During its five-month life, the speech limitation had generated a federal lawsuit and sparked arrests and complaints that the council was more interested in the length of speech than in content.
Republican council members sought unsuccessfully to discard the rule early in September. Bipartisan consensus that the rule's time was running out began building last month after two people were arrested at a council meeting for refusing to stop speaking when they were told.
The council voted unanimously Monday to repeal the five-minute rule.
Mayor Thomas Serra, who described it as a pilot measure, said he had not been in favor of it, but added the rule was viewed as a way to address concerns of conduct and meeting length.
Majority Leader John Robinson said the rule was not wrong, per se. It had been an attempt to increase public speaking, he said.
While the five-minute cap on speech is gone, the council passed a resolution that allows the public to speak as long as rules of conduct and decorum are followed. Speakers would be ruled out of order if they stray from the agenda item or "no longer conduct themselves in an appropriate manner."
Resident Frank X. LoSacco vigorously objected to those caveats.
Quoting from a state Supreme Court case that overturned a libel verdict against a newspaper, LoSacco said debate on public issues should "be uninhibited, robust and wide-open" and may include "vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks" on public issues.
The council resolution stood in conflict with the court ruling, LoSacco said, comparing the council's attitude toward the public to a parent and 15-year-old.
Domenique Thorton, the corporation counsel, said LoSacco's comparison was not germaine. The court case involves freedom of the press and the written word, the council resolution concerns freedom of speech, she said.
Sydney Libby, the resident who's been arrested most often under the five- minute rule, said the wording on decorum could lead to someone being ruled out of order right away.
"This is New England, not the mountains of Sicily. You can't rule like a fascist dictator," Libby told Serra.
Resident Earle Roberts applauded the council for rescinding the five-minute rule, but voiced concern about the continued practice of having the public speak at specific points during the meeting on agenda items and proposed appropriations.
Before last summer's change, the public could speak on an item-by-item basis.
Resident George Souto complimented the council for rescinding the rule. He urged the council to exercise rules of decorum and conduct.
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to do some of the things which have been done," Souto said. "Without rules, we'd have nothing but chaos."
The "public comment" portion of the Common Council meeting was historically held at the begining of the meeting following the reading of the agenda and formal opening of the meeting. It served a beneficial and useful purpose for the public exchange of ideas and concerns to the community on any topic. The comments had to be germane to the community and could raise important issues but personal attacks were not the norm.
ReplyDeleteIn the late 1980s and early 1990s LoSacco and Libby began participating and made personal accusations and in some cases threats of physical harm ( Libby liked to indicate that he was going to place an Uzi "up your tushy".).Lo Sacco demolished a police cruiser following one meeting by jumping up and down on it. As a Council member in the early 1990s I used to ask then Mayor Garafalo for a "point of order" to have him stop the personal attacks and threats- which he did- from the chair using Roberts Rules of Order.
I believe that was the right approach to handling inappropriate comments. Moving the public hearing session to the back of the meeting reduced the interest of the general public in public participation since few would want to wait several hours to make a few comments to their public officials. When the public comment session was removed from the broadcast and was not really part of the "meeting" it made it meaningless.
I suggest that it would be better for everyone to place the comment period at the front end of the meeting. Let the Mayor handle the gavel to control the meeting in conformance with Robert's Rules and he can shut down personal attacks and threats as inappropriate and not germane. This would give the "public session" back to the public in the way it was originally intended and used for more than a hundred years.
People that abuse this forum can be barred by respecting the rules of decorum at the request of the Councilmen in the room
Mr. Corvo is absolutely correct. Allow the public to speak in the beginnng of the Council meetings, regardless if the issue is on the agenda. The Mayor has the authority to control the meeting, via Roberts Rules of Orders.
ReplyDeleteThe publics participation has been reduced since the inception of "Items Not On The Agenda" has been introduced. If allowing the public to speak on any subject relevant to concerns of the community good, creates more public interest, then the change has been a success.
If the meetings are to long, then schedule more of them each month. We must have a lot to say about our town. Please listen to it, and do not shut us down.