 |
| Hot air emanates from da Hall, although not from pols |
Illinois law actually requires municipal entities to set aside a portion of their meeting time to allow people to make statements about what their officials are doing. So the City Council really is just complying with the law.
IN
FACT, AS reported by the Chicago Tribune, the City Council’s action was
motivated by the courts – a lawsuit was filed and a judge issued an order
requiring Chicago to permit some sort of public comment.
But
as I have learned in writing about other government entities where public
comment questions arose, Illinois law actually does not dictate what form the
public comment must take.
Government
entities are allowed to set their own rules.
I
know that in my years as a reporter-type person, I have covered entities that
strictly limited people to 3 minutes of talk and only on issues that were
already on the council’s agenda. No trying to bring up anything else that might
be of public concern, but that officials didn't want to discuss.
OTHERS
HAVE PERMITTED people to bring up issues not on the council agenda, but usually
in a portion of the meeting held at the end once all the actual business is
complete and public officials are feeling antsy and are more interested in
adjourning so they can go home.
I
also know of one entity that requires people to submit their questions in
writing, so that theoretically city officials can have their attorneys review
them so that a proper answer can be provided. Although they’re not always rigid
in enforcing that.
In
Chicago, it seems the significant rule (as evidenced by Wednesday’s conduct) is
that up to 30 minutes will be provided for public comment – with individuals
allowed up to 3 minutes each.
If,
by chance, there are too many people to fit within that half-hour, then it’s ‘tough
luck’ for those individuals who lose out. We’ll have to see whether the courts
accept this limit, since the people who filed the original lawsuit against the
City Council indicate they intend to continue their court fight over this
issue.
FROM
MY OWN experience, I know that these government hearings usually attract
characters. People who actually work for a living don’t have the time to spare
to express themselves publicly.
We
often get people who see it as their place in society to be the verbal pain in
the political behind. I know one person who routinely shows up at Common
Council sessions in Gary, Ind., who thinks his public comments are just as
significant a part of the municipal process as the votes the council members
take.
At
the City Council, the Tribune reported that the first person to make a public
comment to the City Council was George Blakemore. Although anybody who pays
attention to local government knows Blakemore isn’t a stranger to speaking out.
Back
when I used to write for a different newspaper, I covered the Cook County Board
(amongst other things) and Blakemore’s presence was a given. He’d always have
something to complain about. It would have been newsworthy if he hadn’t spoken.
PERSONALLY,
I REMEMBER a time his rant turned into a diatribe against Latinos and how he
saw them taking from black people – which caused President Toni Preckwinkle to
cut him off and publicly denounce him for making racist remarks.
Of
course, he insisted on perceiving the issue as one of being censored by the
county board president. I suspect we’ll get lots more rants like this in coming
weeks and months.
Personally,
I have no problem with the idea of people being able to express themselves at a
government meeting. Those officials, after all, are doing “the people’s
business,” and the people ought to have a chance to say just what they think.
But
now that we have public comment at the City Council sessions, we’re going to learn
that the act of being a bloviated buffoon in public isn’t something necessarily
limited to the elected officials.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment