SUNNYSIDE, WA — Public comment is not a privilege granted by elected officials. It is a constitutional right, protected precisely because it can be uncomfortable, inconvenient, and politically inconvenient.
For that reason, La Voz Hispanic News believes it is necessary to raise a serious question of public concern following the December 8th Sunnyside City Council meeting:
Was the First Amendment again compromised inside City Hall?
We state clearly and deliberately: no court has ruled, no criminal charges have been filed, and La Voz Hispanic News makes no legal determination. What follows is observation, context, and analysis — the essential role of a free press.
Deputy Mayor Jorge Galvan is currently involved in an unresolved civil dispute with his father, Brian Galvan, regarding the ownership and possession of several commercial vehicles. That dispute is pending in civil court. Allegations exist on both sides. No findings have been made.
This opinion does not address the merits of that case.
What concerns this publication is conduct inside a public meeting.
Brian Galvan, attempts to make public comment Dec. 1
On December 1st, Deputy Mayor Galvan’s father, Brian Galvan attempted to speak during public comment at a Sunnyside City Council meeting. He was informed—correctly—that his remarks needed to be limited to the scope of a public hearing item. He was told by Mayor Dean Broersma he would need to come back on December 8th to address the City Council. In between that time, Brian Galvan was sent a letter by his son attempting to stop him from speaking out against him publicly.
Then on December 8th, Brian Galvan was blocked by Sunnyside Police from speaking during the public comment period. Based on accounts reviewed by La Voz Hispanic News, Deputy Mayor Galvan brought his underage daughter into the council chambers.
The situation is complicated by the existence of a restraining order involving Deputy Mayor Galvan’s daughter and Brian Galvan. The presence of Galvan’s daughter forced Brian Galvan to stay in his car in the parking lot during the meeting.
La Voz Hispanic News approaches this aspect of the situation with seriousness and care. We acknowledge the pain experienced by victims and the importance of protecting children.
At the same time, it is profoundly troubling to see a minor placed—physically and symbolically—between an elected official and public accountability during an official government meeting. A city council chamber is not a place to deploy family trauma, unresolved allegations, or children as shields against scrutiny.
A family friend, Cindy Bateman spoke on behalf of Brian Galvan during public comment on December 8th, and made serious accusations against Deputy Mayor Galvan.
WHY THIS RAISES A FIRST AMENDMENT QUESTION
The First Amendment protects speech in public forums — including city council meetings — subject only to content-neutral, narrowly tailored rules.
It does not permit speech to be restricted because it is uncomfortable, because it involves an elected official personally, or because it creates political risk.
When an elected official is personally entangled in a dispute that becomes the subject of public comment, the obligation to avoid influence — direct or indirect — is heightened.
Placing a child into the middle of such circumstances, particularly where a protection order exists, may raise family-law considerations. But using that circumstance inside a public forum to effectively block speech raises serious constitutional concerns.
La Voz Hispanic News does not allege illegality.
We observe dangerous proximity to it.
WHY CONTEXT MATTERS
This incident does not exist in isolation.
Earlier this year, the City of Sunnyside formally acknowledged a First Amendment violation after silencing Maria Fernandez, Executive Director of Ella Adelante, during a council meeting. The city apologized publicly and paid a $35,000 settlement after conceding that her constitutional rights were violated. That money went only to ELLA’s attorney costs.
That case established a clear warning:
Public comment cannot be curtailed based on viewpoint.
Selective enforcement is unconstitutional.
Impact matters as much as intent.
Against that backdrop, the December 8th meeting raises a troubling possibility: that Sunnyside may be facing a second incident in which public speech was blocked — this time through tactic rather than rule.
ETHICS, NOT ADJUDICATION
This opinion does not determine ownership of vehicles, credibility in a family dispute, or the outcome of pending litigation.
It addresses judgment.
LA VOZ HISPANIC NEWS’ POSITION
Based on public conduct alone, La Voz Hispanic News believes:
The December 8th council meeting raises legitimate First Amendment concerns.
The City of Sunnyside risks repeating a pattern it has already acknowledged as unconstitutional.
Continued controversy surrounding Deputy Mayor Jorge Galvan undermines public trust and the credibility of city leadership.
CONCLUSION
The First Amendment exists to protect speech precisely when it is inconvenient, especially when that speech concerns elected officials themselves.
Sunnyside has already paid once for silencing a voice.
It should not ignore the warning signs now.
This is not a legal judgment.
It is a civic one.
And the community deserves better.
— La Voz Hispanic News (Opinion)
