by J. Brooks Terry
Staff Writer
Following “unexpected resistance” from the public and fellow City Council members, President Lad Daniels said he will abandon plans to eliminate one of the public comment segments at Council meetings.
Daniels said he has received “a few negative calls, but enough to reconsider that portion of the bill.”
“The absolute last thing that we ever wanted to do was cut ourselves off from the public,” said Daniels. “If that turns out to be the overall perception of what we’re trying to do, then we’ll call it off and never look at it again. We want to be accessible, and we want the public to feel welcome. That’s a priority.”
Daniels added that he and others from the Council and Legislative Services thought one place for public comment was sufficient. Legally, no section is required.
“When we were looking at this we never wanted to change the order of the agenda; we still wanted the public to have the opportunity to speak as early as possible, as a courtesy to them,” he said. “That was never going to change. We, as a group, felt the second [public comment] section was a little redundant.”
Others on the Council, including Glorious Johnson, believe, at the very least, the second section be reserved for those who “did not get the chance to speak the first time.”
“If someone has already spoken once,” said Johnson, “then they shouldn’t get up and talk about the same thing twice.”
The ordinance was drafted a few weeks ago in an attempt to improve “Council effectiveness.” In its early stages, provisions were made to allow Dana Ferris, chief of Legislative Services, the opportunity to correct typographical errors, incorrect dates or improper punctuation found in ordinances minus committee approval. The option to eliminate the second public comment section from Council meetings was a late addition.
“I never expected for there to be any negative feedback, to be honest,” said Daniels. “If I had, I never would have wanted to bring it up.”
Further prompting the proposed removal of the second section was Daniels’ assertion that “only a handful” of people from the community are present at the conclusion of most Council meetings.
“We realize now that the number of people who stay is not the point,” he said. “No matter how many there are, we still want them to be able to be heard.”