Board of Aldermen — 5/09/17 Page 11
who have pertinent conversations and may really feel passionate about an issue that we are dealing with. I’m
not sure it’s fair to them either.
Alderman Siegel
| kind of resent the fact that somebody is labeling me as somehow restricting free speech. That’s not the case
at all. | was very clear on that. | really don’t appreciate that. The other thing is | really appreciate my
colleague, Alderman Lopez, bringing up the fact that as aldermen we deal with a wide range of issues that are
often outside our purview and we provide guidance at that point. The question is: Is the public comment
period at the end of this meeting an appropriate place for people to just come in and just literally say things that
have nothing we can act on as a body? Often we help people individually and that includes Mr. Cutter. And, |
might add that we have the ability to override the rule. We can suspend the rules and accept this comment if
we deem it appropriate or we don’t agree, for example, with the President’s assessment that that might be
outside the purview of the Board. We maintain that authority. | just do not understand why this becomes such
a touchstone. | think it’s popular. Oh, |’m in favor of free speech because |’m against this. I’m sorry; | believe
that’s utter nonsense. Pure nonsense.
Alderman LeBrun
|, too, reluctantly agree with Alderman Clemons. | hope that doesn’t hit you the wrong way. | would never
restrict public input at any of my committees at the State House nor at Hillsborough County, and | certainly
cannot vote to do so here in this city. Thank you.
Alderman Schoneman
| appreciate all of the viewpoints that were expressed here. | understand what Alderman Siegel is saying
about the appropriateness of this forum, but | also agree with Alderman Clemons and his point about this being
the forum where people should be able to come and speak. | don’t plan on supporting this. There are other
boards that have a specific targeted audience or function, let’s say. If someone came before the Historic
District Commission and wanted to speak about a topic, some of the folks we’ve heard here where it’s totally
off, | would say that that doesn’t belong there. But if there’s a board in the city that is more general than any
other, | think this is it, and | think this should be the place where people no matter what they have to say can
come in and share their views. | think whether it’s free speech, right or not, can be debated | suppose. The
fact that people can come in here and speak their mind at the end of the meeting and be heard with whatever
they want to say | think is an important part of how we function. | think people are much more able to face their
own issues if they have some kind of venue where they can speak. If this is it, I’m in favor of it and | plan on
not supporting this.
Alderman O’Brien
| look at this as not really a restricted type of a thing, and I'll tell you why. At the beginning of our agenda it says
“period for public comment relative to items expected to be acted upon this evening.” We have a public
comment period at the beginning, yet we put some form of mind to pitch. We designated what can and cannot
be discussed. Taken away completely the second public comment period would probably jeopardize, in my
opinion, some free speech issues but that’s not what we’re doing here. The reason why | supported this, and |
am still going to support it, is because we are limited the second public comment period to a subject matter
within the jurisdiction of the Board so we can designate when somebody does get a little bit out of bounds.
Who is going to make this decorum type of decision? It would probably revert back to the President of the
Board of Aldermen. If the situation comes in, this gives us the ability to allow the person to have their
communication and free speech, but if they start going a little bit off base, it gives the power to where it should
be, to the President of the Board, to curtail the conversation back and try to refocus it. Again, this is not limited
the second period public comment. It’s basically just giving it some rules of decorum to which any legislative
body has certain rules of decorum on when the public can speak or not speak. It is usually at the call of the
President or the call of the Chair. Thank you.
