Harassment of Public Employees and Officials: What Can Local Governments Do?

A lot of people are feeling stressed out these days. From economic uncertainty to political unrest and division, tempers have been pretty hot, and unfortunately, local government employees and elected officials often bear the brunt of the public’s anger and frustration. 

While disgruntled and angry citizens are a fact of government life, local government employers should be prepared to address and mitigate troublesome behavior. What should be done if a member of the public disrupts, threatens, or harasses agency employees or elected officials?

This blog explores both practical and legal strategies for dealing with members of the public that cross the line.

An Employer’s Duty to Maintain a Safe and Harassment-Free Workplace

Local governments, as employers, have an obligation to protect their employees from harassment—even if that harassment comes from a member of the public. If that harassment is based in discrimination due to a protected class (i.e., age, sex, race, creed, color, disability, etc.), then the employer can be potentially liable under the Washington Law Against Discrimination for creating a hostile work environment. See RCW 49.60.180 and LaRose v. King County (2019).

Codes of Conduct for Public Facilities and Spaces

Many local governments in Washington State have adopted codes of conduct to ensure public facilities and spaces remain safe and accessible. These codes of conduct will generally include prohibitions against harassing behaviors, and outline consequences for exhibiting this behavior, such as a notice of trespass or ejection from the public space for violating the code.

A code of conduct puts the public as well as staff and officials on notice regarding what behaviors and activities are prohibited. We recommend posting a summary version of a code of conduct in public-facing areas (e.g., a reception area or front desk) so the public is aware of the ‘ground rules’, and employees or officials can easily refer to them.

The following are some examples of local codes of conduct:

• Bellingham Public Library Rules of Conduct (4.101)
• Cowlitz County Code Ch. 10.05 – Code of Conduct and Trespass from County Facilities
• Jefferson County Code Ch. 8.85 – Code of Conduct and Trespass from County Facilities
• Port of Bellingham Public Space Use Policies and Procedures (2023)

De-Escalation Training for Employees and Officials

Local governments should consider providing conflict de-escalation training, particularly for staff that interact frequently with the public. Learning how to effectively navigate challenging individuals and situations can preemptively resolve what might otherwise be a difficult and potentially dangerous interaction.

MRSC hosted a training on How to Effectively Handle First Amendment Auditors, in which Janelle Tarasewicz, Principal Consultant at Aperture EQ, offered several de-escalation techniques based on the C.A.R.P. (Control. Acknowledge. Refocus. Problem-Solve) model. These included:

• Abdominal breathing techniques to avoid going into 'fight or flight' reaction mode.
• Employing active listening techniques and using cooperative versus confrontational language.
• Self-control tactics, such as identifying personal triggers (e.g., baiting behaviors such as name-calling, blaming, etc.), taking a time-out/disengaging, and self-talk strategies.

Aperture EQ offers a resource page on de-escalation techniques. See, also, these MRSC blogs:

• Dealing with Difficult Behavior
• Building Bridges, Not Walls: Conflict Resolution Tools

Policies to Protect Employees from Harassment

If a local government employee encounters a hostile or harassing member of the public, they should be aware of who within the agency they can turn to for assistance (e.g., a supervisor, a department director, manager, and/or law enforcement).

While an employee can first attempt to de-escalate or redirect an angry community member, an employer should provide clear guidance (and a ‘hand-off’ procedure) for difficult interactions, either as part of a written policy or as part of an employee/official onboarding/training process.

If an employee or elected official finds that following a recommended policy for harassing behavior is not working, they should be empowered to engage law enforcement.

We encourage public agencies to contact their insurer or risk pool to ask about trainings and/or policies that they may recommend.

