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

Comments

[Barton Keyes]

You can't run a business or a government or a meeting without a minimum amount of civility and order. Town Board meetings should not devolve into a political tag teem version of world wide wrestling.
The fear, however, is that some politicians will use the issue of out of control mouths to muzzel vigorous public dissent over controversial policies. And if that is the case, the public has a right, even an obligation to loudly cry foul.

[bobbycat]

We talk the talk about our precious freedoms. We recite the Pledge of Allegiance, "...with liberty and justice for all." before the meeting, then some officials pick up their gavel and immediately ignore the pledge they just uttered.

If a town board has adopted Roberts Rules of Order (and most have) the only person allowed to speak is the person who has been granted the floor. Not even the Chairman of the meeting can interrupt, unless to settle points of order or other parlimentary matters. Thus, under Roberts Rules there is no 'give and take' allowed between the speaker and town officials - who, under the rules of order, must remain mute. No debates are allowed, unless the board votes to relax the rules. If the speaker uses offensive language,(such as swearing) they can be ruled out of order.

In my experience most Town Boards don't understand Roberts Rules, and if they have a parlimentarian (as they should) I have never heard one utter a single peep.

The fact that New York law remains in the dark ages and does not recognize freedom of speech for citizens at Board meetings is no reason not to allow civil liberties. There is no excuse for town officials to hide behind immoral laws. Citizens must demand to be heard.

Not allowing the public to speak at public meetings is a defining feature of fasicism
and must be stomped-out wherever it rears it's ugly head.

We sometimes forget that our freedom to speak at public meeting has been paid for over and over with American blood.
Honor it.

It's a simple facet of human nature that officials don't like to hear criticism, heated or otherwise. But any official who does not allow a redress of grievance or other constitutional freedoms should be hounded out of office on a rail. If the official won't respect the basic tenets of democracy, get rid of them, pronto.

[Ron]

If there is no control at a meeting it will simply decend into chaos. Some people are against everything and there is a danger that these people can dominate the meeting.

[logan]

Local level is the best place for citizens to speak out. Weinstein in Amherst has proposals that are anti-democracy. How dare he!!!!

[Debra Ritz]

Before voting on the Resolution to prohibt the public from speaking at our town board meetings in Brant, our Supervisor informed the other board members and the public attending the meeting that the other towns (Evans, Amherst, West Seneca and Orchard Park) passed the same resolution. Well, on the front page of the Buffalo News, we now know he out and out lied about that. The disruptions at our board meetings come from the Supervisor and the gavel he continually uses. The Supervisor and not the public is the one charged with harassment. So who should try to be civil. The public has the right to be heard by the officials they elect and pay. Instead of assuming our Supervisor is telling you the truth, find out for yourself. Don't take his word or mine. Listen to the tapes from the meetings, read the minutes and talk to your neighbors who have attended these meetings over the past 2 years. Thanks to the News for running this story. Only the informed public can change this Resolution in Brant.