GREENFIELD — Following a heated, hour-long discussion, City Council voted unanimously to send a proposed amendment requiring all committee or subcommittee chairs to allow public comment during public meetings back to the Appointments and Ordinances Committee.
The key change between the proposed amendment and the city’s current public participation law boils down to language, particularly the difference between “shall” and “may.” The current regulation states that “Public members may be recognized to speak to the council at the pleasure of the presiding officer or a majority of the council present,” whereas the proposed language, read by Precinct 1 Councilor Katherine Golub, states “All council meetings and City Council committee meetings shall provide for a period of public comment.”
Although the change was first proposed by former Precinct 7 Councilor Jasper Lapienski, it was brought forward on Wednesday by the Appointments and Ordinances Committee that Golub chairs.
Reading the amendment, Golub said that codifying public comment will protect public engagement in council and committee meetings now and in the future.
“It’s a relatively minor change, because almost all the subcommittees currently allow for public comment, but it says a lot about who we’re choosing to be and what we value as a council. … When I was knocking on doors during the last election in Precinct 1, public participation was something that I told people that I was committed to really bolstering,” Golub said. “I’m hoping that we’re going to choose to value public participation and representation and really well-thought-out decisions.”
However, some councilors responded in strong opposition to the amendment, claiming that by bringing an amendment before the council to protect public comment implies that councilors and committee chairs do not currently allow, or respect, public participation in meetings.
Council Vice President Sheila Gilmour said that since the proposed amendment was made public, she and her colleagues have received numerous emails from constituents painting the council as a body of “monsters” and “demagogues” for not respecting or allowing public comment, even though they do.
Gilmour also noted that in certain instances, such as executive session meetings in which the public is not supposed to be aware of a committee or council’s topics of discussion, public comment is completely unnecessary.
“I can vote this down and know that we can still have public comment at any subcommittee meeting where we want to, but it won’t be forced upon us when it’s not appropriate,” Gilmour said. “I don’t appreciate the framing around this issue, among other issues that have come up recently.”
At-Large Councilors Michael Terounzo and Penny Ricketts echoed Gilmour’s remarks. Ricketts, who vowed to vote “no” on the amendment with or without altering the language, said the implication that city government does not allow public comment is disrespectful to her and her colleagues.
“For someone who’s been on council for 10 years, it is really hurtful for me” Ricketts began. “You’re throwing away my 10 years of service over trying to be on your soapbox about trying to save the community and guess what? I’m doing this for [the community]. We’ve always done it for them.”
Precinct 5 Councilor Marianne Bullock expressed support for the amendment and told the council that before she joined city government, she had attended committee meetings where public comment was not allowed because the committee was discussing an issue that had “blown up in the community.” Bullock noted that the chair of that committee was not any one of the currently sitting city councilors, but added that although the vast majority of chairs allow public comment, there are some exceptions.
“I don’t think every chair of the committee does allow this to happen. … I have a hard time stomaching this condemnation of the public who just wants to have a voice,” Bullock said. “There’s a certain person who comes to my meeting and I know is going to speak every time and I don’t want to hear it anymore, but I don’t believe I should have that right as the chair. I believe that two minutes [of time to speak] is the least that I can do for someone.”
Council President John Bottomley pushed back against Bullock’s remarks, asserting that the council consistently respects and works to serve the public. He referred to the topic as a “bizarre” and fabricated narrative that “what [the council] is doing is broken.”
“I’m going to jump in here for a minute because I’ve heard the words ‘condemnation of the public,’ which I actually think is absurd. I’ve been on this council for four years, and maybe started watching seven years ago, and I’ve really seen nothing but respect for the public. I have not witnessed that in the meetings that we have hosted,” Bottomley said. “I find that to be an incredibly strong comment. I value public comment deeply. I found that actually offensive to what I’ve seen and what I’ve witnessed in past councilors and chairs.”
At-Large Councilor Wahab Minhas, who participated in the meeting virtually, asked his colleagues to “lower the temperature” on the conversation. He went on to say his support for codifying and protecting public comment is centered around protecting it under future committees and councils that may not respect public participation as much as the current ones do.
In response to Gilmour’s comment that executive session meetings should not be open to public comment, Minhas suggested an exception for executive sessions should be added to the amendment.
“You build laws, you build regulations [so that] even if your worst enemy was in a position of power … and you’re on the other side, you still have a voice,” Minhas said.
In response to Minhas’ request, Gilmour said the council was “doing [its] homework in class,” and suggested that the proposed amendment be sent back to the Appointments and Ordinances Committee to be revised and brought back to the council as a final draft. The council voted unanimously to send the proposal back.
Anthony Cammalleri can be reached at acammalleri@recorder.com or 413-930-4429.
