During a recent City Council on April 1, 2025, Deputy City Manager Daisy Perez presented the council with a proposed policy that addresses the display and distribution of materials within city facilities, a subject that has garnered increased attention. The initiative was prompted by a request from the group known as “Fullerton’s Future,” which seeks to produce a newsletter for display in the City Hall lobby. This request has opened up a larger conversation regarding the classification of city facilities as non-public or public forums.

To read the letter click here.

Fullerton City Attorney Dick Jones: The proposed policy invites discussion on the appropriate use and limitations of public spaces while avoiding focus on any particular organization. Drafted with clear constraints regarding the time, place, and manner of expression, the ordinance and resolution take cues from similar policies adopted in other communities.

The policy aims to achieve three primary objectives:

1. Establish clear and consistent guidelines for the display and distribution of materials.
2. Reinforce the legal classification of city facilities as non-public forums.
3. Maintain order, equity, and neutrality in the purpose and appearance of public spaces.

Perez: A key component of understanding this policy is recognizing the different classifications of forums under First Amendment law: public forums, non-public forums, and limited public forums. Each has distinct standards for regulating expression.

Public forums, such as sidewalks or parks, are traditionally open to free expression, with any governmental regulation facing strict scrutiny. In contrast, non-public forums—like City Hall, libraries, and community centers—primarily facilitate governmental functions and allow for reasonable, viewpoint-neutral regulations.

Limited public forums are those intentionally opened by the city for specific topics or groups, such as a community bulletin board. In these areas, the city can regulate the time, place, and manner of expression as long as the rules are reasonable and content-neutral. The city is not obligated to keep these forums open indefinitely.

According to the proposed policy, displayed materials would be restricted to those produced by city departments, government agencies, public utilities serving Fullerton, and designated educational institutions. Specific areas for material distribution, such as lobbies and foyers, would be established and displayed materials would need to meet certain format and identification standards.

An exception would be made for the main library, which operates a limited public forum in the form of a community message board, subject to its own policies and time-space limitations.

City officials believe this policy will help prevent city facilities from being unintentionally classified as public forums while ensuring neutrality and preserving the integrity of city-operated spaces. Similar regulations have been enacted in neighboring jurisdictions, including Irvine and Newport Beach.

City staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the resolution that formalizes this policy, aimed at creating a transparent and manageable framework for handling material displays in city facilities. The discussion continues as council members weigh the implications of these proposed changes.

Councilmember Dr. Ahmad Zahra: I have a couple of questions, and I will reserve my comments until after we hear from the public.

First, how many cities in total have a similar policy? I know you mentioned Irvine and Newport Beach, but out of the 34 cities in Orange County, are there others besides those two?

Second, can you clarify the definitions of “public” and “non-public” forums? Where do these definitions come from, and who defines them?

Lastly, I would like to understand the origins of this policy. The public needs to know how this policy originated. I understand there was an email sent—now public—from an attorney representing a group called The Friends of Fullerton’s Future. I would appreciate more information on the genesis of this policy.

Additionally, it was mentioned that this item was brought forward based on the direction of the City Council. I want to clarify if that is an accurate representation. I was not part of any discussion to bring this forward, and though I know it was discussed in a closed session, I did not initiate that discussion. I think it’s essential to provide clarity to the public on this matter.

Attorney Baron Betenhausen: I will address your questions in reverse order. As the city attorney mentioned, this issue began with a letter from an attorney representing a proposed newspaper, which requested permission to designate the City Hall lobby and other public buildings as open forums. This was the first instance of someone formally asking the city to take action on this matter.

Consequently, the issue was presented to the City Council to review the current policy and establish a new one, as there was none in place at that time. There is an existing administrative policy, number 22, which is limited to public countertops, but there was ambiguity regarding how to apply policies to public buildings.

The proposed policy aims to be viewpoint-neutral and is not directed at any specific publication; rather, it serves as a broad framework. Regarding non-public forums, definitions are established by the Supreme Court under the First Amendment. A non-public forum is essentially defined by the Court as any space that is not considered a public forum.

