I Have Some Good News and Some Bad News
ByRecently, the city of Puyallup considered tightening the screws on what is permissible speech at their city council meetings. They felt that harsh criticism had no place at a public forum. Well, I supposed criticism was still technically welcome but it was the way in which you presented it.
That led to a debate on the appropriateness of speech restrictions that was covered by the Tacoma News Tribune recently. The end result was that the Puyallup council narrowly voted against imposing any further restrictions to public comment at city council meetings.
This brings to my mind the 30 second spiel that the DuPont City Attorney would read prior to the public comment section of our town’s council meetings. It curiously emerged during the middle of the fire levy seasons a year or so ago. Now, it is only sporadically stated. I wonder if that has anything to do with the sign up sheet and who is on board.
I often thought it would be great if the first speaker after the announcement would ask for a clarification from the city attorney on the policy. If it were me, I would ask him to define “personal attack.” Did I personally attack the mayor for breaking a promise to close an issue as publicly stated? Was it directed at her, or her position? Is that personal? Actually, it was directed at the position of everyone seated before me. Was my comment a daisy cutter that took them all out?
It never got to that point but if it did there would have been a vigorous debate. And, if there was not definition on record of what the city considers a “personal attack” then it is left to the caprice of the city attorney, or worse, the mayor and council.
The recent Puyallup policy vote and the attention it cast on their town lead to their “wise” decision to take their lumps. The article can be read here; and, it is also republished below.
MELISSA SANTOS; Staff writer
Published: 03/11/1012:05 am
The Puyallup City Council has rejected a proposal that would have required citizens to be “courteous in their language and deportment” when speaking at council meetings.
After hearing objections from a dozen citizens at Tuesday night’s meeting, the council said no to the proposed rules for citizen conduct on a 4-3 vote.
Residents said the rules would infringe on people’s First Amendment rights to free speech and prevent them from publicly criticizing city officials’ decisions.
Besides requiring courteous language, the rules would have banned any “derogatory, impertinent, or slanderous remarks or insinuations” against council members, staff or citizens, and given the mayor the power to determine whether a citizen’s remarks were “germane and relevant.”
Most residents who spoke at the meeting thought those weren’t objective standards.
“What is rude?” asked South Hill resident Mark Stewart. “You know as well as I do that the answer to that question is completely subjective. I suggest you take your lumps.”
Council members ultimately dropped nearly all the proposed changes to their rules and procedures. The only change they made was to allow citizens to speak at meetings without having to sign up in advance.
Council members Kent Boyle, Rick Hansen, John Knutsen and Nicole Martineau voted in favor of keeping the citizen comment rules mostly the same.
“If I do something wrong, it is your duty as a citizen to tell me that,” Boyle said. “I believe that is your right.”
Martineau said that though she believes meetings should be held “in an orderly fashion,” she would prefer to do nothing rather than risk infringing citizens’ rights.
“I don’t want to censor anyone,” Martineau said. “That’s not why I’m here.”
Council members Don Malloy and Tami Brouillet and Mayor Kathy Turner favored amended language that would have banned the public from making libelous, obscene or indecent comments. Their proposal also would have banned citizens from making personal attacks on city staff.
“I think it is appropriate to make professional comments,” Malloy said. “Personal comments should be done in private.”
Other cities in the region, including Edgewood, Federal Way, Bremerton and DuPont, have policies barring citizens from making slanderous or personally abusive remarks, Puyallup City Attorney Cheryl Carlson said. The City of Tacoma adopted a policy in 2005 that contains language nearly identical to Puyallup’s failed proposal.
Tim Ford, the open government ombudsman for the state attorney general’s office, said earlier this week that city councils can ban disruptive behavior in their chambers, as well as impose time and noise limits on citizen speech. Requiring courtesy is a less neutral restriction, he said.
“I’m a little concerned about that,” Ford said. “It seems subjective.”
Ashley Brooks, a senior at Rogers High School, compared the city’s attempt to regulate citizen comments to censorship of her high school newspaper.
“Just because a few people are going to go up and be derogatory doesn’t mean everyone has to be punished because of it,” she said Tuesday night. “When someone comes up here and they feel passionately about something, words are going to slip out. They have that right.”
Sounds like now is the time to challenge the city of DuPont over their lame policy. Too bad the city attorney isn’t required to read his statement prior to council addressing the citizens.
Cities the size of Lakewood and Puyallup face far greater scrutiny than DuPont so we are permitted to fly under the radar more frequently. After watching council meetings for the last couple of years I am convinced that for most of them there actions are derived more from ignorance and not malice. I suppose that also explains why there is no ’soul searching’ done after some pointed public comments. Instead, you have the council huddle up and label their detractors as cranks while at the same time they openly cry more people aren’t involved. Be careful what you ask for council, more involvement very well may mean more criticism!
Several attempts were made to the city attorney about their policy. He never got back to us to show us the directive or city ruling prohibiting expressing criticism towards the council or mayor. Isn’t that what the public portion is for? I agree you should not use profanity, but what is wrong with severe criticism towards a policy or a council member not doing his job?
The policy is a joke. If the mayor and council are so concerned at the negative feedback then they have no one but themselves to blame.
If you don’t fall in line with the pretend leaders in city hall, or if you show any contempt or offering a differing view, you are condemned like Jesus was by the pious scribes & pharisees in the temple of Jerusalem. The piety of our governing body stems from, and parallels ancient religion.
Example, Larry Wilcox. He is on record and on council video pleading from his seat about wanting citizens to come forth and offer their views and suggestions. Then, just last month, he shouts at Mike Gorski, Mr RealDupont, and calls him a disgrace to the city of dupont right there from his high backed council seat. This, after Mike challenged council to move quickly and set policy for use of fireworks in DuPont.
Larry Wilcox exemplifies the double standard we all hate. He wallows in praise and formality, right down to a stick pin american flag in his blue council blazer. Yet, when someone comes forward with something other than praise, his pretend leadership game falls apart. So goes Coffee, Jenkins, and Errorenriech.
I suggest keep it real and be honest for a change.
Pretend leadership, Bingo.
Face it. Larry will never get it.
The city is already mired in secret deals and direction setting, we need more open and direct representatives that challenge the inner circle inside city hall. Being open and direct flies in the face of the formal/polite protocols currently being followed during the public meetings.
Just listen closely to the Q&A during the meetings, you’ll get lost in trying to understand why something is being said, or why a question was raised. DuPont elected government has a lot of growing up to do.