A long-standing tradition of Independence Township has been open public comment during board meetings.
Not anymore.
The tradition allowing members of the public to address the board on multiple agenda items “has been repeatedly abused,? said Trustee Neil Wallace, who recommended limiting people to ‘one agenda item per meeting.?
‘The rule I propose would attempt to preserve that tradition based on its rationale that someone can come and comment on a specific agenda item and not wholesale on all agenda items,? he said at the Jan. 5 regular board meeting.
The rule change passed on a 4-3 vote. Trustee Mark Petterson, Supervisor Dave Wagner and Treasurer Curt Carson voted ‘no.?
‘I think the people have the right to speak their mind,? Petterson said. ‘We work for them. We don’t work for our own little party going on up here. We work for the people.?
Petterson asked Wallace if he would compromise and allow the public to speak on at least two items. Wallace would not budge on the issue.
Wagner said he was ‘troubled? by limiting the public to only one agenda item, when their agendas are 10-15 items long.
‘I realize the majority of the people are there for a particular reason, but it’s not to say if they hear something else that is another agenda item that they may want to voice an opinion, I think it’s very important we don’t stifle that,? he said. ‘Freedom of speech means a lot and it’s not something we should play around with.?
Carson agreed.
‘If they come to a meeting and they’ve got thoughts or comments to give on any number of topics, then they should have a right do that,? he said. ‘My thought was it right do that,? he said. ‘My thought was it should all take place at the beginning of the meeting during the public comment section.?
Carson also disagreed with board members adding items to the agenda the night of the meeting by a majority vote.
‘I think that’s disingenuous,? he said. ‘The whole reason for our policies and procedures was to make sure we got everything at least a week in advance, where we got the opportunity to review it and ask any questions we needed to, so we’d come in educated to make good decisions. Taking out the word ’emergency,’ I just don’t think is appropriate.?
Trustee Larry Rosso felt limiting public comment on all agenda items would bring more ‘efficiency? to the meetings.
‘The biggest complaint we’ve had is grandstanding, showboating, things like that. In other words, the focus is not on the subject of the meeting, at least the comments I get from the public,? Rosso said. ‘It’s the theatrics or the nonsense, or the derogatory comments, things of that nature that is more troubling to me. At least this is a framework to put a limitation on those types of antics being repeated.?
Trustee David Lohmeier also lent his hand of support and ‘felt it was a step in the right direction, but wouldn’t fix the problem.?
‘Mr. Wagner, the way to fix that is you have to step up as chair and control the meeting, that’s got to happen,? Lohmeier said. ‘That’s cutting people off when they’ve gone too far.?
Township resident and former Clerk Joan McCrary called the Clarkston News and said ‘it’s one of the worst things the board has ever passed.?
‘They no longer feel the public can have input into their business, when they are all working for the taxpayer. To think they would consider squashing opinions from taxpayers because of one person they don’t get along with,? she said. ‘This reminds me of Eastern Europe. I believe this is constitutionally wrong under the first amendment.?
Wallace said board members are different from everybody else because they ‘took the time, make the effort and the sacrifice from our families and monetary and whatever else to be here, to get elected.?
‘We do have a privilege of speaking on each and every one of these agenda items and that privilege should not extend to someone who has not been elected,? he said. ‘That’s the basis for that rule.?
Omar Chaudhary of Butzel Long law firm, Michigan Press Association, said state Open Meetings law allows the township board to create some restrictions, but mostly limiting time, not content.
‘That’s essentially what this is. It’s no longer a restriction on how long you can talk, it’s a restriction on what you’re allowed to discuss, that’s the real problematic part of it,? Chaudhary said. ‘We think it violates the open meetings act because although the legislative body is able to create reasonable restriction, this seems unreasonable because it would limit people from speaking on certain topics.?