A public forum can be created through government action, legally referred to as “government fiat,” which specifically designates an area as an open forum, or it can be established by tradition—referring to spaces historically recognized for free expression, such as parks, sidewalks, and open areas.

The courts have determined that government buildings, particularly their workspaces and lobbies, are generally considered non-public forums, especially when there is clear evidence or documentation demonstrating a specific government purpose for the facility. This policy is being presented for consideration as a result of a request we received.

Zahra: As a follow-up, I still haven’t received an answer regarding the number of cities involved, aside from the two that have already been mentioned. I would also like to understand the potential consequences of this situation. You’ve outlined some benefits from a particular standpoint, but could this expose us to liability? Given that we have had this display for 30 years, and that at least a couple of publications have remained here almost permanently, could suddenly redesignating these areas and responding to a new publication lead to legal challenges and costs for taxpayers?

Betenhausen: I want to make it clear that this statement is not in direct response to a specific publication; however, you mentioned that this situation arose from a request by a publication to be considered. The letter we received prompted city staff and the city attorney’s office to review the existing policy. Our goal is to address the ambiguity present in the current policy.

Furthermore, if the Council’s actions this evening are perceived as retaliatory or directed at a particular publication, that could violate the First Amendment. On the other hand, if the Council’s focus is on broader public policy regarding the appropriate use of city facilities—specifying what limitations should or shouldn’t be imposed—it would align more closely with state and federal law concerning time, place, and manner restrictions.

To answer your question, yes, it is possible for someone to sue the city. If it is determined that our ordinance or the actions taken this evening are not narrowly focused, we may be responsible for covering their attorney’s fees. However, the aim of today’s discussion is to guide the Council toward a wider public policy issue: what constitutes appropriate use of our public facilities.

Are there any other questions?

Zahra: No? But I would still like to know how many cities are involved.

Betenhausen: In the review of the cities in Orange County, we identified the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach, both of which have policies in place. The city of San Juan Capistrano had a policy but abandoned it after some litigation. So, it’s essentially Irvine and Newport Beach.

Zahra: They abandoned it because of that litigation?

Betenhausen: Yes, I’m sorry for the confusion; their decision was indeed due to the litigation.

Zahra: So, they were sued?

Betenhausen: Yes, but the details can be distinguished.

Mayor Fred Jung: Are there any other questions before we move on to public comment? You can save any remaining questions for after public comment.

Public Comments

Karen Lloreda: My questions and comments will be tempered by the presentation we’ve just heard. I am very concerned that public buildings are not being used for public purposes. I wanted to begin my remarks this evening with a quote: “Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy; it is democracy.” This is a statement by Walter Cronkite. The proposed action poses a direct threat to our democracy and our way of life. It cuts to the essence of what it means to be an American—not a Democrat, not a Republican, not a liberal, nor a conservative. Democracy relies on our ability to express ourselves and to be heard. This action attempts to suppress that ability. It implies that we will limit it and change it.

If someone else wants to present a different perspective, I support that. Printing another paper is great, but don’t assume that you can eliminate one perspective to create an even playing field; that simply isn’t true. It amounts to suppression. When you deny one party’s voice while claiming to make it fair for everyone, that’s a flawed argument. I hope that, in your deep commitment as patriots of this country, you love the Constitution as much as I do and that you will not support this action.

Don’t restrict access to the press. Let people speak, let their voices be heard, and let them share their ideas. That’s what we stand for. I have one last quote that I really appreciate, by Ferdinand Mount: “One of the unsung freedoms that go with freedom of the press is the freedom not to read it.”

Todd Harison: That was very well said. In fact, I will try to freestyle much of that after my prewriting, because you expressed it so effectively. With all due respect to the city lawyer’s guidance—guidance I fortunately do not need to follow—I must say: CENSORSHIP! It’s widely known that much of this council does not appreciate what the Fullerton Observer has to say. Reporting the actual facts behind decisions is very unpopular for them, yet the Observer does it at no profit and at considerable cost.

