Global Concern Grows After City Challenges Free Press Rights
Mayor’s Staffer Blocks Human Rights Committee from Addressing Mayor’s Falsehoods about Human Rights Committee
Disclosures: The City of Salisbury recorded this Human Rights Advisory Committee Meetings via Zoom but does not currently have a policy to make those recordings immediately available to the public. Update 8/15: We had previously received reports that the City of Salisbury records the committee zoom sessions. A public records request filed for the recording of the 8/6 session yielded a claim by the City that no zoom recording exists.
One of
’s articles was recently featured in The Watershed Observer’s The Monday 4 Minutes: August 4, 2025After the meeting, we reached out to Jessie Turner with the opportunity for further comment via iMessage to a confirmed number she lists on a semi-private social media account and which was also confirmed by other sources. We can confirm that the iMessage was received.
To be clear the journalist referred to in the article is the author.
Updates:
8/7/25 - The story has been updated to reflect that Julie Peters is now a past member of the Human Rights Advisory Committee.
8/8/25 - City of Salisbury Communications Director, Victoria Idoni, who reports to the Mayor, provided the following statements:
Volunteer board members, such as members of the Human Rights Advisory Committee, are not city employees.
The City does not have any policy that would treat journalists/media any differently from any other member of the public during public meetings and open public forums.
Files:
Earlier this evening in Salisbury, Maryland, at approximately 6:30 p.m. ET (10:30 a.m. NZST), a staffer from Mayor Randy Taylor’s office interrupted public comment during the open public forum portion of the city’s Human Rights Advisory Committee (HRAC) meeting to block a journalist’s question about a false public statement the mayor made, which the committee formally disputed in its May meeting minutes. The intervention has drawn scrutiny from experts at home and abroad. Maryland Political Science Professor John Dedie said, “I have never heard of a situation like this in the State of Maryland,” while New Zealand investigative journalist Paula Penfold, reacting to the incident, said, “We need to make it clear, this is happening when it shouldn’t be.”
The incident occurred during the City of Salisbury Human Rights Advisory Committee’s (HRAC) August 6 meeting. A question, posed by the author of this report, addressed discrepancies between the committee’s documented records, personal statements, and the mayor’s public remarks. The inquiry drew on statements previously provided to The Watershed Observer and the committee’s own meeting minutes, which, in May, included a note that regarding the attempted removal of a rainbow crosswalk, “concerns were raised about the Mayor stating that the committee advised him, which the committee disputes.” The exchange was interrupted by Jessie Turner, a City of Salisbury administrative staffer who reports directly to Mayor Taylor.
Turner has served the City of Salisbury in an administrative capacity since 2021 and is credentialed by the American Society of Administrative Professionals with a Professional Administrative Certification of Excellence (PACE). Though not a voting member of the HRAC, Turner was present and actively intervened during the meeting.
Shortly after the speaker introduced himself, Turner paused the comment period to hold an aside with committee members, temporarily excluding another voting member who was phoning in via Zoom. After the brief pause, the speaker resumed and asked the committee to clarify its position on the mayor’s misrepresentation regarding the city’s rainbow crosswalk, Turner again interrupted.
She stated it was city policy that “all official communication about the committee needs to go through the communications department,” which is housed in the mayor’s office. When the speaker clarified that the question was directed to the committee, not staff, and was made in the capacity of a Salisbury resident participating in a public forum, Turner maintained that because the speaker had identified as a journalist, the question could not be addressed by the committee.
Turner asserted that city employees, including those staffing public advisory committees, are not permitted to go on record and are required to refer all questions from members of the media to the Mayor’s Communications Office. She further stated that this policy is internal and not available to the public. The Watershed Observer recently reported on how the Mayor’s Communications office has contradicted the Mayor’s own statements.
When pressed, Turner stated: “I’ll go on record saying, I’m Jessie Turner. I’m going to refer you to the communications office,” and encouraged the speaker “to have faith.” During this time she also actively fed misinformation to the committee members about Maryland Open Meeting standards and prevented them from engaging with the comments and questions offered during the committee’s open public forum agenda item.
