Members of the Galesburg City Council and Mayor Peter Schwartzman are at odds over several proposed changes to the city’s rules and procedures for public meetings.
One alderperson says the proposals are an attempt to seek “more efficient and civil public input.” Schwartzman, however, believes the changes would restrict freedom of speech and expression.
Among the items under consideration are:
- Starting meetings at 6 p.m, instead of 5:30 p.m.
- Moving public comments to earlier in the meeting.
- Reducing the time a person can speak to 2 minutes, from 5.
- Requiring all speakers to sign-in and state a topic that would be limited to city business.
- Limiting closing comments by Council members to 2 minutes per member.
The City Council will discuss the items, all of which are on first reading, at 5:30 p.m. Monday at Galesburg City Hall.
Majority of council requested the changes
Schwartzman said the proposals were requested by a majority of the Council members, adding “I was not consulted in its formulation or rationale.”
Ward 5 Council member Heather Acerra said the proposed changes to the public comment section of meetings are part of a broader list of items that she and Ward 1 Alderman Bradley Hix presented to City Manager Gerald Smith during a meeting Tuesday at City Hall. Acerra said council members Wayne Dennis (Ward 2), Evan Miller (Ward 3) and Steve Cheesman (Ward 7) were in agreement with the list of proposals.
“When we met with the city manager last Tuesday, it was regarding items we wanted investigated, explored or developed,” Acerra said. “We did not ask for these items to be placed immediately on the agenda. It would be entirely appropriate for many of these items to be discussed in a work session first, as was my expectation.
“I believe that moving certain topics immediately to the agenda and the manner in which they have been drafted is a political move in an attempt to make new council members appear rash or heartless.”
Alderperson: Intent is to help institute a sense of decorum
Regarding changes to public comment, Acerra said the majority of the Council — she, Hix, Dennis, Miller and Cheesman — requested the city manager to work with the city attorney to draft a procedure for “more efficient and civil public input.”
“We made some suggestions based on input from community members and a review of the ordinances around public comment in other communities,” Acerra said. “Most obviously the intent is to help institute a sense of decorum and to help the meetings run more efficiently. We want to create a more positive impression of our community for potential new business and residents.
“I have been told local employers will not bring job candidates to town on Monday evenings for fear that they may see a City Council meeting on television in their hotel and determine that this is not a good community to move to. I also feel that the severe personal attacks discourage good people from running for office or even attending a city council meeting.”
Mayor: ‘I see no good reason for wanting to limit this activity’
Schwartzman said the public comment period of the meetings is not only done for the Council’s sake, it is done for everyone listening or watching, or those that couldn’t attend the meeting for some reason.
“It affords our residents one of the few opportunities they have in our city to voice their opinions on matters of vital importance,” he said. “I see no good reason for wanting to limit this activity.
“I am against any ordinance that would restrict freedom of speech and expression, a First Amendment right, beyond that which is absolutely necessary. There is nothing necessary about these proposals.”
Schwartzman said while some public comments at Council meetings have been impassioned, strident and forceful, that none have been in violation of current laws.
“I have consulted with our legal counsel about this matter several times over the past few years and have briefed the Council of the feedback from these inquiries,” he said.
On limiting the time for comments: What is the rush?
The mayor said he opposes decreasing public comment time from 5 to 2 minutes.
“Some comments take time and we should afford our engaged community members that time,” Schwartzman said. “What is the rush?”
According to Schwartzman, requiring citizens to sign-in and state their business for speaking, “is just one more obstacle to hearing from our community. It is intimidating to speak publicly. We shouldn’t be creating arbitrary obstacles to allowing people to exercise their first amendment rights.”
Schwartzman also questions the legality of restricting the amount of time council members can speak during closing comments.
“I have no idea why the Council would restrict their own speech,” he said. “If the majority want to do this, I would question their motives.
“Some closing statements have been civic lessons to/for our community. Why limit such speech? I see no reason to do so.”
The proposed amendment to the ordinance also would change the order of business and place public comment after the reading, correction and approval of minutes of the previous meeting. Currently, the public comment section of regular City Council meetings is held after roll call, reading of the minutes, passage of ordinances and resolutions, and the opening and consideration of any bids.
Alderperson: Attempt to avoid criticism ‘is unethical’
Ward 6 council member Sarah Davis questions the motives of the Council members behind the proposed changes.
“The Council members who came up with the idea to limit public comments are people who have recently been criticized by the public, so it appears that they are attempting to avoid criticism,” Davis said. “In my opinion, this is unethical.”
Davis said the majority of the suggestions are intended to limit what citizens are allowed to say in public comments — in essence, limiting free speech.
“Residents deserve the right to bring their grievances in front of the City Council without undergoing a laborious process that is designed to limit who can speak and what they can say,” Davis said. “A staple of our democratic process is the right of the public to address (and criticize) government officials.
“Restricting this right is a clear attempt to avoid accountability. The suggestions to require a detailed sign-in sheet, limit content to items on the agenda, and limit time period to two minutes are all attempts to restrict the free speech of the public.”
Cheesman said he believes the changes are necessary.
“Public comment is a very important part of the democratic process in our council meetings, but theses changes will help us get input on government business in a way that will allow us to do the business of the city in a more effective way,” he said.
Current City Ordinance 30.06 for Public Participation states among other things:
- All items must pertain to city business.
- Speakers shall refrain from engaging in debates, directing threats or personal attacks at the presiding officer, council, city staff, other speakers or members of the audience.
- Members of the audience shall refrain from applauding cheering, or booing during or at the conclusion of remarks made by any speaker, staff member, board member or presiding officer.
- Groups of residents should, whenever possible, consolidate their comments and avoid repetition through the use of representative speakers.
Acerra said, “Of course, no changes will be impactful if they are not enforced.”
Mayor encourages council members to sign ‘Civility Pledge’
Schwartzman has started circulating what he calls a “Civility Pledge” among Council members, a practice he said other Illinois municipalities have adopted.
“It won’t be on Monday’s agenda but I would hope the Council would give this a serious look and possibly see it as a compromise and one that preserves our resident’s First Amendment rights,” Schwartzman said.
The Illinois Municipal League announced a Civility Pledge at its Spring Board of Directors meeting. The pledge seeks to restore civility in local governments, encourage productive dialogue and build public trust in all of Illinois’ 1,295 cities, villages and towns.
The pledge reads, “In the interest of civility, I pledge to promote civility by listening, being respectful of others, acknowledging that we are all striving to support and improve our community and understanding that we each may have different ideas for achieving that objective.”
Current City of Galesburg Code 30.06 – Public Participation
City of Galesburg Code 30.06 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION by WGIL Radio on Scribd