The City of Boulder is asking a U.S. District Court judge to dismiss a lawsuit alleging the city violated the free speech rights of Lisa Sweeney-Miran, a former member of the Police Oversight Panel. Sweeney-Miran was removed from the watchdog group following allegations of bias against the police.
In a legal motion filed on March 11, the city’s lawyers argued that members of the Police Oversight Panel, as public employees, have limited First Amendment rights. The 11-member volunteer panel is responsible for reviewing complaints into allegations of officer misconduct.
“Speech by public employees, including volunteers, is less protected,” Luis Toro, senior counsel for the City Attorney’s Office, wrote in the motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
The motion is the city’s first formal response to Sweeney-Miran’s January 2024 lawsuit, in which she alleged that the city unlawfully violated her rights to free speech and due process. The lawsuit stemmed from the Boulder City Council’s decision to remove her from the Police Oversight Panel. She is seeking compensatory damages and attorneys fees.
Sweeney-Miran’s appointment to the Police Oversight Panel in December 2022 prompted backlash from residents who filed several complaints arguing she was too biased to serve on the panel. At least one person referred to her as a “cop hater” in a public hearing.
The bias allegations stemmed from Sweeney-Miran’s prior involvement with a lawsuit challenging the city’s camping ban, a controversial ordinance that allows police officers to ticket homeless people for sleeping outside, and her public statements on social media criticizing policing. Sweeney-Miran has served as a member of the Boulder Valley School District Board of Education, where she advocated for removing police officers from schools. She is the director of a nonprofit providing services to homeless people.
At the time of Sweeney-Miran’s appointment, city code barred anyone from serving if they demonstrated “real or perceived bias.” In an unusual decision, a majority of councilmembers voted to take her off the panel after a special council hired by the city determined she was not adequately vetted for bias.
The vote was a major flashpoint in a contentious appointment process, leading the Police Oversight Panel to pause its work reviewing complaints until councilmembers amended the city code. The Boulder City Council has since amended city code to provide clearer guidelines barring conflicts of interest and requiring impartiality.
Sweeney-Miran’s lawsuit alleged that the city violated her First Amendment rights by removing her from the panel for “protected speech,” among other allegations.
The city denied this allegation, in part by arguing that Sweeney-Miran’s free speech rights were limited as she was a paid member of the panel and effectively serving as a city employee. Panel members received $200 per month.
“The unique relationship between volunteer board, commission and panel members and the City, justifies limitations on speech rights while these individuals are performing public service,” the filing stated.
The city also argued that Sweeney-Miran’s past statements and actions would “disrupt” the work of the Police Oversight Panel and adversely affect the “efficiency or effectiveness” of city operations.
“The City’s interests outweigh Ms. Sweeney Miran’s First Amendment interests, because her speech would impede the performance of her duties as a POP member and interfere with the regular operation of the organization,” the filing stated.
Sweeney-Miran’s lawsuit alleged the city violated her “right to petition the government.” She withdrew from the camping ban lawsuit on January 31, 2023, about a week after her panel appointment. She did so partially in response to a comment allegedly made by an unnamed councilmember that her involvement in the lawsuit was “the biggest obstacle to her appointment,” according to the complaint. The complaint argued that her withdrawal from the case was a “condition” for her appointment.
The city contended that her withdrawal from the lawsuit was voluntary.
“The Complaint alleges no facts suggesting that anyone within the City of Boulder told Ms. Sweeney-Miran to withdraw,” the filing stated.
Sweeney-Miran alleged her 14th Amendment rights were violated because she was removed from the panel without the council or city providing her a formal hearing to defend herself against the allegations.
The city argued she was not entitled to such rights, as she did not receive enough pay or benefits amounting to “constitutionally protected property interest entitling her to due process,” according to the city’s filing. Moreover, the city argued, “City Council has broad authority to remove her for any reason.”
Dan Williams, a civil rights lawyer representing Sweeney-Miran, was not immediately available for comment. Williams will have the opportunity to respond before the judge rules on the case.
I support Lisa’s right to free speech, especially when it comes to the police. Absolutely! It’s a conflict of interest to claim it’s a conflict of interest on the panel to represent and defend the public’s rights in Boulder on BOTH sides. How ironic, and what a paradox it is!
The most “unusual decision” was Ms. Sweeney’s panel appointment in the first place. Council majority voted to appoint Sweeney the same night and after their approval of a special counsel investigation. That’s akin to hiring someone for a position after being told they may not be a fit or meet the minimum required standards. The argument for proceeding was the panel had much pressing work and waiting a few more weeks would be detrimental. Interesting, because the panel went on “strike” shortly afterwards, and the this backlog of critical cases seemed highly questionable. Appointing Sweeney to the panel despite showed a complete disregard for the law. An individual can say what they want on social media and that’s their free speech. But this doesn’t also entitle them to an appointment if these public starements are contrary to minimum legal requirements of the position.
Let me see if I understand this: She was removed from a police oversight group because she criticized the police? My thought is: If you are charged with oversight of police performance and activities but are barred from stating any negative impressions- you are not an ‘oversight’ but rather a ‘rubber stamp.”
On another thought, as I remember,the group who called for her removal was a group which was clearly biased in favor of the police. So: to be clear: Bias is when I disagree with you. Accepted speech is when I agree with you. Right? Got It.
I think that’s quite an over simplification. Sweeney didn’t just occasionally “criticize” law enforcement. She constantly expressed extremely negative biases and abolitionist views on social media. You can’t oversee an agency that you wish to eliminate. If Sweeney’s social media posts weren’t so damning, why did she delete so many during the appointment process? The community who opposed Sweeney’s appointment wasn’t a particular “group.” The complaints were fairly widespread. Appointing a panelist with ANY bias would have been a violation of the law. “Real or perceived bias” applies both ways; to those who view police extremely favorably and think they can do no wrong, as well as those who consistently express distrust and disdain for them, as Sweeney did.