Thanks Pete. I personally enjoy reading your well thought out comments. Our only focus is “good public policy†regardless of ones political affiliations.
Editor
Pete
Thanks for your input.The County Commission and County Council allow citizens to address them without a time limit. City Council allows citizens to address them, for only 3 minutes. Our point is 3 minutes is to short for any person who want to discuss a governmental issue that that concerns or effect them. Granted some people carried away and ramble which shouldn’t be allowed.
Our point is that members of the Vanderburgh County Commission and County County practice good public policy and transparency by allowing taxpayers the opportunity to address them without any time limit. We feel that the Evansville City Council should do similar.
Thanks for your input.
Editor
I don’t think the CCO and some of the contributors have a good grasp on law regarding participation in public meetings. First of all, the public has a right to attend and observe—only. Participation is not a right afforded by free speech or otherwise. Those meetings are for the purpose of the public board to conduct business on behalf of the public, not necessarily with the public. They are totally within the law to eliminate any public comment if they wish. I don’t agree with that position, but they can do it. As for three minutes, well if you can’t state your position in three minutes, you are editorializing. The chair should have the right, and capability to control the meeting. This blog is for editorializing, a public meeting is not.
Pete
Thanks for your input.The County Commission and County Council allow citizens to address them without a time limit. City Council allows citizens to address them, for only 3 minutes. Our point is 3 minutes is to short for any person who want to discuss a governmental issue that that concerns or effect them. Granted some people carried away and ramble which shouldn’t be allowed.
Our point is that members of the Vanderburgh County Commission and County County practice good public policy and transparency by allowing taxpayers the opportunity to address them without any time limit. We feel that the Evansville City Council should do similar.
Thanks for your input.
Editor
John,
I agree with your post. I was unaware of the rigid nature of the governance currently in place at the Council meetings. I am a proponent of giving the chair the proper tools with which to control a meeting. That said, I would also expect the chair to exercise a flexible use of that control to allow an adequate opportunity for a taxpayer to appropriately express themselves.
IS IT TRUE we wonder how many members of the Evansville City Council are aware that the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 protects people with orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairments issues?
IS IT TRUEÂ we wonder if the unreasonable “3-minute Governmental Censorship” rule imposed two (2) years ago by former Evansville City Council President Missy Mosby (D) could be something that members of the “Indivisible Evansville” group should address?
IS IT TRUE we wonder if City Council will provide an interpreter for those attending Council meeting who have a major hearing problem or may be deaf that want to address the Council about a city issue? …we also wonder if Council President Jim Brinkmeyer (D) will impose the unreasonable “3-minute Governmental Censorship” rule when a hearing impaired persons address Council?
IS IT TRUE we wonder how Council President Jim Brinkmeyer (D) would handle a request from persons who have a speaking challenge because they have a serious studdering problem? …we wonder if Mr. Brinkmeyer (D) will impose the unreasonable “3-minute Governmental Censorship” rule on them when they address Council?
IS IT TRUEÂ if a Civil Rights attorney who is well versed on the end and outs of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 made a presentation on this subject would City Council President Jim Brinkmeyer (D) cut him off from speaking on this highly complexed legal subject after three (3) minutes?
Pete,
During my tenure as President of the Evansville City Council, I contemplated limiting public input regarding issues, but I believed that those who elected us as their representatives should have a forum to express their grievances and concerns.
There were instances where individuals as you would say, editorialized and when occurred, it was my responsibility to terminate the discussion with dignity. Your assessment is correct about the right of the public to address the common councils, i.e. the councils have the ruling authority. but, common sense should rule the day and allow open public discussion.
The limiting discussion has its purpose, but, on many occasions, three minutes will not be sufficient especially when council members have a discussion among themselves running out the clock. Implementing a one size fits all approach may be interpreted as censorship resulting in degrees of suspicion by the public.
Consequently, the councils should allow any individual to state the subject matter to be discussed and in some cases where the complexities of a particular issue, the individual should request and the chair should grant an extension of time. Apparently, the present policy seems to be too inflexible and probably will not help reduce the negative opinion of City Council of the electorate.
FOOTNOTE: The City-County Observer recently posted a “READERS POLL” and the final results were:  462 people casts votes.  370 voted ‘YES.”  57 voted “NO” and 35 said they had “NO IDEA.”
They “READERS POLL” question was: Â Do you feel that the Evansville City Council should resend the unreasonable “3-Minutes Governmental Censorship” speaking rule?