It is concerning for a city staffer to suggest that members of the press have fewer rights than other members of the public during a public meeting. The idea that a journalist cannot pose a question during this part of the meeting, simply because they identify as media, does not align with basic principles of open government.
This is not a matter that requires legal training to understand. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects both freedom of the press and the right of people to petition their government. Similarly, Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights states that “the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved.” Maryland’s Open Meetings Act ensures that the public has the right to attend and participate in public meetings, including engaging during designated public comment periods. These are straightforward protections that apply equally to all members of the public, including journalists.
The Open Meetings Act prohibits public bodies from taking actions that frustrate meaningful access or transparency. It also places limits on when and how members of the public can be excluded or silenced, none of which appeared to apply in this case.
In this incident, the speaker was both a journalist and a resident exercising his rights during an open public forum. By allowing a mayoral staffer to restrict what a public advisory committee could hear and respond to, and by conditioning participation on the speaker’s professional identity, the city may have run afoul of both statutory and constitutional protections.
This incident comes amid mounting scrutiny of the mayor’s office over its handling of diversity and inclusion issues, with an increasing number of people addressing behaviors as discriminatory. Earlier this year, Mayor Taylor falsely claimed publicly, and was uncritically echoed in reporting by WBOC, that the Human Rights Advisory Committee had advised him on the project to remove and replace the rainbow crosswalk. However, that claim is directly disputed by the committee in public record.
Statements made by committee members further confirm a disconnect between the mayor’s public claims and the committee’s actual votes. HRAC member Daniel McBride and past member Julie Peters have both stated on record that the committee did not advise the mayor to remove the rainbow crosswalk but actually the opposite. Members of the committee have also described the mayor’s comments as “deceptive,” while others affirmed that his characterization misrepresented the reality of the committee.
During the same August meeting in which the public comment was blocked, Turner also referenced a “directive” to dissolve the city’s TRUTH Committee, short for Truth, Racial Unity, Transformation & Healing. According to the city’s website, the TRUTH Committee was established to provide recommendations on how Salisbury can further its “mission of welcoming and embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion by continuing to create a more just and equitable community.”
While the TRUTH committee has not yet been formally disbanded, Turner’s reference to a directive suggests that a decision is already underway within the mayor’s office. No public hearing or announcement regarding the committee’s status has been made.
Broader Implications for Democracy and the Press
Professor John Dedie, a political science professor and expert on Maryland politics, characterized the City of Salisbury’s handling of the exchange as part of a troubling national trend. “When local and state governments see what the Trump administration is doing,” he said, referencing recent hostility toward the media, “they feel that they can do the same thing.”
Dedie emphasized that local government transparency and accessibility are crucial for civic trust. “When local governments get restrictive like this, what happens is it weakens democracy,” he said. “It’s good for democracy to have people heard.”
He added that this is especially important when public meetings are the only realistic opportunity for citizens and journalists to raise concerns. “The media is important because it’s where citizens get their information about the government,” he said. “They don’t have the time to go to every city council or committee meeting. They rely on the media to report facts and ask the questions they might think of asking at these meetings.”
Regarding the insistence that members of the media cannot ask questions during an open public forum, Dedie said: “I have never heard of a situation like this in the State of Maryland.”
In the context of discussing the Maryland Open Meetings Act and the freedom of the press as protected under Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and the First Amendment, Dedie said, “When you deny people the opportunity to question the government or to protest actions people don’t want, it angers citizens more.”
Referring to a mayoral staffer blocking the committee from addressing a public question about misinformation related to the committee itself, spread by the mayor, Dedie called the interference “very odd.” “No one was asking about nuclear codes or some aspect of tax policy,” he said. “This was something that people in Salisbury have dire interest and concern in.”
“All staff do the bidding of the elected official,” he added, underscoring the political dynamics at play in the interaction.
The View from 8,689 Miles Away
In Auckland, New Zealand, Paula Penfold knows a few things about accountability.
A world-renowned journalist with decades of experience under her belt, Penfold recently investigated a story about an official who embellished his CV more than a little bit.
