As I was perusing the upcoming City Commission agenda meeting, I noticed an addition in wording:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public comment on any matter that is not on the agenda of the meeting and that is within the jurisdiction of the City Commission. Please keep your remarks to a maximum of 5 minutes)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public comment on any matter that is not on the agenda of the meeting and that is within the jurisdiction of the City Commission. Please keep your remarks to a maximum of 5 minutes)
[emphasis added]
The wording used to be: Please keep your remarks to a maximum of 5 minutes.
This must be in answer to the incident that happened on August 5. (At that same meeting, another citizen called the mayor on the carpet for not allowing public comment with regard to the consent agenda).
This is not good. While some may be happy that this will alleviate comments about issues outside of the city's jurisdiction, it also appears to alleviate comments about issues with regard to the city.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding part of this, but it also sounds like a citizen will not be able to address a topic that is on the agenda but which the mayor did not call for public comment. This happens quite a bit of the time, especially with the consent agenda. (See above).
Is this in violation of the Montana State Constitution, which says:
The wording used to be: Please keep your remarks to a maximum of 5 minutes.
This must be in answer to the incident that happened on August 5. (At that same meeting, another citizen called the mayor on the carpet for not allowing public comment with regard to the consent agenda).
This is not good. While some may be happy that this will alleviate comments about issues outside of the city's jurisdiction, it also appears to alleviate comments about issues with regard to the city.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding part of this, but it also sounds like a citizen will not be able to address a topic that is on the agenda but which the mayor did not call for public comment. This happens quite a bit of the time, especially with the consent agenda. (See above).
Is this in violation of the Montana State Constitution, which says:
Sec. 7. No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression. Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty. In all suits and prosecutions for libel or slander the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the facts.
12 comments:
More of the same. As long as they get away with an inch they will grab another mile.
Excellent insight....therefore the public CAN comment on agenda items as it's stated right on the city agenda and even invites the public input...which has not been encouraged lately. So, will the
mayor say NO to somebody who wants to comment with great articulation during the public comment period? Will she say NO questions which NONE of us, and mean it, should never, ever tolerate.
"Maybe I'm misunderstanding part of this, but it also sounds like a citizen will not be able to address a topic that is on the agenda but which the mayor did not call for public comment."
I think the public is allowed to comment on any action item, right?
With the exception of the public hearings, the mayor will not always open the floor for public comment on the other issues.
One never knows from meeting to meeting whether other items will be open to public comment.
This is one of the reasons why it was such a breath of fresh air when Commissioner Bronson chaired the meeting a few months ago. The public was allowed to comment on every issue, which is what the agenda says the format will be:
"Please Note: The City Commission agenda format allows citizens to speak on EACH issue prior to Commission action. We encourage your participation. Please keep your remarks concise and to the topic under consideration". [emphasis added]
Right, it's an action issue.
Letting the public speak is not the issue. This is like discussing what caliber of pistol you like to get shot in the head with.
The problem is the tunnel vision and those deaf ears of the city commission.
Commissioner Bronson does a fine job as noted when he chairs the meeting....the mayor should LEARN from that example, and I wish Commissioner Bronson would communicate more and engage with the public, and cite his beliefs and argument with it.
How do you teach an old dog a new trick?
Treats?
Treats?
Yeah, problem is some of the commission and city staff are getting treats from their corporate masters to befuddle the public.
If they were "on the take," as you suggest, they probably wouldn't have to work at regular jobs, either.
I hope this limits the amount of time deranged windbags take up at every meeting. I get tired of watching witso, Hubbard and the usual bunch of fools.
"If they were "on the take," as you suggest, they probably wouldn't have to work at regular jobs, either."
Nope, that would require a bit more sophistication and some cunning intelligence. The world is full of stupid criminals.
http://stupidcriminalfile.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment