First Amendment Rights Discussed At Council Meeting

In the last Common Council meeting before November 3rd elections, Democratic Council members attempted to remove an item from the agenda which concerned the first amendment rights of residents to address the Council.

Currently, Council rules allow residents to address the Council during the body of the Council meeting only on items which appear on the Council agenda.

Other items, not on the agenda, which residents wish to discuss, are relegated to a section of the meeting which is technically outside of the actual meeting. When residents are allowed to discuss “Items Not On the Agenda,” the meeting has already been adjourned, the transcriptionist has been dismissed, the television cameras have been turned off, and most of the Council members have exited the chamber.

Tonight, two pieces of correspondence addressed this issue. One letter was sent to the Council by Republican Council member David Bauer, and one was sent to the Council by longtime gadfly Sal Caracoglia, who is known to make personal attacks on certain council members.

Before these letters could be discussed by the public, Council member Thomas Serra asked that the letters be removed from the agenda because they address an issue, First Amendment rights, which is currently the subject of a lawsuit against the city.

Council members seemed to miss the irony of removing a discussion of free speech as a subject of open discussion at the meeting.

The removal of the letters was defeated in an unusual bipartisan vote. The public was allowed to speak on the issue of free speech.

Council member James Streeto asked City Attorney Timothy Lynch if the free speech issues should be discussed in executive session because of the pending litigation. Lynch opined that a general discussion of free speech issues was certainly within the purview of the council, and Mayor Sebastian Giuliano suggested that as correspondence, the letters were not “action issues” and that the Council had no need to discuss them. Giuliano further suggested that after elections at the first meeting of the new Council, current regulations could be affirmed or adjusted.

I rose and addressed the Council indicating that I have always been disturbed by the balkanization of citizens with legitimate concerns who are relegated to address a partial Council, no longer technically in session, at the end of long meetings, where minutes are not recorded. I suggested that a strict time limit would prevent individuals from prolonging meetings unnecessarily, and suggested that public comments be welcome in the body of the meeting.

COMMENTARY: For the record, I do not think individuals should be allowed to make personal attacks, or use aggressive or offensive language at public meetings. But I believe the chairman of these meetings should be charged with keeping the meeting in control. However, I am a firm believer in First Amendment rights, and the right of the individual to seek redress if he or she feels these rights are abrogated.

Council members sat expressionless as Caracoglia made his presentation, which were largely absent his usual personal attacks. In a rambling speech he asserted, not for the first time, that the Council has denied him his First amendment right to make his concerns known within the body of the Council meeting.

After this initial discussion, the Council did not address the matter again until Council member Bauer withdrew his letter on the topic from the agenda.

Another major topic of discussion at the meeting was an impending vote on an adjustment to a current health ordinance about keeping animals on property in town.

Ron Borelli, a Planning and Zoning commissioner who is involved in personal litigation with a neighbor about the very issue, suggested that the amended ordinance dealt with property use issues which are the jurisdiction of the Planning and Zoning commission.

When asked if the amended ordinance had been examined for Planning and Zoning issues, Health Department sanitarian Sal Nesci said that the ordinance change had been considered for three years, and in that time it had gotten the approval of Planning, Conservation and Development director Bill Warner.

Giuliano reminded Nesci that the director of Planning did not make policy, but that Planning and Zoning Commission did, asking Nesci again if the ordinance had been presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

“No, it hasn’t,” Nesci said. “I guess I should just pack my paperwork away.”

When the ordinance was finally considered, after a lengthy technical discussion, the Council voted to refer the ordinance to the Ordinance Study Commission and to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

In one final long and contorted debate the Council voted to use LoCIP (Local Capitol Improvement Program) funds to build new sidewalks at the rear of the new highschool which will allow access by those with disabilities.