According to Penfold, 35-year-old Fale Andrew Lesā is a charming young man who was first elected to a local council at 19. Over time, some community members grew concerned about a pattern of embellishments, including claims that he held a law degree from Yale. These concerns escalated in June when Lesā posted on Facebook that he had been appointed Visiting Justice by New Zealand’s Governor-General. A Visiting Justice is an appointed official responsible for overseeing complaints, conducting inspections, and ensuring the proper treatment of prisoners within correctional facilities.
Alarmed by the idea of a potentially unqualified person holding such a sensitive role, community members wrote to the Justice Minister and Associate Justice Minister outlining the apparent fabrications. When they received no response, they turned to Penfold with their evidence and asked her to investigate.
“Here was somebody who was dealing with a vulnerable population, incarcerated prisoners,” Penfold recounts, referring to discussions with the community members who brought the issue forward, “and it is important that those appointees have the credentials that they say they do.”
Penfold emphasized that journalism has a fundamental democratic role when such concerns are raised: “In a position like that, it’s beholden on you to be honest about what you’ve done and who you are.” Adding, “It’s one of our roles as journalists to hold the powerful to account.”
When told about the situation unfolding in Salisbury, in which a city staffer shut down a public forum because the speaker identified as a journalist, Penfold affirmed the role journalists have at public meetings. “We are here to do a job. We are here to report. We are here to investigate. We are here to hold the powerful to account.” Referencing the old newspaper adage she said, “We are here to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
Penfold describes how she has seen journalistic access grow more restricted over the years. “I’ve been a journalist for a few decades now, and I’ve noticed the rise of barriers for journalists being able to speak directly with newsmakers and people making decisions.” She notes, “communications and media professionals are guarding them from journalists, which has become more and more problematic.”
Still, she’s seen signs of change: “I do notice in some institutions in New Zealand the tide turning a little bit, where some of those at the helm are realizing that it’s not necessarily useful for them either to not have direct access to journalists and vice versa,” she said. “Because the message has become too sanitized through the various stages of comms people.”
“I think a more authentic and direct conversation is mutually beneficial.”
Regarding the Salisbury incident, she was unequivocal. “The frustration is real, and we just need to keep on talking about it, while making it clear that this is happening when it shouldn’t be. Because voters in [Salisbury] deserve to know when they're not getting the information that they are entitled to receive.”
She also pointed out that media watchers abroad are paying attention. “We’re over here in New Zealand, sitting and watching America very closely,” she said. “We’re watching what’s happening in the media too, and watching with concern about the kind of events we’re talking about, happening at both the local and national level. We’re seeing controls on journalists, and particular journalists being excluded. It’s not pretty to watch. It’s concerning. You might not be surprised to learn that things that happen in America find their way here, and behaviors get emulated.”
Her message to journalists facing these kinds of obstacles? “I would encourage journalists to keep fighting the good fight.”
As far as Visiting Justice Fale Andrew Lesā, upon being confronted with the reality of his embellishments by Penfold he told her he would “resign from everything.”
A few days later he attempted to retract the statement. The story continues.
Global Concerns Escalate
The confrontation in Salisbury has elevated what might have remained a local procedural dispute into a global question. Experts point to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, both of which guarantee freedom of the press and protect the right to petition the government. By interrupting public comment on the basis of a speaker’s profession, its suggested the city may have imposed a condition on participation that violates those protections.
This incident comes amid growing national and international scrutiny of Salisbury, which has recently been called anti-LGBTQ+ and discriminatory by observers locally, across the United States, and across the Atlantic. The city’s handling of diversity and inclusion issues, including controversies over the rainbow crosswalk and the status of advisory committees, has drawn concern beyond local borders.
Unlike internal policies, constitutional rights apply equally to all members of the public, including journalists. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that the government cannot restrict access to public forums or discriminate against speakers based on viewpoint, which includes media, or identity. In this case, the speaker was engaging in protected activity during a designated public comment period and was seeking clarification on a matter of documented public interest. That the interruption came from a staff member of the mayor’s office and concerned a statement by the mayor himself has only heightened scrutiny. Outside observers warn that suppressing or rerouting questions from the press can erode public trust. The constitutional protections at stake are not procedural formalities but foundational guarantees in a democratic society.
Thank you for bringing this to surface. Keep shining the light.
Excellent reporting here, Will! Thanks for showing that the repression of journalists is happening in small cities too, not just in and around the White House.