The attorneys who represented a 70-year-old Cape Coral man in a federal civil rights lawsuit say they hope the $100,000 settlement the longtime resident received serves as a wake-up call for the city.

If by “wake-up call,” the lawyers mean Cape Coral city officials now realize they might have to modify — again — its questionable “decorum” policy that allows city council to ban residents from public meetings dream on: Despite a six-figure alarm shrill enough to shake even the constitutional comatose, the city snoozes on in the sleep of the righteous, admitting no wrongdoing in a case that saw a resident bounced, banned and subsequently arrested on charges ultimately dropped.

“This decision was made to avoid prolonged litigation,” the city said in a statement released by its Communications Office. “The City has not stipulated or agreed to any validation of the plaintiff’s claims and chose to settle to bring this matter to an expedited conclusion.”

Actually, the decision to settle was made by the city’s insurance provider.

And the $100,000 payout was the city’s deductible, meaning taxpayers bore the entire brunt of the big buck snafu that started after Scott Kempe turned his back on the council in silent protest of their figurative “turning their backs” on Cape residents protesting the city’s plans for Jaycee Park.

At the risk of boring readers who get it, and wasting newsprint on city officials who don’t, let us reiterate what we shared on these pages in February and reiterated in March:

While Cape Coral City Council has the right to maintain decorum at public meetings, while the chair has the authority to order the removal and even arrest of attendees who are disruptive, the city has an obligation to uphold a resident’s right of free speech even if the person holding the gavel does not like how that right is being peacefully expressed.

What is more, no elected board anywhere has the authority to impose what the courts call “prior restraint” on protected speech by imposing meeting bans based on actions at a previous meeting.

Not the ban in place when Mr. Kempe was told he needed a Council vote — aka permission — before he could again attend public meetings after his ouster.

Not the policy modified in February which established specific bans of 30 to 90 days, depending on whether a meeting attendee left when asked, was escorted out, was arrested, or had been previously bounced for a violation of Council rules.

Not the modified policy modified again in May that gives those ousted and banned an optional appeal faceoff with the city via a hearing before a special magistrate, something the city added to strengthen its specious position.

This is something Council knows — or should know full well — as on-point case law pertaining to bans has been cited at least three times: Once in a 2023 Florida League of Cities advisory sent to its members; once in a First Amendment Foundation letter send to the city after it revised its meeting policy but doubled down on its purported authority to impose bans, and finally in Mr. Kempe’s lawsuit that outlined violations of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The city says it settled “… to avoid prolonged litigation.”

If so, its officials are dreaming and it’s time for those we elected to wake up to a hard reality:

It is not a matter of whether Council’s decorum policy will be tested again.

It’s a matter of when.

For we agree that acts that actually disrupt public business should be dealt with appropriately in the moment.

But Council meting out after-the-fact punishment that will not pass legal muster if past precedent means anything at all?

That’s a hard no that should have been a no from the get-go as the case law most often cited, Brown v. City of Jacksonville, dates back to 2006.

We urged Council to rescind the ban portions of its policy back in March.

We urge them again to rescind for the most recent modification simply imposes more onerous hoops to jump through than the previous asking Council pretty please.

A $100,000 settlement may not be a wake-up call for Council but it sure is an eye-opener for the rest of us.

Breeze editorial