The Town Council of West Hartford has "Standing Rules" which govern how Town Council meetings are conducted.
Members of the Town Council are seeking to change the rules regarding public communications in response to members of the community who have been outspoken and have brought repeated complaints to the Council.
The changes include putting the Communications portion of the meeting at the end of the meeting (new Rule 5), and limiting the subject matter of communications (new Rule 7). They also wish to limit "repetitious" communications, because they obviously don't want to hear from the same people over and over again. Moreover, the Mayor (President of the Council) can at his/her discretion forbid certain communications and push it off until the next agenda (or indefinitely) - as long as there are 4 Council members who vote along with that! (new Rule 11).
So it looks as if the Town Council of West Hartford is initiating the limitation of Freedom of Speech at its Town Council meetings.
Take a look at the proposed changes to the rules: (bracketed items are as they are currently, and underlined items are the changes)
Yes, we know that some members of the community can be tedious. We know that members of the Town Council probably are tired of hearing from the same people over and over again, and probably don't want to hear what some speakers have to say, but hey, isn't this America? Don't we have a right to speak our mind, right or wrong?
Can the Town Council members just meet with the folks they think are offensive and settle their difference in a different manner rather than limiting speech for everyone else with these new proposed Town Council Meeting rules?
In America, you may not like what people have to say - but the hallmark of our system is that we have the right to speak our mind (whether we abuse that right or not is also debatable) and any limitation to that right is simply un-American.
If anyone is interested in this attempt to limit freedom of speech from the public at Town Council meetings - especially as it relates to certain individuals in town - please watch for an upcoming public hearing on this issue and write to your elected officials about it.
We should not allow public comment at a Town Council meeting to be stifled or stymied because we find certain individuals to be annoying.
4 WH Responses:
it is the obama agenda...communism is on its way in
I assume the Obama nonsense is ironic?
Thanks for bringing this to our attention--it seems important. But I'm not ready to agree that this amounts to suppression of Constitutionally protected speech. It's a meeting run by consensual order. There are already restrictions placed on who can speak, for how long, and when. So the question can't be "can they regulate speech" but for what purpose is the council proposing altered regulations?
One answer might be: to protect free speech. There's only so much time. People speaking to irrelevant matters, to matters already "settled" (granted, an arguable category), and to matters over which the council has no control could potentially crowd out other speakers. Besides, rejected communication, with the support of 4 council members, can reappear on the next agenda, so there's a built-in appeals process (I think you misread that part).
In short, there is some restriction going on here, but the question isn't "can they do this in America" but "is this reasonable and necessary?"
Well let's make it easy for people to participate in town government, not by shoving the comments to the end of a meeting. The bigger problem I see is that the Town Council and the BOE do a pretty poor job of tracking action items and outcomes and for that matter answering concerns. If we are going to reform policies, let's reform the way we track actions and decisions so that is easier to understand.
If you dont agree with the mayor he does not want to hear from you. The people who speak at the meeting have valid questions but we never get answers.
Post a Comment