From the Executive Director With the Fall Fair season behind us and the Spring Fair season in full swing, my thoughts and
prayers are with all of you…..I know the commitment each of you gives to your Fair and your com- munity to make your Fair the best it can be! You essentially give up your “life” for six weeks and “live and breathe” the Fair. Only those of us
that have been through it know how exhausting it can be….but we also know how rewarding it can be. A couple of years ago the Board approved travel money for me to start visiting Fairs. My priority
has been to visit the small Fairs and the Fairs that I haven’t been to before. I can’t tell you what an “adrenaline” rush it is every time I set foot on a Fairgrounds. I get so excit-
ed about what Fairs are doing in our communities and in the lives of young people!!!!!! I’ve been working in this industry for 34 years and it is still as exciting today as it was the first day I started! So my thanks to all of you for what you do – you are a vital part of your community and in many cases – the heart of
the community. A special thanks also to our Associate Members for your continued support of the Federation and our Fairs. You are such a vital part of our “Fair Family!”
Hope we see you at the Convention – it’s going to be a good one! Lisa Hinton
Attorney’s Corner “SOLICITATIONS” It is always good to re-review the standards concerning solicitations on your fair-
grounds for this upcoming fair season, as many fairs are confronted with solicitations from individuals and groups on their fairgrounds who have failed to purchase a booth from the fair. The question often arises can these solicitors be stopped and/or re- moved from the fairgrounds as they often present a safety risk to fair patrons and the fair. It is widely known in legal circles that the First Amendment does not guarantee the
Lance Fuchs Foster & Fuchs, P.A.
right to communicate one’s views at all times and places, in any manner that one de- sires. The Court has routinely approved restrictions on speech, when they serve a significant governmental interest, so long as it leaves an open channel for communication. With respect to free speech and solicita- tions on fairgrounds, the United States Supreme Court has opined on this issue in 1981 in a case entitled Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness “ISKON” (452 US 640). In the case, the State Fair of Minnesota had a rule which stated in part: “all persons, groups or firms which desire to sell, exhibit or dis- tribute materials during the annual state fair, must do so only from fixed locations on the fairgrounds.” The Court viewed the fair’s rule as constitutional (confining solicitors to booths) given the fact that the fair needed to maintain the orderly movement of large crowds and exhibitors on its fairgrounds (which the Court defined broadly to include parking lots). The Court stated: ”ISKCON desires to proselytize at the fair because it believes it can successfully com-
municate and raise funds. In its view this can be done by intercepting fair patrons as they move about, and if success is achieved, stopping them momentarily, or for longer periods, as money is given or exchanged for literature. This consequence would be multiplied many times over if the rule could not be applied to confine such transactions by ISKCON and others to fixed locations………There would be a much larger threat to the State’s interest in crowd control if all other religious, nonreligious and noncommercial organizations could like- wise move freely about the fairgrounds distributing and selling literature and soliciting funds at will.” Recently, in the case of Powell v. Noble (S.D. Iowa) involving the Iowa State Fairgrounds, the Court re-
viewed a matter wherein the Court utilized the review standards set forth in Heffron to uphold an individual’s removal from the fairgrounds for stopping traffic to share his Christian message with fair patrons. The Court stated that the "State's interest in avoiding congestion and maintaining the orderly movement of fair patrons on the fairgrounds remains valid even if the Court accepted that granting Plaintiff an exception to the Rule would not be likely, standing alone, to cause a significant disruption to the orderly movement of fair-goers through the area.” We suggest that fairs review their existing rules and regulations governing solicitations to ensure that they are consistent with both Courts rulings.
3
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48