Citizen Comments During Council Meetings, 2012 edition

At this Saturday's work session/Special Council Meeting, the 2012 Rules of Council were passed. Included in the Rules of Council are the Rules for Citizen Comments:

Citizen Comments During Council Meetings

Council meetings are public business meetings of the Minerva Park Council. As such, all

citizen comments must be orderly, civil, and courteous and pertain to current issues and

topics of business before council.

Citizens wishing to address council at a Council Meeting must sign in and complete

a Citizen Comments Card before the meeting begins. The Citizen Comments Card

includes the name and address of the citizen and what specific topic/committee report

the citizen wishes to address. The citizen then gives the President of Council the card

before the meeting begins. Throughout the meeting, when the appropriate topic comes

up in the agenda (guest speaker, individual report or committee report), the citizen will

be recognized by the Mayor. The citizen then has three minutes to address the council

on a topic that relates directly to that committee or topic at hand. At the discretion of the

Mayor there can be discussion surrounding the topic. However, realizing that the council

meeting is an orderly business meeting, the discussion should always directly pertain to

the business at hand.

If it appears that the topic is not specific to the business before council or the committee,

the citizen will not be recognized until the end of the meeting at a general Citizen

Comments time. Any citizen speaking at that time will have a maximum of three minutes

to address council. No citizen will have more than nine minutes at any council meeting.

As always, citizens are encouraged to make an appointment to speak with the Mayor or

any member of Council about general issues of the Village.

In addition to the Citizen Comments Card, the Mayor or President of Council may

recognize any nonmember of council for the purpose of asking a brief question that

clarifies for the citizen the topic before council.

Any group of four or more, or a delegation of four or more, wishing to appear before

council should direct a letter to the Fiscal Officer and a copy to the Mayor in such time

that it will be received no later than 72 hours before a council meeting. At that time

council members shall also be notified by the Mayor or Fiscal Officer. It is clear that

this rule is not intended for an individual, or groups of two or three individuals, but

larger groups that wish to address an issue at a council meeting. The purpose of this is

to give council ample time to research and consider the problem to be presented and

discussed at the next meeting. Such a group shall choose a spokesperson to initially

present the issue to council and then other members of the group may be recognized to

give comments directly related to the issue when the group has been recognized to speak

on the committee topic.

At all times, speakers must be civil, courteous, avoid discussion of personalities, and

address issues before council. Specifically:

a. Citizen Comments at each meeting must be related to specific topics of the meeting

b. Citizen Comments not related to specific topics of the meeting can be presented if

the Mayor or President of Council has given approval before the work session the

Saturday before the Monday evening council meeting.

c. Citizen Comments are intended to present new information or opinions to the

council; comments that have previously and repeatedly been made are not

appropriate as council has already been informed of the citizen’s opinions.

d. Shouting or speaking loudly is not consistent with an orderly business meeting and

will not be tolerated.

e. Profanity and anger expressed in Citizen Comments is not consistent with an orderly

business meeting and will not be tolerated

f. Statements that stray from the topic at hand and single out individuals to criticize,

condemn, complain about, or belittle are not consistent with an orderly business

meeting and will not be tolerated

g. Citizens that repeatedly violate the guidelines for Citizen Comments will not be

recognized at future meetings

If at any meeting, any person becomes belligerent, discourteous, undertakes a discussion

of personalities, or strays from the topics before council, the Mayor or president pro

tempore of council may request that he/she return to the topic at hand and speak with

courtesy. If the person refuses, the Mayor or president pro tempore of council can ask

that the person surrender the floor and /or leave the meeting. If the person refuses, the

Mayor or president pro tempore of council can ask the Police Officer (if one is present)

to escort the person out of the room. The person can return when the Police Officer

determines appropriate. However, if the same actions continue, the person shall be

expelled permanently from that meeting.

As discussed in this previous post, we have previously had a clause for citizen comments; though now the rules and limitations seems to have doubled in print. I understand the need for order and direction during public meetings, and do value that these rules give respect to the length of the meetings; however I see this as another limiting agent our council is using to quiet dissenting opinion.

A few things that stick out to me are the following: 

• Comments not related to specific topics of the meeting can be presented if the Mayor or President of Council has given approval before the work session the Saturday before the Monday evening council meeting.  

A purpose of this would be to give council the time to review the topic and have useful feedback for the citizen's topic, however this leaves hearing the topic up to the discretion of the council president and mayor. Another limiting factor in what can be presented to both council and citizens present at the meeting. Not to mention the time factor in it, in the event a topic comes to mind after this time is up, it theoretically must wait until the following month's meeting to be presented in public. 

• comments that have previously and repeatedly been made are not appropriate as council has already been informed of the citizen’s opinions.

True, Council may already be informed of the citizen's opinions, but residents who infrequently attend may not be aware of grievances with council's actions; and new ideas or problems pertaining to the same topic or discussion could be suppressed with this rule.

This rule itself seems to spell out that council is aware of the citizen's opinions but doesn't care to hear them anymore, as they are obviously being left open to be brought up again by the citizen at more than one meeting. Issues are not being resolved that citizen(s) care about for this to be a necessary rule.

• Profanity and anger expressed in Citizen Comments is not consistent with an orderly business meeting and will not be tolerated

I completely agree with the part about profanity. However to require that speakers not express anger with any topic they wish to address is slightly unreasonable. No one is going to consistently agree with everything and not be angry about something. To ask that citizens not express emotion is quite constraining. As such, if council asks that of citizens, they should ask the same of council. There have been many meetings where certain members of council or Minerva Park administration have expressed anger through shouting, name calling, and wailing. That is not consistent with an orderly business meeting more so than that of citizens acting as such. Council and Village officials have a duty to be professional in holding their positions.

• Citizens that repeatedly violate the guidelines for Citizen Comments will not be recognized at future meetings 

Having attended several Council meetings I see this rule written for one dissenting (though quite valuable) citizen in particular. So, if council or our mayor repeatedly violate the rules, law, or civil rights of citizens or employees, are they going to be removed from their office or not recognized, by way of council or citizens? Obviously not, because that would have likely happened already.

I understand the necessity for regulations on public meetings, as said before, and I value the interest in the safety of the public in that council doesn't want dissent to grow to the point of violence or threats, but these rules are a little extreme for our village of 1,272. We usually have less than 15 residents at any given council meeting, and of those typically 3 at most speak as citizens, outside the capacity of working within the village, so I see this growth in rules as a way to suppress those few who do speak their minds and happen to disagree with the way things are being done. If they stood to praise council, I have a feeling their rules would be much more lenient.

Perhaps the time spent writing, deliberating, and enforcing these rules could have better served trying to eliminate some of the need for them. Though there will always be disagreements in policies and practices.