No Vote On Resolution To Limit Public Speaking—Issue Moved To Committee

City Council tabled a resolution to change the regulations about the public portion of council meetings during Wednesday night's meeting. 

Council President Peter Cunningham said he didn't intend to have the council vote on the resolution during the meeting, even though it was an item on the agenda. 

"That, quite frankly, was rude," said member of the public Lane Bajardi. "You did a disservice to the members of the public." Bajardi urged the council not to put resolutions on the agenda if they won't be voted on. 

Third Ward Councilman Michael Russo, who chairs the administration committee, said the resolution should have come through that committee first. Councilmen David Mello and Ravinder Bhalla are also on the administration committee, which will meet with Corporation Counsel Michael Kates to discuss the issue. 

The resolution, which was proposed by Cunningham and Coucilwoman-at-Large Carol Marsh, would mean that the public could no longer speak on all individual items on the agenda, but only during a public portion at the beginning of the meeting. There would also be an option for the public to speak on non-agenda items during a second public portion. The time limit for public comments is five minutes per person (per item).

The resolution also introduced an adjournment time of 11 p.m. (something more people rallied behind). Some members of the public mentioned that if meetings are going to end earlier in the future, they may have to be held more often. 

Most council members agreed that moving the public portion—which is currently at the end of every meeting—to the beginning of the meeting would be a good idea, simply because members of the public shouldn't have to wait until midnight, or later, to make raise issues and concerns. The public portion on average rolls around at about 11:30 p.m., at which point most people who signed up to speak are no longer there. 

Seventeen members of the public spoke up against the resolution Wednesday night. Most members of the public said that if rules that limit  the public portion are accepted, regulations should be put in place for the Council members as well. 

"When you separate yourself from the public you're sliding down a slippery slope," said Perry Belfiore, one of the 17 people who spoke against the resolution. 

"I never once thought that my right to speak would be attacked in this way," said Bajardi, who delivered a speech during the public response to the resolution. The resolution also stated that the presiding officer of the meeting would have the power to cut off "excessive" and "irrelevant" comments. 

First Ward Councilwoman Theresa Castellano called the resolution " terribly restrictive." 

Councilman-at-Large Ravinder Bhalla also urged his council colleagues to not make the resolution into a political issue. "Let's try to work together as a nine person unit here," he said, adding that most members of the council probably wouldn't want to be in a meeting until 2 a.m.

Some other ideas thrown out there by members of the public were to bring back the caucus—during which the council members meet before the public meeting to straighten out their agendas—and hold more effective committee meetings during the week. 

For now, no changes will be made to shorten the meetings or curtail any public comments. Wednesday night's meeting ended around midnight, when the Council went into a closed session.

After the 17 speakers all made their points, Councilman Nino Giacchi noticed that it took less than an hour to listen to them. "They're right," he said. "We do all the talking."