That said, I’m not suggesting that the council majority is targeting the Observer. However, given the animosity toward responsible reporters like those at the Fullerton Observer, I can’t help but wonder if the threat of a lawsuit regarding lobby publication access is an attempt by their backers to silence the Observer. Was it not enough to shift their rack in the lobby to a less visible location?

I urge you all to work harder to find a middle ground, one where well-known, relatively mainstream publications like the Observer and the Titan can still be accessible here at the heart of Fullerton’s political power—ensuring Freedom of the Press. We need to recognize that there is a legitimate press and then there are pressure groups with newsletters they want to distribute, often filled with hatred based on previous postings.

I understand the city has legitimate reasons for wanting to limit certain distributions, but to simply say, “We’ll take the easy route and shut out everyone,” is a deep and dangerous mistake. I know Saskia is scheduled to speak shortly, and whatever she has to say, I support the concept of a free press while still preventing the distribution of hate for hate’s sake.

Helen Higgins: It is disheartening that the city would yield to threats from individuals or groups that are contrary to the welfare of the community. I am concerned that this does not specifically target any one entity, although the Fullerton Observer immediately comes to mind. Before I subscribed to the paper, I appreciated being able to access it at City Hall, the library, or even my grocery store. Even as a subscriber, I sometimes still pick up a copy at the library.

Eliminating access to this long-established Fullerton paper, especially in community spaces like the library and the Community Center, would greatly disadvantage our community. The Observer is a valuable resource that provides local event updates and offers an important platform for young writers. People take pride in seeing their photos or stories in print. This paper serves an essential role for all community organizations. How could it be deemed inappropriate material for city facilities?

I hope you will carefully reconsider this policy, which I believe to be misguided.

Saskia Kennedy: I’m speaking today from the Fullerton Observer, which has about 72 contributors helping out with the paper. My grandfather started this publication in 1978 with a group of his friends. Over 40 years ago, the city asked us to include the paper at City Hall, and I’ve never seen it treated so poorly. It has been hidden far away from the front door, while previously it was always displayed prominently. Since I took over, it seems to have been pushed back into a corner, hidden behind chairs, umbrella stands, and signs, to the point where it’s hardly picked up at all.

I decided to remove the distribution rack from City Hall. I have over 80 locations for distribution, so it doesn’t necessarily need to be in City Hall. That said, I believe the city should have the discernment to recognize that a publication containing anti-semitic content, swastikas, or other forms of hate speech or child pornography is not something that should be distributed in the main foyer. However, the Daily Titan, which has been around for a long time, is student-run, and the Fullerton Observer, a 47-year-old newspaper should be allowed.

Yes, we strive to tell the truth about what happens at City Council meetings, and sometimes council members say things they might be ashamed of. We make every effort to be fair to everyone. When we get it wrong, the public holds us accountable, and we correct our mistakes. I feel like this is targeting the Fullerton Observer primarily due to a letter sent to the city, which was published on a blog. It revealed their desire to be like us. I believe that an established publication like ours should be allowed to be displayed in the foyer.

Josh Ferguson: As someone who takes the First Amendment very seriously, I feel it’s important to address some issues regarding this council. Specifically, I believe that you voted to impose an illegal restraint against me regarding First Amendment matters. The city broke the law by putting documents online, and then we were sued for publishing them.

To respond to those who have disparaged the publication I managed, Friends for Fullerton’s Future, I want to clarify that I was involved from 2016, right up to the day Joe Bells crashed his car into a tree on election night in 2021, when the settlement occurred. Since then, I have not been affiliated with that organization, although I still consider myself friendly toward its overarching mission.

