Does a gag order on a settlement about open government sound a bit silly? You wouldn’t be the first to think so, but that’s exactly what happened as a result of a lawsuit filed back in 2015 by Tony Webster. He sued the “city of Bloomington when it didn’t hand over everything he’d asked for related to a Black Lives Matter protest at the Mall of America.” However, it didn’t take long before news of the lawsuit lost steam, and eventually “faded from view,” according to the StarTribune.
Does a gag order on a settlement about open government sound a bit silly? You wouldn’t be the first to think so, but that’s exactly what happened as a result of a lawsuit filed back in 2015 by Tony Webster. He sued the “city of Bloomington when it didn’t hand over everything he’d asked for related to a Black Lives Matter protest at the Mall of America.” However, it didn’t take long before news of the lawsuit lost steam, and eventually “faded from view,” according to the StarTribune. What happened to the lawsuit? After all, anything about Black Lives Matter nowadays seems to garner a lot of media attention.
Well, in April of 2016, Webster and the city reached a settlement that “restricted either side from talking about it.” So what did Webster get out of the apparent gag order deal? For starters, “the city agreed to have its insurer pay $45,000 for a new nonprofit founded by Webster to promote transparency in state and local government in Minnesota.” Hmm, a nonprofit dedicated to promoting government transparency after agreeing to a settlement bound by a gag order…seems a bit odd. In fact, according to the StarTribune, the “gag order was unusually blunt in its goal of keeping it all hush-hush,” stating:
“To the extent permissible by law, the City agrees not to affirmatively disseminate the details of the settlement agreement or make public statements regarding the settlement.”
So does the gag order allow either party to say anything? Yes, a little bit, at least. For example, Webster is allowed to say, “my City of Bloomington litigation has settled. The City’s insurer has agreed to make a contribution to my data access non-profit.” The city is allowed to say, “the City and Mr, Webster have reached a settlement and the City’s insurer has agreed to make a contribution to Mr, Webster’s data access non-profit.” Essentially, neither party is “legally allowed” to discuss the settlement, yet this past Sunday Webster tweeted that “he believes in transparency.”
Join the conversation!