New rules aim to tame public dialogue
They can be loud, rowdy romps punctuated by nasty exchanges and personal barbs.
We're not talking about the "Jerry Springer Show." We're referring to some government meetings in local communities like Orchard Park, Amherst and Brant.
Some Town board meetings have seen public sessions turn into verbal brawls. Critics claim some speakers have waged personal attacks, and that public officials have used the forums for political posturing and sermonizing. They claim things are out of control.
Against this backdrop, some town boards have either taken steps to tame discussions or are debating such actions.
In some localities like Buffalo, there is no need to impose new regulations. That's because many governmental bodies, including the city's Common Council, don't have public comment periods during their twice-monthly meetings. Any give-and-take occurs in Council committees, at formal public hearings and in caucuses.
But some town boards that offer the microphones to residents are now enforcing new "codes of decorum," requiring people to give notice days in advance or their plans to speak, or are debating other changes.
What do you think? Are these steps smart strategies that genuinely aim to promote civility? Or are they ploys to stifle public debate?
-- Brian Meyer
