Board member sues California public health district over First Amendment issues

---

A public health care district in southern California that imposed new terms of agreement on users of its website opened an investigation into one of the district’s board members. The board member, who had criticized the district’s new terms of use, sued the district.

Key Players

Palomar Health is a public health care district in the northern region of San Diego County, California, which operates Palomar Medical Centers in the cities of Escondido and Poway.  Public health districts are independent from city and county governments and are governed by a board of directors elected by the public.  

Laurie Edwards-Tate is a Palomar Health board member who criticized new restrictions on access to its website.

John Clark is a Palomar Health board member who also expressed concerns about the website’s terms of agreement.

Laura Barry is a Palomar Health board member who criticized the actions of Clark and Edwards-Tate.

Further Details

In September 2023, Palomar Health instituted new terms of agreement that users had to accept before they could access the website. The 3,000-word document imposed a set of restrictions that largely limited public access to information.

It also contained a copyright clause saying that users could not “copy, reproduce, republish, post, retransmit or distribute in any way any of the information or materials on the website without the prior written consent of  Palomar Health.”

David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, criticized the terms, stating that the move created barriers to health services and was a problematic, “if not completely illegal,” action for a public agency to take. He also said Palomar Health may have violated the Brown Act, a state law that requires meeting announcements and other records of public agencies be posted and available to the public. 

At the time, none of California’s 75 other public health care districts had similar terms of agreement restricting access to their websites. 

Clark told KPBS, “Palomar, like many hospitals today, they have challenges, but restricting public access to the website — it’s a move in the wrong direction, and it makes it appear that we’re hiding information from our citizens.”

In a statement responding to the KPBS article, Palomar Health said it was committed to ensuring the public’s access to information and was in the process of rewriting its terms and conditions; it promised to attempt to implement further changes.

In an interview with the Voice of San Diego, Edwards-Tate said, “It was shocking to me, and I felt prohibited from its use and I felt like it was a barrier for being able to access it.” She added that she was making the comment as an individual and not on behalf of the board. 

Edwards-Tate released a statement Oct. 1 saying that Palomar Health was threatening to sanction her for her statements to the Voice of San Diego. Four days later, she received a Notice of Action from Palomar Health’s attorneys informing her that she would be investigated for her comments to the news outlet. The attorneys alleged that she “violated both the Media Policy and Code of Conduct” of the organization, which say that board members are encouraged to contact the communications department before speaking to the media on district business. They also said Edwards-Tate had spread “false and misleading information,” justifying their response. 

Clark received the same letter.

Palomar Health officials placed a discussion of a vote of no confidence in Edwards-Tate on the Oct. 9 board of directors meeting agenda.

“My fear is that this is something that they’re gonna utilize as a sword in the future when there are greater problems that she wants to raise to a constituent,” Edwards-Tate’s lawyer, Karin Sweigart, said. “They’re gonna say, ‘Oh, you need to come make sure your message is coordinated with us prior to speaking’ — that is just anathema of the First Amendment.”

In another statement, Edwards-Tate emphasized she had spoken with the well-being of her constituents in mind.

Palomar insisted it did not violate her First Amendment rights and that her rejection of a common sense media policy was worrisome.

Outcome 

Investigation is launched, Edwards-Tate sues Palomar

At the Oct. 9 board meeting, an investigation into Clark and Edwards-Tate for possible sanctions was authorized. Clark said such votes of no confidence were meaningless and meant to intimidate those who spoke out against board policies.

Edwards-Tate filed a federal lawsuit against Palomar Health on Nov. 1, amended Nov. 15, in the federal court in San Diego. She asked for an order judging Palomar to be in violation of her First Amendment rights and enjoining the district from continuing to do so.

On Dec. 6, Federal District Judge Todd Robinson, nominated by former President Donald Trump, set an April 2024 date for a hearing on Edwards-Tate’s motion for a preliminary injunction and Palomar Health’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Violence erupts at board meeting

On Nov. 13, Barry physically assaulted and spewed profanities at Edwards-Tate. “I never would have imagined that I would be assaulted by a fellow member of the Board because of a dissenting point of view. It is frightening, unthinkable, and now I am concerned for my safety at future Board meetings,” Edwards-Tate said.