Court Actions to Protect Officials and Employees

State statutes allow local governments to pursue charges against an individual who may be threatening or harassing staff or officials or otherwise disrupting agency  work:

• Under RCW 9A.52.080, a charge of trespass might be possible if the person remains onsite and continues to disrupt the business of the agency after they have been asked to leave.
• Under RCW 9A.46.020, a person can be charged with harassment (i.e., causes or threatens bodily injury, physical damage to property, threatens physical confinement or restraint, or maliciously acts to substantially harm another’s mental health or safety).
• Under RCW 9A.76.180, a person could be charged with intimidating a public servant if, by threat, they attempt to influence a vote, opinion, decision, or other official act.

Potentially arresting a member of the public or having a criminal complaint filed against a person is a serious step for a local government to take, but it may need to be considered if the person makes it impossible for agency business to be safely or effectively carried out. Agencies may want to consider criminal charges only when other methods (such as de-escalation) have failed or for serious incidents.

Use of protection orders

As a preventative measure, if a person’s conduct is improper, serious, and ongoing, the agency’s attorney may need to request a restraining or protection order from the court to prevent that person from entering a facility where government activity is being conducted.

If the harassment is continuous and directed to a specific individual, the person being harassed could ask a court for an anti-harassment protection order under Chapter 7.105 RCW. Anti-harassment orders are directed at protecting individuals, so it may be difficult to obtain an order that generally applies to all agency offices.

Exclusion from Agency Buildings

Agencies can administratively exclude people who have displayed disruptive conduct from entering government buildings. Such a policy should provide for progressively longer periods of exclusion based on the severity of the individual’s conduct and the number of previous incidents. It must also provide for an appeal process.

Some of the sample codes of conduct cited above include exclusion/trespass policies. Here are some additional examples that provide for excluding certain persons from public areas or buildings:

• Edgewood Municipal Code Ch. 12.20 – Trespass Warnings on City Property
• Milton Municipal Code Ch. 9.56 – Trespass Warnings on City and Other Publicly Owned Property
• Mountlake Terrace Municipal Code Ch 8.10 – Trespass Warnings on City and Other Publicly Owned Property
• Port Townsend Municipal Code Ch. 9.50 – Trespass Warnings on City and Other Publicly Owned Property

(See also City of Bremerton v. Widell, from 2002, where the court upheld criminal trespass convictions based on violations of administrative trespass warnings issued pursuant to a policy adopted by the housing authority.)

Any exclusion policy should be developed in coordination with the public agency’s attorney. For more information see Shared Spaces – Tips to Balance Use of Public Facilities.

Disruptions of Public Meetings

MRSC consultants have written numerous blogs on dealing with disruptive behavior from members of the public during a public meeting, including Not What You Were Expecting To Hear: More Strategies for Handling Hate Speech During Public Comment and Strategies for Managing Difficult Public Meetings.

Essentially, a jurisdiction is empowered to set policies on how public comment will be received and what behaviors will not be tolerated. Our blog, When First Amendment Rights and Public Meetings Clash, makes the following observation:

Governing bodies may establish rules that regulate public comment so long as these rules are viewpoint-neutral and place reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner. Additionally, when enforcing the rules of decorum, an actual disruption of the business of the governing body is necessary prior to removing or disconnecting a speaker.

RCW 42.30.050 allows the majority of the members of a governing body to clear the room and adjourn/reconvene a public meeting if it is interrupted in such a way that resuming the orderly conduct of the meeting is unfeasible. If a person merely uses profanity or states lies without actually disrupting the meeting, then this behavior is not sufficient enough to justify ordering the individual to leave the meeting or clearing the meeting entirely.

If the meeting room has to be cleared, members of the governing body may readmit an individual or individuals not responsible for the disruption. Also, note that representatives of the news media, except those participating in a disturbance, are required to be readmitted to such meetings.

Conclusion

We ask a lot of our public servants, and time and again, they rise to the challenge. As we continue to navigate challenging times, we must all do our part to keep our tempers in check. When that fails, proactive steps can be taken to ensure government business can continue without disruptions.

As mentioned already, we recommend working with both your public agency attorney as well as the agency’s insurer/risk pool to ensure that policies are in place and training is available to protect agency employees and officials.