Nazareth is one of very few LV municipalities who muzzle people when it does not like what they're saying. I've experienced it myself. At one meeting, one borough Council member suggested that I have no right to speak because I own no real estate. He would prefer to hear only from the landed gentry. That Council has also barred Plainfield Tp residents from voicing their displeasure over the spreading of Nazareth sludge at one of their farms. Nazareth's practice is completely contrary to most area municipalities, which allow residents and nonresidents alike to weigh in on matters of public concern. Under Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act, "residents" or "taxpayers" of municipalities have a statutory right to "comment on matters of concern ... ." I've argue that any nonresident who buys a cup of coffee in an outlying municipality is a taxpayer. Since the Sunshine Act fails to explain exactly what constitutes a taxpayer, the term has to be interpreted broadly.
Historically, Bethlehem has been very inclusive about allowing nonresidents to address city council during meetings. But much as it likes to present itself as a beacon of light, it might be getting a lot more like Nazareth. That's because Council member Grace Crampsie Smith is proposing changes to the public comment policy that shut out the vox populi.
What prompted this move on her part were a few recent meetings in which mostly college students wanted Bethlehem to join other cities in calling for a cease fire. After being promised that they would see a resolution at the next meeting, City Council reneged. In my view, it's a promise that never should have been made. The pro-Palestinian crowd should have been told that what they were seeking was beyond the purview of a city government. So when City Council went back on its promise, people were outraged and there was, as Crampsie Smith put it, a "mini riot." Council had to adjourn at midnight without even having scratched the surface of city business.
As a result, she proposed this change to the City Council's public comment policy at last night's meeting.
"Public Comment is extended to the citizens and taxpayers of the City of Bethlehem for comment on matters of concern, official action or deliberation which are or may be before the board or council prior to taking official action. In no event shall one individual address Council during Public Comment for a period in excess of five (5) minutes."
What constitutes a citizen? Beats me. Who is a taxpayer? Is it someone who pays EIT? Property taxes? Sales tax on a cup of coffee? The terms are undefined.
Stephanie Steward, City Council Solicitor, explained that the terms are purposely kept broad because she envisioned an unenforceable "honor system" under which speakers themselves could decide whether they are citizens or taxpayers. "You want to tread lightly," she explained.
That made no difference to Crampsie Smith. "We will try to enforce it," she said, completely contradicting advice just given by City Council's solicitor. She was outraged by the antics at the March 5 meeting, in which the real problem might have been Council President Michael Colon's absolute failure to keep control of the meeting and allow numerous personal attacks. She noted that she had to move to adjourn. ... At midnight.
Crampsie Smith had a strange ally in Council member Bryan Callahan. He ran on a complaint that City Council does too much behind closed doors but was more than willing to shut down public comment. He said nonresidents should email the city clerk or go to their own townships.
From the floor, Ruby Khaluf (sp?) stated the amendment may be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it fails to define what constitutes a citizen, resident or taxpayer.
Other Council members opposed Crampsie-Smith's proposed limitation on public comment.
Council member Kiera Wilhelm called the proposed limitation "reactionary.". She pointed to numerous prior ,meetings in which nonresidents have weighed in topics like the Bethlehem landfill and the spreading of Bethlehem sludge in Carbon County. She stated she learns from these nonresidents. "It is going to be our loss if we negate that option." She condemned Crampsie-Smith's proposal as one that "cuts off our nose to spite our face."
Council member Hillary Kwiatek echoed Wilhelm. "I continue to want to hear from people both inside and outside of the City," she said.
For the first time, Council member Rachel Leone actually said something. She observed that the City considers regional issues and regional voices should be heard. She would support a three-minute time limit or moving public comment on nonagenda items to the end of a meeting but was unwilling to go along with one that limits comments to citizens without even explaining who they are. She agreed meetings can be long, but "Democracy is messy."
