The Newburgh City Council is now threatening to explore legal actions against a local media outlet amid the city’s ongoing controversy about censoring crime and fire department issues plaguing the city. Orange County District Attorney David Hoovler said a press release issued by the city government yesterday contained false information and that city leaders asked him to help censor crime information from the public.
The Council has continuously told the public they will “control the narrative” and repeatedly scolded citizens for having “false narratives” that defied the city’s, but allegedly created their own false narrative yesterday. This time, it backfired when they picked on the wrong person.
Hoover accused the Council of lying to the public in the city’s latest deflection maneuver.
City Manager Todd Venning also claimed the city is exploring legal options against a local media outlet as the city’s leadership continues to point fingers at those who oppose them.
The Newburgh News exposed the crime cover-ups from the public and ongoing censorship during a series of articles published last week. The exposés ignited a firestorm in the media when other outlets began picking up the story. News 12 aired a video explaining their own battles with the city government.
Hoovler appeared in a televised interview with News 12 (see video below). Hoovler’s full statement was, “Mayor Harvey is very accessible but I would not say that the rest of city management are as accessible as they have been in the past.” He did not make any further statements on the televised broadcast.
Yesterday, the City Council issued a joint press release with Venning, who is appointed by the Council, regarding Hoovler’s comments (see full press release below).
City leaders bizarrely claimed that Hoovler suggested the City of Newburgh is not reporting crime to state and federal agencies. Hoovler and News 12 did not make any such statements in the aired video. The Council has previously been defensive about these types of accusations during their meetings as well.
“Last week, Orange County District Attorney David Hoovler advanced a baseless conspiracy theory fabricated by a News 12 television presenter that the City is falsifying crime and arrest data,” the city’s press released accused.
Venning complained, “Legitimate reporters from well-credentialed news organizations don’t always get it right, so it’s not surprising to see a local television personality struggle with basic tenets of professional journalism.”
Venning went as far as threatening legal action against News 12. “The City will explore its legal options against this presenter and News 12 for its reckless disregard of the truth,” Venning said, although Hoovler said that the city is disregarding the truth.
The City Council issued a joint statement stating, “Any suggestion that the City of Newburgh Police Department is not in full compliance with all crime reporting requirements under state and federal laws is a deluded, reckless, egregious lie that calls into question District Attorney Hoovler’s integrity, and his continued fitness to serve. The people of Orange County deserve better than a District Attorney using his position to pay back political contributors on his way out of office.”
Hoovler’s office was quick to issue a press release yesterday to disprove the claims made by the Council and Venning (see full press release below).
“Contrary to the assertions by City of Newburgh officials, District Attorney Hoovler never alleged that the City of Newburgh was falsifying crime data,” Hoovler’s office wrote in their press release. “The District Attorney’s Office is in possession of, and has reviewed, the recorded interview with District Attorney Hoovler, as well as the written news story and what was broadcast in relation to the interview.”
The press release from the District Attorney’s Office continues, “The News 12 report correctly quotes District Attorney Hoovler as saying that, ‘Newburgh officials stopped communicating about crime and investigations like they used to last year,’ referencing a change in the City of Newburgh’s policy of issuing fewer press releases and responding less to press inquiries about violent crime. In neither the News 12 report, nor during the interviews with District Attorney Hoovler, is there any indication that he alleged that the City of Newburgh has failed to make mandated reports to the Division of Criminal Justice Services or to federal agencies, as stated in the City of Newburgh press release.”
Hoovler noted, “I have long advocated for transparency in how law enforcement officials, and indeed all government officials, deal with inquiries from the public, including from the press, particularly on matters concerning public safety.”
Hoovler then spoke in support of the ongoing claims that city leaders are covering up crime from the public.
“I have personally been asked by City of Newburgh officials to cut down on press releases issued on crimes that originated in the City of Newburgh,” Hoovler declared. “I am therefore not surprised to hear from news reporters that the City of Newburgh under City Manager Venning is issuing fewer press releases on arrests and violent crimes than they did previously. My office has continued to issue press releases on significant events and crimes because it is important for the public to be aware of crime, and of the great work regularly being done by City of Newburgh Police Officers and other law enforcement agencies.”
Hoovler then blasted the current administration for refusing his office’s assistance with prosecuting crime. The city allegedly removed a District Attorney’s Office Criminal Investigator who was assigned to the City of Newburgh’s Detective Bureau to help with shooting cases.
“While it is the City’s prerogative to not accept aid, it is shortsighted,” Hoovler observed. “More importantly, it is reckless for City Manager Venning to make baseless allegations about what the District Attorney’s Office has said, particularly when the allegations are debunked by the very news report that they refer to. It is also distressing that the Police Commissioner would repeat such baseless allegations. I also believe that it is Mr. Venning’s duty to make sure that the City Council and Mayor have the correct information before making allegations that are easy to verify.”
The city has continuously pointed fingers at those who oppose them regarding covering up crime from the public and the ongoing Newburgh Fire Department’s staffing crisis. The Council has repeatedly blamed the fire union, censored citizens from speaking badly about the Council during public meetings, pointed fingers at previous city managers, scolded citizens for posting negative comments about the City on social media, and has frequently blamed the press for publishing or airing reports that do not fit the city’s narratives.
Before the public comments sections of Council meetings, Mayor Torrance Harvey issues censorship rules mandating that citizens must be “professional” and “respectful,” even though he did not follow those rules and explosively screamed at a citizen who opposed the Council (see video below).
Councilman Anthony Grice posted to The Newburgh News’ Facebook page reiterating the city’s ban on “slander, harassment, or cursing” during public meetings (see screenshot below).
Last year, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that a government’s policy restrictions on “abusive, personally directed, and antagonistic speech, facially and as-applied, violate the First Amendment.” The court further ruled that interpreting “harassing” to “exclude speech merely because it criticizes” officials would constitute “viewpoint discrimination.”
Also last year, a U.S. District Court issued an injunction prohibiting a school board from enforcing several restrictions on speech at public meetings, including speech the Board deemed “personally directed,” “personal attacks,” “abusive,” “verbally abusive,” “irrelevant,” “disruptive,” “offensive,” or “inappropriate.”
This year, a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a city’s similar prohibitions on free speech were unconstitutional. The court ruling went as far as removing the qualified immunity of a government official who ordered a citizen to be removed from the meeting (see court documents below).
