Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 43
President Wilshire
The motion is to amend Ordinance 20-009 by roll call. Any further discussion? Alderman Clemons?
Alderman Clemons
| want to clarify something that was said earlier and that is that there is no restriction in this the way that we
are amending this to prohibit comments outside of the purview of the Board of Aldermen on the second
comment period. Is that the case? Can | have Attorney Bolton answer that question?
Attorney Bolton
| don’t Know if that’s the case. This has been amended since my Department looked at it and | don’t know
what it says in the Golden Copy on the subject.
Alderman Clemons
OK. | can tell you that | don’t feel comfortable with that. | think we should have a public comment period
that allows people to speak to whatever they want to speak to. | do think it should be limited in time to 3
minutes. | agree with the changes on there that made sure you are being reasonable and respectful and
things like that, those are obviously not mandatory and they are guidelines. But | guess | just want that
clarified if we could. Thank you.
Alderman Dowd
As | read the golden rod copy, no it doesn’t specifically say that so you are right. It doesn’t limit, in the
second comment period, the subject matter. But there is the time limit.
Alderman Clemons
Thank you and that is how | was hoping that this was going to be presented and | fully support the changes.
Thank you.
Alderman Lopez
It’s kind of ironic | think that in public comment | felt like it was used to target things that may not accurately
be said as well. In the comments made at the (audio cuts out) | was actually objecting to specific
behaviors. | was saying that Public Comment should not be used because we as Aldermen are providing
validity to this comment. Like you can go to the Aldermanic Chamber and talk all you want when there’s
nobody in the room. But because we are sitting here, we are lending a certain level of importance and
visibility to it. And we are the ones that setting the meeting and running the meeting, so in that case, we
bear responsibility for what took place.
So | was bringing up the fact that it should not be a forum where City employees specifically can be
targeted by members of the public, where they can prepare in advance and unleash a very detailed
complaint or disclosure. | mean such members of the public could go to the Mayor, they could talk to the
direct supervisors of those employees, they could go to the newspaper if they want, but that’s something
that | think is specifically what Aldermanic Meetings should be used for and | think it detracts from other
commentors who wanted to make comments as well when those people derail the subject at hand. So |
was objecting to that in the meeting that | don’t think public comment should be used to target people who
are city employees. | also brought up that | didn’t think it should be used to target the Mayor, because as
Aldermen we don’t really have much to do about how much (audio cuts out) is modeled or whatever beliefs
or people claim about him. If there’s a legal issue, there’s a legal issue, there’s a civil case to be made,
that’s fine. But jut announcing it in public | think is bad form. And then additionally | think neighbors
shouldn't use it as an opportunity to berate each other. | did have an individual in my Ward who for years