Council member Colleen Laird agreed that there have been several "extremely long meetings," but "I signed up to represent the community and that did not have a time limit on meetings." She noted that the city library and water and sewer authority serve nonresidents who should be able to address Council. She viewed college campuses, which supplied most of the Pro-Palestinian speakers, as a plus for the city. She added that Bethlehem just joined the "three city coalition" and asked if Bethlehem should ban a Mayor from another City. "I want people to be able to voice their thoughts on our city." She does support reducing allotted time to three minutes for items not on agenda and moving them to the end of the meeting.
After discussion, Bryan Callahan proposed tabling the resolution and his motion passed 4-3. He was supported by Leone, Michael Colon, and Laird. He was opposed by Crampsie-Smith, Kwiatek and Wilhelm.
22 comments:
The inmates are running the asylum! 🤪
People do not understand local government. Three minutes at the end of the agenda meeting for non-agenda courtesy of the floor.
1) Every adult has a right to vote.
2) Voters elect municipal leaders.
3) Municipal leaders make policy and pass laws.
4) If voters don't like the laws, they may refer to step 2.
Republican democracy works. If Nazareans want outside comments, they'll ask for them.
Moving public comments on non voting items to the end of the meeting makes the most sense & also allows the public to weigh in on council comments during the meeting.
Limiting those public comments to one topic will also streamline the meeting since often people will read off a laundry list of complaints.
The most significant thing that came out last night is that comments must be related to Bethlehem affairs.
Gaza cease fire is not such an item & could have been stopped.
Lower Saucon had this provision, until the new dems removed it. Meeting times have doubled, even while holding twice as many meetings as the last administration. If you're not a resident or property tax paying individual to the specific municipality, pound sand. Nothing stopping you from emailing or writing the municipality. So you can't speak at a meeting. Boo hoo
Shouldn't the protestors of the Free Palestinian People be speaking and raising hell in Harrisburg and Washington D.C.?
Aside from its self-inflicted punishment resulting from making a promise they couldn't keep, it is confounding how council's main frustration is the length of meetings but they can't take action to hit the target. Here's an idea: try a simple solution to a simple problem. It's the first level of problem solving. Cut the 5 minute time limit to 3 minutes. This solution has been proposed to council for several years. Instead, they did nothing and now respond with content and citizen-resident-taxpayer(?) rules that invite debate. Not surprisingly, they failed to reach a decision. Expect the problem to continue due to the absence of the leadership and collective will needed to step on a few toes. The public senses this weakness and the speakers take full advantage. This has been a longstanding problem in Bethlehem.
The Sunshine Act specifically provides that taxpayers have a right to address the municipal body. Since the statute contains no limitation on what constitutes a taxpayer, that provision must be broadly construed to include everyone who pays some form of tax anywhere, including something as small as a tax on a cup of coffee. It is intended to be inclusive, not exclusive.
The Act does provide that a municipality may adopt rules and regulations for the content of meetings (Section 710), but they must comply with the legislative intent seeking an open government. A time limitation actually makes it possible to hear more people. Moreover, rules giving preference to residents over nonresidents are reasonable. I also see no problem with having a separate session for nonagenda items at the end of a meeting so that it does not interfere with time sensitive matters.
The right of public participation includes any matter "of concern," and that is something that should be left to the judgment of the speaker. Thus, if I want to advocate for a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza or calling on Council to invade Canada, I have such a right. It may be silly and absolutely absurd, but no less so than some of the comments made by our elected officials.
I do disagree with the belief that anonymous speech should be allowed at a Council meeting. The First Amendment does provide that the citizenry has a right to petition the government to redress grievances but does not authorize the public to speak at every meeting. If that were the case, we'd all be able to address Congress or the state legislature when they convene. The right to speak during a meeting is a statutory, not a constitutional, right.
The enabling Sunshine Act specifically provides that the minutes include "The names of all citizens who appeared officially and the subject of their testimony." Section 706(4). A person who chooses to speak at a public meeting is not being compelled to do so. No one is pointing a gun to his head. That person is required to identify himself. Right include corollary duties. If someone wants to express his views publicly, the people listening to that person have a right to know who that person is, This is not constitutionally compelled speech because that person has no obligation to speak at all.
