Mayor Responds To “New” Protocol For Community Comments

Image “FREE SPEECH” by Newtown grafitti is licensed under CC BY 2.0

An announcement by the mayor last week at council underlining robust adherence to a policy of halting members of the community who “personally” attack city staff or council during public comments has raised questions. Mainly, who determines if a comment is inappropriate? Is it the role of council to put limits on the speech of members of the community, especially when they are speaking about elected officials or tax-payer funded city employees?

The new policy states that any member of council can call “order” if they feel that a speaker has stepped out of line. The rest of the council will then rule on whether or not the call to order is justified.

Melissa Swift, a perennial speaker at meetings, questioned a quote in the Times-Herald by Interim City Manager Anne Cardwell after she said that a “vocal minority” which is hard on politicians and city staff makes it hard to do their jobs. In her own letter to the editor, Swift wrote, “If our comments seem harsh and negative, it is because the news out of City Hall has been appalling. If we have sounded like a broken record, it is because not a single question that we have raised has been answered satisfactorily by city staff. And if we seem like a minority, remember that voters spoke at the polls last November. We rejected Measure G. We elected Mayor McConnell, Councilmember Diaz, and Councilmember Arriola in a sweeping call for change.”

I reached out via email to Mayor Robert McConnell and asked him to clarify how speaking harshly to an elected official could fall under the policy and whether or not it violates free speech. I also asked him who, or what entity, will determine whether or not what someone is saying is “false,” and does the council have the authority to decide what is true and false. Finally, I asked him what will happen if a caller refers to a staffer or council member as “corrupt.”

Here is his response in it’s entirety:

“In reality, the newly acknowledged procedure has always been in existence.  I used it when I was on council and there were continued personal attacks on two of our female council members by a male who seemed to take pride and being pleased when he could provoke an outburst.  Finally having had enough of my time I objected with a point of order.  It worked.  Amazingly after that, the problem greatly diminished. 

Community forum is designed to be when members of the public can speak of items that are within the jurisdiction of the city council but not on the agenda that particular date.  Whether there will be an objection will remain to be seen.  If there is I will deal with as a chair must.  That is what parliamentary law is all about.  It is the city ordinance that establishes a procedure for council.  That ordinance also recognizes that when there is no established procedure the default authority is Roberts Rules of Order.  That authority is a very complex set of rules and procedures.  And, there are different versions of it.  That was one reason why the council decided to adopt a new parliamentary procedure for the commissions.  We probably should also do that for council.  But, given the challenges this city must deal with, that procedure is not one that is in the most need.

Both the public and each council member are free to reach conclusions about the traits of a staff member.  But remember our city charter restricts council members from being involved with personnel decisions of staff, department procedures, and operations, unless it falls within a policy that is needed to be created or changed.  Corruption is a criminal charge.  Criminal charges are not within the power of a city council in California for the most part.  Instead, they are within the jurisdiction of the county district attorney, the state attorney general, the federal US Department of Justice, and the state Fair Political Practices Commission. 

Free speech is an first amendment right, as is the freedom of the press, the right to redress government for grievances, freedom of religion.  Those rights are not unlimited.  But they are quite broad.  And, they are areas where people can, and probably should differ.  The second amendment right to bear arms is certainly an example of that.  So it will be a delicate balancing act.  And certainly what is or is not a proper outcome will ultimately be decided by the highest and last judicial body to weigh in on the subject.

My personal tolerance is rather high.  A very wise former elected official counselled me when I first became a commission member that no matter what I thought of what was being said as a person sitting on the dais it was my job to listen.  While I personally agree with that, not all others do.  But since I am the chair I will need to and most certainly shall make a judgment call if and when requested to do so. That decision can be appealed by any member.  So ultimately it will be the seven member council that makes the call, majority prevailing.

It has been said that democracy always changes.  It is an experiment.  This latest wrinkle is yet another experiment.  Stay tuned.“