Calabasas, ACLU reach accord on public grant ordinance

Law allegedly discriminated



Criticism and the threat of legal action from the American Civil Liberties Union has prompted the city of Calabasas to alter a city resolution on the awarding of public grants after the ACLU claimed the law was unconstitutional.

The ACLU sent a letter raising constitutional concerns and threatening possible litigation last month after hearing that the Calabasas City Council had passed a resolution that prohibits grant funding to individuals or groups who have sued city officials or employees.

“This ordinance strikes at the heart of a core function of the First Amendment: to allow people to petition their government for redress of grievances, and access to the courts is part of the right to petition,” said Peter Eliasberg, ACLU attorney.

“By discriminating in this way, the city punishes organizations for engaging in First Amendmentprotected activity just because the city disagrees with that activity,” Eliasberg said.

In response to the complaint, the City Council voted unanimously to rescind the old resolution and enact a new one, which eliminates the reference to pending litigation.

“The city is fully supportive of rights of free expression and appreciates this opportunity to clarify that commitment,” said Calabasas City Attorney Michael Colantuono in a report to the council.

The original ordinance was passed as part of the city’s effort to update and clarify its public grant process. The city has budgeted $70,000 for the community service grants this year.

The ordinance required grant applicants to answer a questionnaire to help determine eligibility. One question asked if the board members or administrators of an organization seeking a grant from Calabasas had ever been involved in litigation against the city and made it clear that if the answer were yes then it couldn’t receive funding.

“We’re very pleased that the city responded to the concerns we expressed and eliminated portions of previous funding language we considered unconstitutional,” Eliasberg said. “Barring a group from obtaining city funding based on past or pending litigation comes dangerously close to a loyalty test.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *