954). In
Zemel v. Rusk, supra, for example, the Court sustained the Government's refusal
to validate passports to