Opinion and Commentary By Investigative Reporter, Linda Sutter – December 13, 2024
Today, I had the opportunity to meet with key individuals involved in the governance of the Harbor District, including Harbor Chair Gerhard Weber, Harbormaster Rademaker, and Attorney Dan Schimdt who is a harbor commissioner. The primary topic of discussion was the First Amendment, specifically freedom of speech, and the development of a policy to govern speech at public meetings.
What I anticipated would be an intellectual discussion between mature individuals on the importance of upholding First Amendment Rights quickly devolved into a debate that seemed more focused on controlling speech than protecting it. Instead of a respectful exchange, I found myself in what felt like a battle over what I could and could not say.
Commissioner Schmidt, esq. in particular was notably condescending during the discussion. At one point, he even stated that the Harbor District could face legal repercussions for my speech. Furthermore, he suggested that if my speech did not meet his approval, he would take steps to halt it and have me physically removed from the meeting. This heavy-handed approach raised concerns, especially in light of the district’s role in promoting transparency and accountability.
Chair Weber, for his part, appeared to fully support Schmidt’s views, often deferring to him as though his opinion was the unquestionable authority on the matter. The meeting went in circles for about 20 to 30 minutes without meaningful progress, and eventually, I felt compelled to end the discussion by stating, “let the chips fall where they may.”
It is worth noting some background on Schmidt, who has an interesting and somewhat controversial professional history. Schmidt earned his attorney’s license in 1994 from Ventura, and he allegedly practiced criminal law. He later moved to Crescent City, where he became the editor of the Triplicate Newspaper but eventually resigned from the position. He has publicly stated that he ran for office on a platform of accountability, transparency, and the control of decorum in public meetings, with an emphasis on preventing outbursts from the public. However, his actions today raise serious questions about the real intentions behind his stance on free speech.
In response to the meeting, a letter was sent to the First Amendment Coalition (FAC), along with a 10 page document authored by Schmidt, outlining his intentions to regulate public speakers based on his subjective opinions about what can and cannot be said in a public forum. This document raises alarms about potential overreach, especially given that Schmidt seems to believe that he should be the ultimate arbiter of what speech is permissible in these meetings.
This kind of policy could open the Harbor District to lawsuits, something that could have been easily avoided if the individuals involved had focused on fostering a truly open and democratic exchange of ideas, rather than attempting to stifle Linda Sutter’s public speech. It’s clear that the district’s approach to free speech is in need of serious reconsideration, particularly when it comes to balancing the rights of the public with the desire to maintain order and decorum in meetings.
Ultimately, it seems that the Harbor District may be headed down a dangerous path – one where the freedom of speech could be compromised under the guise of controlling decorum. Such a course could lead to legal challenges and public outcry, something that could have been easily prevented with a more thoughtful approach to policy development. As the saying goes, “Let the chips fall where they may.” It remains to be seen whether this situation will lead to positive changes or legal battles.