It’s particularly concerning to hear someone who runs a newspaper suggest that we should censor hate speech. While I do believe that some speech, such as threats, is illegal, if you aren’t willing to defend what you label as hate speech, then you don’t truly believe in free speech. Free speech matters most when you are willing to defend views you disagree with, not just those that align with your own beliefs or established norms.

If this council decides to propose a plan that favors established papers, be aware that you could face legal action. When I left Friends for Fullerton’s Future, I started a new publication called Fullerton City News, but my involvement changed, and though it technically still exists, it’s no longer active. If you attempt to restrict publication to established entities, I would consider suing the city.

I am firmly against censorship. However, I must emphasize that what is proposed here isn’t censorship. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently on many occasions that as long as a policy is content-neutral, which this one is, you can set limits on what can be presented in a non-public space. According to Supreme Court precedent, certain areas are designated as public, non-public, or limited public spaces; a city council room typically falls into the non-public category.

The issue arises because there is currently no clear policy in place. This lack of policy gives the impression that by inviting a newspaper to participate, the city is endorsing that publication. I would argue that the Observer, which I think of as akin to Fullerton Pravda, is indeed endorsed by the city. We have a council member who had someone ghostwrite articles for him, and this was never disclosed. (Editors Note: It was disclosed multiple times as a mistake by then editor Jesse La Tour and has since been rectified. Pravda” is a Russian word that literally means “truth” and was the name of the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1918 to 1991. Essentially calling the Observer Fullerton propaganda.)

Furthermore, when the city sued me, the Observer was running press releases from City Hall without defending free speech or the First Amendment. They even hired a consultant and were ridiculed by the ACLU. This isn’t just a First Amendment issue; it’s a policy issue. If the policy is content-neutral, that’s the right approach; otherwise, you will open yourself up to lawsuits.

Maureen Melton: I’m curious to find out what you mean when you say that certain things can only be placed in public spaces. Are you referring to advertisements for Advance and other events happening in our city, not just in the newspaper? One thing I do is take a handful of Fullerton Observer and Titan papers to the apartment complex where I live, which primarily houses older residents. I would love to put up a sign that encourages them to “read, don’t rot—get involved.”

It’s frustrating to see information being hidden or restricted, especially when it relates to our city, as it takes away our freedom of speech. Newspapers have always been a vital part of community life, just like public notices. Are you planning to stop allowing event flyers from being posted? That’s what concerns me. No one agrees with everything that is published in any given paper, and it shouldn’t matter.

We need to allow publications and flyers to be displayed around the city because they provide important information about local happenings. It’s disheartening to think that you’re denying access to this information, and while I understand there should be some rules, a blanket ‘no’ seems excessive, especially when it involves events that matter to our community.

If we keep saying no to this and no to that, it undermines democracy. Yes, there should be decorum, but we shouldn’t dismiss information simply because it doesn’t align with our personal preferences. My goal is to get the residents where I live involved, and I believe access to local news and events is key to achieving that. That’s what matters most.

A resident: I have changed my comments based on what I heard in the presentation and the remarks made tonight. One thing I want to emphasize is that for our city to thrive in democracy, we need an educated community. The Fullerton Observer has contributed significantly to this education. Whether or not you agree with some of the articles, you always have the right to submit a rebuttal or write your own piece. It’s a volunteer-run paper.

What bothers me most about how this situation unfolded is that whoever initiated the attorney’s letter could have created their own publication. Sending that letter under the threat of legal action, especially when they do not have a paper, feels like manipulation intended to suppress discussion. It appears that the goal was to enforce a policy that would shut everything down, and I find that truly unfair and manipulative. I do wonder whether that individual will eventually produce their own paper, but from my perspective, that appears to be their intention.

Additionally, I’ve noticed people come to meetings early and read the Fullerton Observer while they wait. It educates them and provides background information on various topics, which we often do not get during the meetings because there’s not enough time to cover everything in detail or have someone research those topics for us.

