Trending
MORGANTOWN - A county resident's refusal to provide a last name before offering public comment escalated to the point of physical removal during Wednesday's Monongalia County Commission meeting, drawing shouts of rebuke from the assembled crowd and a promise of legal action against the county.
In recent months, both the amount and intensity of public pushback against the commission's decision to utilize up to $180,000 in directly allocated opioid settlement funds for the placement of 20 Flock Safety automated license plate reader cameras has continued to escalate.
The issue dominated Wednesday's meeting, with approximately half of the 80-minute session dedicated to comments on the topic from 10 citizens and commission responses later in the meeting.
One of the public speakers, Lindsey Jacobs, was ultimately removed from the meeting by court security officers with the Monongalia County Sheriff's Department after choosing not to provide her last name prior to speaking.
The stage for the heated exchange between Jacobs and Commission President Tom Bloom was set last week, when Jacobs similarly began her comments by providing her first name and stating that she resides in Morgantown.
Bloom asked that a last name be provided. Jacobs responded that she had provided more information than is constitutionally required and would be happy to litigate the matter if the commission wanted to push it.
Bloom relented and Jacobs offered her remarks opposing the county’s decision to contract with Flock.
It was immediately clear that was not going to be the case this time around.
Prior to the meeting, copies of the commission's rules of procedure were placed next to a stack of agendas near the entrance to the meeting chamber.
Per those rules, once a public speaker has indicated their desire to speak and been acknowledged by the commission, "they should come to the podium, provide his/her name and address for the record, and address the commission."
When Jacobs introduced herself as, "Lindsey, 5th Ward," Bloom stopped her. Jacobs said she would not provide a last name or address, claiming the commission's rules are unconstitutional. After some back and forth, Bloom asked court security to "have this young lady dismissed."
As Bloom and Jacobs shouted over one another, members of the audience began to call out in support of Jacobs and asked Bloom to provide his home address, which he did later in the meeting.
"You can drag me out of here. This is so ridiculous," Jacobs said, later adding, "Anonymity is protected by the First Amendment. You're asking people who are worried about mass surveillance to come in here and identify themselves. That's dangerous."
As the officers became more assertive in their efforts to remove Jacobs, she said, "We're absolutely going to sue you over this."
"Please do," Bloom responded.
"We are absolutely going to," Jacobs returned, before directing the officers to, "Get your hands off me. Do not touch me again."
The officers let go of Jacobs and she was escorted from the chamber.
According to the sheriff's department, no additional action was taken beyond removal from the meeting.
While this specific episode was ultimately more about meeting procedure than cameras, it comes as the commission and other political bodies across the country are facing increasing, and increasingly pointed, pushback for the implementation of Flock technology.
Members of the commission have expressed increasing concern over some of the commentary being shared online, which has included photoshopped images — one depicting Bloom, a Jewish man, with horns — and another stating that if his home address was known, he could, "learn the ways that democratic process extends far past the ballot box (and that the consequences extent [sic] far past that too."
The commission has asked the sheriff's department and prosecutor's office to monitor the situation.