|
May 31, 2004
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech - BUT Council and Staff might…a
column by
Suzette Christopher
It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," unless of course you are a citizen giving a citizen presentation at the NRH City Council meeting.
Citizen presentation time is accepted and respected that no personal attacks are to be aimed at elected officials or city staff. You would think the citizen giving the presentation would be offered the same respect. During the May 24 NRH Council Meeting, City Attorney Staples used citizen presentation to personally attack a presenter. Mr. Staples did not know the subject of the presentation; in fact he stopped it after the first sentence. Mr. Staples was clearly alerted into action by Councilman Whitson. Mr. Staples told the presenter “they” did not have jurisdiction. “They” would not be allowed to answer the questions asked. The presenter then rephrased and began over only to be interrupted one more time, only this time with a personal attack from City Attorney Staples. The presenter, being shutdown, returned to his seat.
After the Council Meeting I conversed with Mr. Staples. I wanted to make sure I didn’t make a mistake in a future presentation which would merit this type of outburst from Council or Staff. Mr. Staples stated “the presenter and I have a history, we go way back. He was going to make a political statement.“ I having read the presentation ahead of time knew this was not a political statement, and even if it was - is it for Mr. Staples to decide what the citizens can and cannot present - as long as it’s not an attack on Council and Staff? Or did Councilman Whitson alert Mr. Staples when he heard how Arcadia Realty is boasting about the city of NRH having borrowed $40 million to build a regional health and recreation facility, a conference and performing arts center, and a library without voter approval? We could go on guessing as to why the presenter was shut down, but it probably wouldn‘t do us much good. Mr. Staples stated he “never shut him down,” “I never asked him to sit down.” “I really don’t care what citizens talk about unless I am alerted by a Councilman.” I am sure the citizens in attendance would disagree with Mr. Staples statement of not shutting him down. I know of one citizen who said they didn’t know if they would ever give a presentation for fear of what might be said to them by Council or Staff. The Open Meetings Act permits a member of the public or a member of the governmental body to raise a subject that has not been included in the notice for the meeting; this is exactly what this citizen was trying to do.
Under the Rights of the Public in the Open Meetings Act: …A governmental body may, however, give members of the public an opportunity to speak at a public meeting.168 If it does so, it may set reasonable limits on the number, frequency and length of presentations before it, but it may not unfairly discriminate among speakers for or against a particular point of view.169.
Mr. Staples, NRH City Attorney, clearly violated the Open Meetings Act, clearly personally attacked a citizen during citizen presentation. The Council allowed this by their lack of action to enforce the Open Meetings Act. We must stop tolerating in our leaders what we would not tolerate in our friends. Become active in your council meetings. Voice your concerns. Write letters to your City Council and Staff. We have the freedom of speech. We must use it.
|
