Council reviews new rules for public comment at meetings

Apr. 2—The city of Oneonta Common Council may formalize rules for members of the public while addressing the council at meetings, part of a push for improved communication between the council, city staff and the public.

While there is a set time for petitioners to address the council included on council agendas, time limits typically have not been enforced on each speaker, and audience members often interrupt and interject during conversations among council members past the time period allotted for petitioners.

After the past couple of council meetings have grown contentious, with personal attacks directed toward city and elected officials from members of the public, Mayor Mark Drnek introduced a set of suggestions developed by City Attorney David Merzig that council members used to start the discussion at the March 26 meeting.

The state open meetings law has no provision granting members of the public the right to speak at government meetings, so it falls to each legislative body to codify its procedures allowing petitioners the opportunity to speak locally.

On Tuesday, the Oneonta council delved into the content of the proposed rules for guiding the behavior of petitioners at council meetings, which included keeping comments respectful and relevant to the topics on the agenda.

The council reviewed similar council policies and procedures from Decatur, Ohio, and Kirkland, Washington.

Scott Harrington, R-Sixth Ward, said he questioned whether the council should restrict public comments to agenda items or topics under consideration.

"If we're going to have an open forum where they can come in and address the council," he said, "I think they should be able to, whether or not that topic is on that agenda."

Cecelia Walsh-Russo, D-Second Ward, said that public petitioners should do just that — petition the board on a topic specific to the agenda, rather than venting concerns or grievances that could be addressed to a subcommittee, individual council member or city staff.

"If we're going to have public petitions," she said, "we should have limits in terms of what they're able to talk about. I don't see a problem with that."

Bryce Wooden, D-Seventh Ward, said that the way the petitioners' time is structured, attendees can speak to the council but receive no response from the council members — it's not a back-and-forth conversation.

"There's really no clarity time, or Q&A time, for us to just give some clarity," he said. "It just looks like we're just sitting there, kind of like bobbleheads, not really paying attention."

He added that he would like for there to be a way for the council to clarify small things before moving on with agenda.

Kaytee Lipari Shue, D-Fourth Ward, said that the council could have time at the end of the meeting to respond to issues but not people, with no rebuttals from the audience.

The expected follow up would be for petitioners to reach out to their council member or the mayor privately.

"That allows people to feel like they've come here and made progress," she said, "and not just like shout into the void."

The council decided to send the discussion on crafting the rules to the council's Legislative Committee.

The next conversation on communications is slated to be inter-council communications.