Board of Aldermen — 5/09/17 Page 9
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - ORDINANCES
O-17-033
Endorsers: Alderman Ken Siegel
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
LIMITING THE SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT BOARD OF ALDERMEN
MEETINGS TO ITEMS WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
Given its second reading;
MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-17-033
ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Siegel
This is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation. What it does is just restricts the public comment to things
that we have some control over. |’m going to address this whole issue of “free speech” head-on. We already
restrict what can and cannot happen in the Chambers here. You cannot campaign for political parties. You
can’t waive signs. You can’t have commercial sponsorships here. We don’t panhandle in the Chamber.
There’s a whole host of protected free speech according to the court system that we restrict. This restriction, |
think, in no way hinders public access or public comment because if we can’t act on anything then what’s
happened and what did happen, which prompted me, is people kind of parachuted in here knowing there’s
cameras, were waiving signs and clacking around with noise, and just making a general ruckus about an issue
which we have absolutely no control over.
It seemed to be not fair to people that want to have public comment on things that are relevant that the Board
can act on. Nor, is it fair to staff to have to transcribe this. Also, we have had instances as we well know
where we have an individual who probably needs some attention from some facilities that maybe are mental
health facilities asking us to help them with them being on fire. Again, this is not within our purview.
Now that said, anything within our purview and there’s quite a lot, | don’t care what somebody says, where they
come from. If they want to be nasty about what decisions we’ve made or how, have at it. That’s fine for me
and probably fine for everybody else. That’s what we do. But! see no restrictions here, no limitation of public
access or any kind of restriction on free speech that’s meaningful in any way by scoping us to things that are
relevant to what we can act on.
We are not the only body that would do that. If you go before the Zoning Board, they are very strict. The
Planning Board, the same thing. We are wide open, and | think it works sometimes but other times it doesn't.
So | would urge my colleagues here to pass this piece of legislation. | think it’s healthy for everybody.
Alderman Clemons
No matter how you slice, this is a restriction of speech. We allow dialogue now that we would not allow if this
gets passed. No matter how you look at that, you are restricting some people from their right to speak before
us. While | can appreciate the fact that there are certain people who come before this Board who have
differing opinions than | do and who some of us may deem their speech unworthy of our attention, | think that
every citizen has a right to come and speak before us about what they feel the Board of Aldermen can help
them with.
It is now our place to put a judgment on those people or what they are saying. We all know Mr. Cutter. He
comes before us all the time and he wants us to take land from his neighbor and give it to him. We can’t do
that. That has been explained to him by three different corporation counsels, two different mayors, and a
number of people who have been on this Board and are still on this Board. Yet, Mr. Cutter believes that we
can do something about it, and that’s his right. That’s his right to come here and tell us how he feels. The
