At Monday's work session, the Council discussed whether to continue broadcasting Citizen Comments (Item 2e) that come at the end of the regular meetings, where citizens can say anything they want, up to three minutes. For the three years that I have been on the Council, those comments have been broadcast with the meeting and re-broadcast numerous times. Since the meetings are available anytime on the web, those comments are replayed many, many times.
 
It is good that citizens have an opportunity twice per month to address the Council on any topic. However, under Texas' Open Meetings law, the Council can only listen because we are only allowed to discuss items posted in the agenda. We cannot make any comments, ask any questions, discuss, curse, or correct anything said. Even when told of this restriction, some speakers don't quite get it. They usually expect some reaction; they don't expect a row of mute bodies. Those are the rules though.
 
There is an inequity. Citizens often say things that aren't true — not because they are lying but because they don't have enough information and there is no way of letting them know while they speak. (Some have lied, knowing they could not be challenged.) Regularly, some citizens offer complaints that have nothing to do with the city and with which the Council has no authority. Also, citizens will make accusations that are unfounded and verbally attack a city employee by name, someone that is not even present. All of these go unchallenged and because they do, there is sometimes the impression of a silent endorsement, which is very unfair to the viewing public and to the staff and Council.
 
It was suggested that some citizens that didn't want to be on camera might now be encouraged to comment. There are always at least two sides.
 
By a 5-4 vote, the Council decided to no longer broadcast Citizen Comments. Citizens are still welcome to offer comments but those statements won't be heard beyond the chamber walls.
 
I was on the losing side, arguing that a greater inequity could go unnoticed: a citizen with a valid criticism that needed to be heard by the general public would lose his connection and potential support with the greater viewing audience. (Not my exact words Monday but my intent.) Nothing moves government faster than angry citizens, or, more specifically, angry voters. I would have compromised by allowing the broadcast of the original comments and eliminating them from all the re-broadcasts, but ... that's not to be either.
 
We'll see how it goes. I guess anyone particularly disgruntled can start a blog.
 
But that doesn't always work out either:

 
CONNEAUT [Ohio] — City administrators have sent a letter to a local Website operator, ordering her to remove information related to municipal offices, City Council members learned at Monday's work session.
***
"I am tired of the dirt," [the city administrator] said. "I don't know what the hell is going on. These personal attacks are going to stop. I'm really tired of the personal attacks."
 

2 comments

Comments:

Comment from: Phil Lathrop [Visitor]

The problem seems to be the repeat performance of a few citizens using the time to vent, and as you say misrepresent issues to a silent council. There should be constraints as to not waste valuable time. The problem is definitions and when do constraints or rules become an impediment to freedom of speech. In my own Garland business, I have had to defend my rights as certain Council members simplify issues and want to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" to solve the issues. Doug, thanks for supporting basic rights. I hope you can find a middle ground.

05/20/09 @ 06:14

Comment from: Melissa Gonitzke [Visitor]

Oh jeez...once again, I'm with you, Doug. I have stopped watching the meetings at this time. I'm sick of being frustrated!

05/20/09 @ 07:59

Comments are closed for this post.