Deseret News, Friday, August 08, 2003
ACLU rekindles the Main Plaza ire
Lawsuit targets influence of LDS Church fray over downtown S.L.
By Brady Snyder
Deseret Morning News
The American Civil Liberties Union, representing a variety of plaintiffs, is again taking on what it perceives to be the dominance, influence and control of the LDS Church in everyday Utah life, including government.
Through its latest suit over Salt Lake City's Main Street Plaza � filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for Utah � the ACLU targets the role of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in one of Utah's most contentious public policy debates in years, although the church itself is not included as a defendant. In this case, ACLU attorneys maintain, the LDS Church pressured the city and its leaders to do the church's will instead of promoting "sectarian" interests. Part of that pressure included an LDS Church campaign to convince its membership that God wanted the church to come out a winner in the plaza fray, the suit states.
It was the church, the suit contends, that pushed Mayor Rocky Anderson to change his position during the plaza debate last December to one that agreed with the church's wishes.
The suit, filed against Salt Lake City and Anderson in his official capacity as mayor, charges that much of the responsibility for the outcome can be traced to the LDS Church, saying the church sometimes used "coded religious rhetoric" to influence its members to sway Anderson and other elected city officials to its point of view.
The strategy worked and prompted Anderson to develop public policy that satisfies the church, the lawsuit says.
"After months of trying to battle the LDS Church, its massive public relations operation and the City Council members who from the beginning set about to do the church's rather than the public's bidding, the mayor did a sudden about-face and capitulated to the church's demands that the city surrender the right of way through the property," the suit contends.
ACLU attorneys Janelle Eurick and Mark Lopez go on to argue that "the extraordinary pressure brought by the LDS Church" influenced Anderson to craft a deal that favored the church.
'Coded' messages?
Much of that "extraordinary pressure" came after the church launched a two-county public relations campaign containing "coded" religious messages only its membership would understand, the suit states. The coded messages made it clear to members that God wanted them to win, causing its membership to bombard City Hall with pressure until the church's wishes were met, the suit maintains.
Part of that public relations campaign was a brochure titled "Realizing a Vision � the New Church Plaza."
"This title was carefully chosen code intended to invoke the LDS Church belief that God through his 'Prophet,' LDS Church President Gordon (B.) Hinckley, has endorsed the church's position on the plaza controversy," the lawsuit argues. "Under LDS Church doctrine 'the church is led by revelation from God to a living prophet' who 'speaks for God, with divine power and authority.' "
The suit continues: "In addition to coded religious rhetoric and glossy brochures, the church also used less dignified tactics to advance its interests in controlling speech in downtown Salt Lake City."
Those "less dignified tactics" included using church lawyers to criticize Anderson's motives in keeping the city's easement.
The lawsuit contends the all-LDS City Council also participated in the pro-LDS Church campaign, arguing, "The City Council did not hesitate in setting about to do the church's bidding."
That bidding included publicly criticizing and undermining Anderson's attempts to solve the plaza fray without giving up the city's easement, the lawsuit contends.
In the end, Anderson's decision to give up the easement to the church came after he realized he could not fight the church's pressure and became resigned to thinking "What can the city get in exchange for the easement," the suit says.
The lawsuit concludes, "The LDS Church is both politically savvy and financially powerful in Utah, and the eventual deal it struck with the mayor shows it."
No surprise
The suit's claims do not surprise LDS Church attorney Alan Sullivan, who has followed the plaza case through some six months of public process. Sullivan has heard the church-influence claims throughout the public debate over Anderson's plaza plan and discounts them.
"This decision had nothing to do with appeasing the church," Sullivan said. Instead, "this was a proposal that was made by the mayor and considered by the City Council, which made a decision that was in the best interest of the community."
The result of Anderson's proposal is that the city has a chance to create a first-class community center, Sullivan said.
ACLU executive director Dani Eyer insists the church had a direct bearing on the result. While agreeing that any church certainly has the right to bring political pressure, Eyer maintains government needs to resist that pressure. If someone like Anderson, a Democrat and ACLU member, can't withstand the church's pressure, Eyer wonders if any politician ever could.
"One might have to begin to wonder if anyone can be elected to public office that can withstand the pressure of the church," Eyer said Thursday. "The mayor was a very good advocate for civil liberties, but at some point he sort of hit the brick wall of church persuasion and felt like he didn't have any other choice."
Anderson flatly denies the perceived church pressure had anything to do with his proposals. Instead, he said his motive was to resolve an issue that was dividing the community.
"It's absolute nonsense. I came up with the second proposal because my first proposal was rejected," Anderson said, adding that the ACLU noted they may have legal objections to the mayor's plan to keep the easement. "As I've stated several times in the past, I developed the second proposal because we needed a resolution of this matter, and I wanted to structure that resolution in a manner that would greatly benefit many people in our community."
Anderson also clarified comments printed in Tuesday's Deseret Morning News about the Unitarian Church. Anderson did not criticize the Rev. Tom Goldsmith or the Unitarians and did not mean to infer that the Unitarians were divisive. Instead, Anderson said further litigation, not any plaintiff, was divisive.
Recent rulings
With so much focus on religious involvement, it's interesting to note that the case will be heard before Judge Dale Kimball, an LDS Church member. Eyer said she wasn't aware of Kimball's religious affiliation and wouldn't comment.
"The ACLU can't comment on judges," she said.
The suit seeks to undo much of the recently signed plaza deal. Specifically, it seeks to re-establish the public's right of passage though the plaza, which in turn would reinstate broader free speech on the plaza. Then, it seeks to force the city to create some sort of constitutionally legal rules to regulate speech on the plaza, Eyer said.
The ACLU argues both that the city unduly favored the LDS Church though the plaza process and thus violated the U.S Constitution's Establishment Clause and that giving the church editorial control over a traditional public forum, even if that forum is now private property, violates constitutional protections of free speech.
Recent court rulings, Eyer said, support the idea that cities can't remove free speech from traditional downtown forums, even if the property is sold to a private party.
The most recent of these cases was decided by the 9th Circuit Court of appeals last month. In that Las Vegas case the court ruled that Fremont Street, now owned privately and covered by a roof, remains an area where leaflets and tracts can be passed out there, even if they are advertisements for pornography or exotic dancers.
Page Modified: August 9, 2003