I also want to mention that the purpose of building-specific publications differs. Papers in the lobby of this building, the Community Center, and the library serve different functions than, say, a permit office. I don’t think it’s fair to treat them all the same. Furthermore, not everyone has easy online access, so we actually need more distribution, not less. Although libraries and community centers are technically government buildings, the activities taking place there extend beyond just having employees in the space.

Before my time is up, I ask that you give equal weight to each speaker’s comments and requests regarding this issue. A particular group’s viewpoint expressed by an attorney, especially under the threat of legal action, should not dominate the conversation.

On ZOOM

Stephanie Pratt: After hearing everything and reading what has been on the agenda, I’m trying not to panic. I understand that this is just a draft policy regarding how to deal with various materials to be distributed in city facilities. However, I do recognize that many people are worried because our City Council has let us down in the past. We are concerned about how these policies will be established and what their long-term effects will be. As the previous speaker pointed out, not all city facilities are the same, and it’s not fair to conflate City Hall with the library, for example.

The library is a place for information, and I expect to find publications there. If the materials for display will include newspapers, I wonder where that will start and where it will end. Will it include just local newspapers? Will I be able to find national newspapers there? Will I be able to check out different magazines? My concern is that this approach reads more like censorship than neutrality, especially if we end up targeting places like the library and the Community Center.

I think City Hall may have some leeway to be more neutral and choose not to display certain things, but we must protect the library and Community Center as places to access publications and learn about our own city, including local newspapers. We need to ensure that our freedom of the press is protected.

City Attorney Dick Jones: Let me clarify. This should be the draft policy. This is a proposed policy. 

Zee: I want to thank Miss Daisy for her presentation tonight regarding this issue. Among the 34 cities in Orange County, I believe Huntington Beach, rather than Fullerton, should be the next city to adopt this initiative. It seems that their perspective is more aligned with limited government and limited input, often viewing things from a narrow standpoint.

I was raised to understand that the fourth branch of government, which is the Free Press, is vital. During the presentation, the assistant mentioned that City Hall operates as a limited public forum. However, from my experience attending these meetings, I view it as a traditional public forum where I can speak freely and exercise my full constitutional rights.

I understand that the city attorney and other speakers have indicated this is not about a single publication, but rather about publications in general. I have attended four institutions of higher learning, each hosting local school newspapers, and I have observed that other publications may also be brought onto campuses. Readers can choose whether to engage with a publication based on their interests and values.

For instance, the Ku Klux Klan applies for permission to hold protests in Anaheim, and the city grants that request. I may not agree with their views, but I advocate for their right to express them, as being aware of differing perspectives is essential. Open discourse helps uncover vital information, so the public knows what to expect from various angles.

Doctor Charles, I believe that Free Press and freedom of expression are necessary, even when the content may be uncomfortable. Suppressing such information does not serve the public interest.

Additionally, I am currently participating in a Citizens Academy…

Jose Casteneda: I support the proposed policy regarding what constitutes government speech versus government-endorsed public speech and discourse. It’s important to note that this distinction can become subjective quickly.

When there is a clear proposal that specifies what consists of city-produced documents, events, or invitations to participate in surveys, it maintains public confidence and trust. This clarity helps avoid the subjective nuances that complicate public discourse in Fullerton.

We are living in a unique and uncertain political and public context. Misinterpretations and miscommunications can occur, with some individuals taking responsibility to learn and grow from them, while others may react impulsively. Given the headlines from some local publications, I would prefer that public employees not have to deal with those distractions while they focus on providing essential services to the community, regardless of differing political opinions.

Thus, I find this policy to be straightforward and effective, as it does not get tangled in debates over inflammatory headlines or biases. I urge the council to consider adopting it tonight. If a compromise is necessary, perhaps consider relocating some of the public forum materials outside the doors, but not immediately next to the board.

Olivia: As a proud Fullertonian, my family has lived in this city for 55 years. We appreciate all the publications available at the library. With some Titans in our family, I believe that, as a college town, we should have access to various media. Many visitors come to our downtown area to learn about us, which enhances our community spirit.

