Published: August 07, 2008 12:09 am            

City officials should not suppress public comments

The expression of public opinion to governing bodies has been in the news a lot lately.

This week, the Enid City Commission considered a new ordinance addressing rules of public comment, including penalties for breaking decorum. And in Bartlesville, that city council voted 3-2 to keep public comments off the televised broadcasts of the Bartlesville City Council meetings.

What is it public officials seem to fear about hearing from the public? Here locally, commissioners are looking at expanding public comment on some agenda items; however, their new ordinance seeks to punish comments from the public that are “impertinent or discourteous or personal.”

Thankfully, the commission tabled the idea for more discussion. Yet, we have to be concerned anytime a governing body wants to limit public discussion. We agree members of the public shouldn’t be able to cuss at, yell at or threaten the commissioners and the presiding officer has the right to cut off that kind of comment.

However, why do we even need an ordinance for this? The city commission can set policy and some basic rules for public discussion. We don’t need an ordinance for that.

And, in the Bartlesville case, that council is just doing themselves more harm than good in blacking out public comment from the televised broadcast.

Even though the public comment part of the meeting may be nebulous, the Bartlesville Council is setting up a perception that debate is limited or public discussion is limited. The televised meetings allow more taxpayers to see what is going on in the commission. The public input is a contributing part of that process.

There is no item in the open meetings law that requires a governing body to allow public input in their meetings. Yet, most governing bodies realize the wisdom of providing time for the public to have a say in items they are discussing or considering. This helps them do their jobs better and also helps the public perceive the governing body is working in the public’s best interest.

In Enid’s case, we recommend just updating the public comment policy to include time factors, and take out the part about decorum. If someone crosses the line, the presiding officer has the right to cut off their comment. Also, Enid commissioners should continue their ward meetings on a regular basis, at least once a year. This provides even more public input and discussion.

In Bartlesville’s case, the commission needs to immediately reconsider the action they took Tuesday night to black out the comments from television. It just makes them look as if they are afraid of what the public has to say about their actions.