City Officials Admit Violating Prayer Policy

By: Bob Wilson

LOS ANGELES - Lancaster officials on Tuesday acknowledged in federal court that the city twice violated its policy governing the selection of persons scheduled to offer invocations at City Council meetings.

They also acknowledged the city's prayer policy was authored by Vice Mayor Ron Smith, not City Attorney David McEwen.

The acknowledgments were part of testimony elicited by Roger Jon Diamond, an attorney representing two women who have sued Lancaster over its policy on invocational prayers.

The city's policy, adopted in August 2009, asserts intent to provide equal opportunity for representatives of all faiths to say prayers calling for divine guidance for the council at the beginning of its public meetings.

A decision on whether U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer will issue an injunction barring the city from allowing such prayers or, in the alternative, will issue a declaration stating at least one of those prayers was unconstitutional is pending.

The policy was the City Council's response to an April 2009 demand by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California that Lancaster officials put a stop to prayers being routinely offered in the name of Jesus Christ.

The lawsuit's plaintiffs, Shelley Rubin of Los Angeles and Maureen Feller of Lancaster, are seeking an injunction requiring the city to end its practice of allowing ministers and other church representatives from naming specific deities such as Jesus Christ when offering prayers at the beginning of government meetings.

If they fail to obtain an injunction, the plaintiffs are asking Judge Fischer to at least issue a declaratory judgment stating that an April 2010 invocation given by Bishop Henry Hearns was in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the California constitution.

In his prayer, Hearns closed with, "In the precious, holy and righteous and matchless name of Jesus, I pray this prayer. Amen and amen."

The bishop's recitation of the prayer was displayed on a screen in Fischer's courtroom along with other invocations offered at Lancaster meetings.

Diamond told Fischer the city's prayer policy is a smokescreen meant to obscure its efforts to promulgate Christianity.

"Basically, the city is pushing an agenda of aligning itself with Christianity," Diamond said, pointing to a January 2010 address where Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris told a group of Christian ministers, "We're growing a Christian community, and don't let anybody shy away from that."

Even if the city is not taking a pro-Christian stance intentionally, it is failing to adhere to its own policy concerning how and when people are permitted to offer such prayers, he said.

Under questioning by Diamond, City Clerk Geri Bryan acknowledged that her written declaration that the city's policy had been unerringly followed was incorrect.

Instead of selecting a person at random to give the first invocation after city voters approved a referendum in support of the council's policy, Bryan said she invited Hearns to lead the prayer at the suggestion of Paul Chappell, pastor of Lancaster Baptist Church.

Chappell was supposed to give the April 27 invocation but ultimately could not, so Chappell asked that she invite Hearns to give a prayer in his stead, Bryan testified.

When asked how a Los Angeles-based member of the Sikh religion council came to offer the first invocation after the filing of the lawsuit against the city, Bryan said she was asked by City Manager Mark Bozigian to find a Jew, Muslim or Sikh to offer the prayer.

When asked if that move was contradictory to the city's prayer policy, Bryan said, "It is."

She found the Sikh minister through a contact provided by a member of the city's Planning Commission, she said.

When called as a witness, Parris said his use of the word "We" in the phrase "We're growing a Christian community" was intended to refer to efforts by himself and the ministers present at the January 2010 address and not to efforts by himself and others at City Hall.

Parris also said the comment was made "at a private meeting with the ministerial association that I paid for."

Supporting the growth of a Christian community "is not an official city position," Parris said.

The comment was made at a time "when Muslims were threatening one of our councilwomen," the mayor said.

Arguing for the city, attorney Alison Burns said previous federal cases have determined that prayers at the beginning of government meetings are constitutional.

Burns also said that as long as persons giving the prayers neither exploit the opportunity in an attempt to convert others nor disparage the faith or beliefs of others, the city cannot impose prior restraints on the language of those praying.

"The city has and is complying with the policy," Burns said. "The policy is now being followed to the letter."

Past errors should not be used as a basis for issuing an injunction against the rule, she said.

Instead, the city should be, at most, directed by the court to follow the rule, Burns said.

"If any (past) invocation did not follow (the city's) policy, it should not form a future restriction on the city of Lancaster," she said.

The city can ask those who offer invocations to adhere to its policy, but it cannot retract the words of those who fail to do so, Burns said.

Diamond said the city's policy of allowing numerous prayer-givers the chance to possibly offend listeners of different religions was not a defense.

"This is not an isolated slip-up. They have a history of this sort of conduct over a long period of time," Diamond said. "The practice and custom in Lancaster is to violate the establishment (of religion) clause."

Diamond asked Fischer to provide the same ruling that was issued in a state-court case he won against the city of Burbank when it was allowing sectarian prayers in the name of Jesus Christ.

Fischer told Diamond she was not bound to follow decisions reached in state courts, including the one against Burbank.

"There is no (previous federal) case exactly on point" that serves as a precedent for the Lancaster lawsuit, "so we are swimming in new waters here," Diamond told Fischer. "It will be up to the court" to set the precedent, he said.

The judge agreed, noting that a precedent "would make my job easier."

"I will do the best I can," she said, noting that she had a prior matter on which to rule before turning her attention to Rubin v. Lancaster.