I love the Fullerton Observer and our library, as these visits brighten my day and my mom’s day, especially since she is a senior. We stay informed about what’s happening in the city. Some of my family members currently have subscriptions, but I can’t afford one myself. That’s why we rely on public spaces like the library and the Community Center.

Today, I noticed that City Hall also had copies of both newspapers, which made me feel even more connected to the community. Having these publications in our city buildings enriches our lives and transforms our town from just a place to pay bills into a true home.

We’re all part of this community, and it brings a sense of warmth. These publications help us learn about local events and celebrate the incredible Fullertonians. I admire the youth who work as journalists, and it would be a shame to remove their work from public buildings. Their contributions truly enhance our lives. Even if some publications express views that I don’t agree with, I’m an adult capable of choosing what to read

Council Discussion

Madam Mayor Pro Tem Dr. Shana Charles: I have some follow-up questions for the staff and have heard from the public that they would appreciate more clarity on this issue. Deputy City Manager, I hope you have the information regarding the community corkboard in the library. It states in paragraph 5 that there are size limitations for items such as brochures, pamphlets, and flyers, specifically 8.5 by 14 inches. Do we know what other limitations the library staff may impose?

For instance, I regret having to bring this up, but there have been issues with graffiti in certain areas of Fullerton that included hate speech. While we can report such incidents through the My Fullerton app, I wonder what would happen if someone decided to post a flyer featuring a hate speech symbol. Would the library staff consider that a violation of their rules and remove it?

Betenhausen: I have spoken with the library director about this, and currently, there is no clear policy regarding the content allowed. What we are presenting today pertains to size limitations, but there isn’t a restriction on content. The First Amendment becomes quite complex in this situation; if we allow one type of speech, we have to allow all speech, which means we cannot discriminate based on content. As of now, nothing like this has been prohibited, and to my knowledge, we haven’t encountered any issues with inappropriate postings.

Charles: Unfortunately, the police chief has just stepped out. I intended to follow up to see if he had any insights on the legal aspects. I’m not a lawyer or a district attorney, but I am curious: if hate speech is posted, could that be considered a hate crime? Would that classification enable us to remove such content based on the circumstances?

Jones: We could take action, but typically, a determination must first be made by the police to classify it as a hate crime.

Charles: OK, so it seems to me there is some nuance here. We have a community court board and a place where people can express themselves through flyers or community interest events. Is there a possibility of creating a newspaper section that is designated specifically for community papers? The reason I ask is that we’re trying to balance interests here. We don’t want City Hall to endorse one publication over another, yet we also have a public that would like to access public information and spaces. I believe it’s important to support those who want to engage in journalism, regardless of their approach.

Could we have a designated space for this, either here in City Hall or in the library, or both? I want to point out that the library is a bit of a unique entity. I approached the library policy with a light touch, focusing mainly on distribution rather than display. The library has an existing Material Selection and Deselection Policy, developed in accordance with the American Library Association. This policy governs how the library and its members can donate materials and how they select what gets displayed.

I understand that the library has a rack where newspapers and magazines that they subscribe to are displayed. I have had conversations with them regarding how newspapers and other publications can be included in that area based on their existing policy. This was in consultation with library professionals, and we also have a library board of trustees appointed by us, who conduct open public meetings. This is an interesting aspect, as it allows for public involvement.

I want to share that I have mixed feelings about this topic, and I aim to be transparent in my comments regarding where I stand on this issue. Initially, when the suggestion arose to include a publication beyond The Observer, I thought it was a great idea—more the merrier. I don’t personally read the blog, as it hasn’t mentioned me in flattering terms. I stopped reading it in 2022 after encountering a particular term that triggered insecurities. Since then, I’ve used other avenues to understand what’s going on in Fullerton, like Nextdoor and the Fullerton Buzz Facebook page.

