At the Ellwood City Borough Council agenda meeting, Dawn Santagata requested that the entire council resign due to alleged violations of the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech.
In a prepared statement, Santagata asserted her freedom of speech was violated when her comments were deleted from a Facebook page titled Ellwood City Council – Rob Brough and Lisa Guerrera. The two council members use the page to post information on council topics.
Santaga cited a 2017 court case, Davison vs. Loudon County Board of Supervisors, in which a federal court determined a public official couldn’t delete dissenting viewpoints from a personal page if acting “under color of state law.”
Brough stated the page had no official affiliation with borough council and was a private page run solely by Guerrera and himself. After the meeting, Brough said he spoke with solicitor Ed Leymarie, who advised that as the page is a personal page, the administrators are free to manage and delete content.
Santagata was one of over 50 visitors protesting council’s decision to charge events for borough expenses. In a 5-2 decision, council denied a request by Relay for Life to hold its event for free on Lawrence Avenue and instead charged them $550 to recoup borough hosting costs.
On March 5, Guerrera and Brough made separate posts explaining their decision. Part of Guerrera’s post was: “The citizens of EC can no longer afford to pay the bills for “Non-profit” groups such as Kitchen Cabinet, the Chamber of Commerce, and “For Profit” organizations such as local Daycare Facilities to have their Annual picnics and other events at the Taxpayer’s expense.”
Council member Rob Brough
In part of his post, Brought wrote, “We can no longer give away tax payer funded assets to special interest groups. Every time the Borough says yes we all pay for the event.”
Dissenting comments by Dawn Santagata, Anthony Santagata and other Facebook users were deleted and both Santagatas were blocked from the page.
Guerrera admitted to banning users and deleting comments. Guerrera said the page was originally created as a campaign page and that the two council members only post on topics discussed in public meetings. She asserted the page is for their followers and voter base.
Santagata felt it was unclear if the page was personal or an official borough council page due to the title and its banner picture of the municipal building. Other visitors also mentioned having comments deleted or being banned and that posts on the page created a negative perception of the community.
Council member George Celli, who recently learned about the page, requested Brough and Guerrera change the name and subsequently received a round of applause from the audience.
In lieu of a mass resignation, Santagata requested a personal apology to all offended parties by name and that all deleted content be restored. She distributed a packet containing screen shots of Facebook documenting disappearing and sometimes reappearing comments.
As of Tuesday, both posts were deleted. The page did add a disclaimer in the “About” section stating:
“THIS IS THE OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN PAGE FOR ROB BROUGH AND LISA GUERRERA. This site is NOT an official Ellwood City Coucil page, nor are any of the thoughts, opinions, or other content on this page in any way official positions of the Ellwood City Council.”
Santagata’s cited case, Davison vs. Loudon, addressed a similar scenario. In brief, the defendant, Phyliss Randall, created a personal page titled “Chair Phyliss J. Randall” and used that page to post on board related issues. After finding one comment offensive, Randall deleted it and blocked the poster.
According to the memorandum of decision, the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia found that although the page wasn’t affiliated with the rest of the board and Randall was the sole plenary administrator, she acted “under color of state law,” her page constituted a forum of speech, she banned Davis due to offensive speech and that this action “violated Plaintiff’s rights under the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions” by engaging in viewpoint discrimination.
However, a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania may not reach the same conclusion in a similar scenario.
The full text of Santagata’s statement is included below. NOTE: The following statement has been typographically modified for posting but no content has been intentionally altered.
I am requesting the resignation of every member of the Ellwood City Council for violation of my First Amendment Right of freedom of speech. This violation occurred not once, but six times over the course of five days on three of my Facebook accounts as I attempted to express my opinion about the change to charge nonprofit groups substantial fees for holding events in Ellwood City. In a last ditch effort to post to the Ellwood City Council Facebook page, my husband posted my letter using his Facebook account.
Your package shows screen shots of his post, posts of support and agreement for his post, and finally the deletions of all those posts from the Ellwood City Council page. In each case, on each of my Facebook accounts, as well as my husband’s account, our ability to post to the Ellwood City Council page was also removed, thereby removing my ability to “speak” at all.
You have moved down a slippery slope with your decisions to remove all opposing views, and posts supporting the opposing views. The result of the deletions shows only comments in support of the change to falsely show 100 percent agreement for the opinions and actions of the Ellwood City Council members.
Some of you may say you have never seen the Ellwood City Council Facebook page or even posted to it, but a page titled Ellwood City COuncil with a photo of the Ellwood City Municipal Building exists, leading people to believe this is an official Ellwood City Council page. Posts on this Ellwood City Council page by Ellwood City council members, mentioning all council members by name, and presenting information on council decisions, makes each one of you responsible and liable for the content of the page, including the deletion of posts expressing an opposing view of your posts.
As owners of the page you are all responsible for the actions of anyone appointed by you to maintain the Elwood City Council page, including the deletion of posts expressing an opposing view of your posts. As owners of the page you are all responsible for the actions of anyone appointed by you to maintain the Ellwood City Council page.
Federal courts have stated and ruled that public officials cannot block social media users because of their criticism. The First Amendment guards against viewpoint discrimination and doing so is a cardinal sin under the First Amendment (one federal ruling is included in your package).
I am disheartened and offended by the blatant disregard and silencing of the voices expressing opposing views of the actions of a council who was voted in with promises of change and total transparency and has at every opportunity practiced the exact opposite.
My reason for requesting all council members to resign is easy to answer. The tone and wording of your social media posts is a clear indication of the total lack of respect and cooperation this council has for one another. If you are all not aware of this Ellwood City council page which posts council information, it indicates there is also a total lack of communication within council. BAsed on the lack of respect, cooperation and communication, I do not trust this council to make decisions that affect the individual lives of our taxpayers and residents as well as the very life of our wonderful city.
If this council in total does not resign, then I am requesting the resignation of the council members responsible for the page content and posts, which are Mr. Rob Brough and Ms. Lisa Guerrera. If neither of those options are carried out, then I am requesting the page title be permanently changed to include a permanent bold line indicating this is not an Ellwood City Council sanctioned page and does not reflect the opinions of the Ellwood City Council.
I am also requesting a public apology post by the council members responsible, apologizing to citizens by name indicating they personally and intentionally deleted their opposing views. This should also include the name of people who replied to posts and had their comments deleted. That post should never be deleted or blocked from view. I am also requesting that all the missing posts be re-instated.
If these steps are not taken, I will pursue legal action against Ellwood City and the Ellwood City council for violation of my First Amendment rights as well as the rights of other citizens who posted their views.
I am available tonight, tomorrow or Wednesday to review, explain, discuss or clarify any of the pages in your packet. My expectation is that this should be resolved by resignations or the requested changes made to the Ellwood City Council page by Thursday, March 15.
On Wednesday evening, Santagata said council had not contacted her and felt the changes to the page were insufficient.
“My intent was to make it known this isn’t an Ellwood City council page and as of right now, I feel that hasn’t been accomplished,” Santagata said.
This is Part 3 in a series on Monday’s council meeting. Parts 1 and 2 are below:
Ellwood City Organizations Dismayed by Council Decision to Charge Events Recoup Fees
Ellwood Resident Criticizes Borough for Failure to Comply with Right to Know Law
Pretty dumb name for a page that is “not affiliated with the borough”. Also pretty dumb to try to stop the events that make Ellwood a nice little town. Guess intellect isn’t a prerequisite for councilperson
Isn’t it astounding that:
• Council has no phone number?
• Council has no email?
• Certain council members intentionally failed to attend pre-election town hall meetings to answer our questions?
• Council is not accessible to its constituents?