However, my view changed after I saw hate speech graffiti in Hillcrest Park. This event occurred early in February, and as you know, our culture has gone through a significant shift since January 20th. That graffiti scared me. Although it was reported in multiple places and addressed quickly, my perspective shifted. I thought, what if we allow publications and then extremist groups, like the KKK or others, decide to publish?

I was reminded of a time I walked through downtown LA pre-pandemic and saw someone in KKK attire. I couldn’t believe that could happen in this day and age. Given the current climate, it made me think it might be safer to adopt a neutral policy and not permit publications. However, my viewpoint has evolved in part due to conversations with constituents. I haven’t had a single constituent reach out in support of the neutral policy; instead, I’ve received many emails expressing opposition to it. So, that’s an important factor to consider.

Zahra: To me, it’s very simple. I didn’t run away from a dictatorship in Syria just to be part of this situation. I swore allegiance to our flag and took an oath to uphold the values of the Constitution. I know the origins of this issue stem from some threats made on a friend’s blog that wants to publish certain things. I find their blog entertaining; they might as well call it the “We Hate Ahmad Blog.” However, I think this is an opportunity for them to put their names to their writings and publish something decent that presents a real perspective of our city.

Weak people, weak politicians, and those who have something to hide don’t like the press. So I’m not afraid. They have been after me for six years, and I know that even the observers have been critical of me in the past. But I’m not worried; I’m transparent about everything. I’ve shared aspects of my personal life openly, and that doesn’t faze me at all.

I’m committed to doing what is right according to the values I believe in, and I think we need to return to those core values. This situation, in my view, is overreaching and encroaching on the First Amendment. It also exposes us to liability issues. It’s a solution looking for a problem, and I believe it is retaliatory, specifically against the Fulton Observer, which I find quite disturbing.

I do not support this at all. There’s no need to change the status quo. Out of 34 cities, only two are in favor of this change, so I think we’re in good company. I certainly don’t want us to end up like San Clemente, which faced a lawsuit. Therefore, I will not support this in any way, shape, or form.

Mayor Fred Jung: You know, I think the problem here is we don’t have an ordinance. We’re putting one together. I think it’s neutral. And again, the city attorney was pretty clear and did not single out publications. I mean, are you a hard-of-hearing council member? I don’t understand, but that’s all right. I mean, it is what it is. I will support this because it gives us a policy and we can move forward on it and and so as a result. I will support this. Move the resolution forward. Is there a second?

Councilmember Nick Dunlap: Mr. Mayor, if I could clarify something, I believe it’s important to address the adjustment made by the Mayor Pro Tem. This adjustment includes not just the cork board, but also the possibility of having a simple rack in that area. This is somewhat common in other places that have designated “free speech areas” where similar distributions might otherwise be restricted. Is this what you were referring to?

We would designate a space in the library for the distribution of newspapers from community groups, including local newspapers and school papers. I fully support this amendment and would like to express my support for the motion with this amendment included.

Councilmember Jamie Valencia: I just want to make sure the library is OK with that adopted policy because they don’t have a policy for this. So I just want to make sure the libraries feel comfortable with this new wired rack that’s going to be in there.

Jones: This would be a 2 step process if you adopt this ordinance. Go back to the librarians with this, specific policy regarding that.

The policy passed with an amendment that the Library could have local news publications in the back by the corkboard 4 to 1; Zahra No

This will be on the consent calendar for the April 15 City Council meeting. It can be pulled for further discussion by a member of the public or a city council member.

Contact your city council representative:

• District 1: Mayor Fred Jung, (714) 738-6311, fred.jung @cityoffullerton.com
• District 3: Mayor Pro Tem Dr. Shana Charles, (714) 738-6311, shana.charles @cityoffullerton.com
• District 2: Nicholas Dunlap, (714) 738-6311, nicholas.dunlap@cityoffullerton.com
• District 4: Jamie Valencia, (714) 738-6311, jamie.valencia@cityoffullerton.com
• District 5: Dr. Ahmad Zahra, (714) 738-6311, ahmadz@cityoffullerton.com