The cases cited by the person from the floor do not support what she said they do. Marshall v. Amuso, 571 F. Supp. 3d 412 is an Eastern District of Pa case and has no binding authority. In that opinion, the judge does bray (incorrectly) about constitutionally compelled speech, but even he concedes that the person speaking can be required to provide identification when he or she signs in. The other case cited (Miller v. Goggin) is one in which the court actually dismissed a civil rights action premised on a refusal to identify.
I support anonymous speech and allow it on my blog, but do not support anonymous speech at public meetings. People should be responsible for what they say. Allowing anonymous speech opens the door to defamation in a state where the right of reputation is a constitutional right.
" ... that provision must be broadly construed to include everyone who pays some form of tax anywhere, including something as small as a tax on a cup of coffee ..."
I don't think so. Tax paid on coffee is a state money taking. That body meets in Harrisburg. If locals collect a tax on it, then their meeting is fair game. Panto taxes out of towners. They should have a right to speak in Easton. If you're not the taxing body, however, complainers should seek out whomever is.
Yes, sales tax goes to the state and comes back to the municipalities. The Sunshine Act does not limit what is meant by "taxpayer," and hence the word must be read broadly to comply with a legislative intent for open government.
City council members are elected to legislate on city business. Courtesy of the floor should be restricted to city business ONLY! It would be unjust to limit it to residents and/or taxpayers because of the many events held in the city that draws visitors. These visitors can bring awareness to issues, both positive and negative, that Council should hear and possibly act on.
Everyone who buys a ticket for any ArtsQuest shows pays a "City of Bethlehem" line item tax making them taxpayers!
City Council exists to discuss and carry out city business. A bunch of political idealogues, no matter where they are from, have no right to take over the meeting with political harangues regarding international relations. How hard is that central fact to focus upon when making rules regarding comments from the floor?.
"A bunch of political idealogues, no matter where they are from, have no right to take over the meeting with political harangues regarding international relations"
"Courtesy of the floor should be restricted to city business ONLY!"
********
I understand these points, but the Sunshine Act specifically gives residents or taxpayers (undefined) the right to speak on "matters of concern." It is not for you or me to decide what is or is not a matter of concern.
I have no problem with a rule that provides for public comment on nonagenda items at the end of a meeting so the council can conduct business but oppose any attempt to inhibit people from speaking at all on what they think matters.
I am completely unsympathetic to the ceasefire resolution for many reasons, but believe people should be heard, even if I dislike what they say. More importantly, the Sunshine Act gives them that right. But it is statutory, not constitutional.
Why do some council members write things down and shuffle papers while residents are speaking, all while holding their head down? And why does the mayor do this as well? I find it to be appalling and very disrespectful.
There was a local township council that wouldn't let a lawyer representing St. Luke's speak at several meetings because, despite owning property in the township, St. Luke's doesn't pay property taxes in the township. The claim by the dickhead council president and council's now-terminated solicitor was that St. Luke's is neither a taxpayer (since they pay no property taxes) nor a resident (a corporate or non-profit entity isn't a human who can be a resident and physically live in the township). I'm guessing St. Luke's lawyer wasn't a township resident, but if the sales tax discussion in earlier comments, if true, it would mean that St. Luke's attorney should have been allowed to speak if he brought a receipt from dinner he bought and paid sales tax on in Lower Saucon on the way to a meeting. That council president decided to use his own interpretation of the definition of "residents and taxpayers" to block someone from speaking whose position on the matter at hand was adverse to the council president's own position on it. If anything is against the Sunshine Act, I would think it would be preventing an owner of property in that municipality (or their attorney) to speak in a public meeting, whether they pay real estate tax on that property or not.
The Lower Saucon meeting times have not grown due to public comment. Lower Saucon extended meeting are the sole fault of two morons, Crotchy and Banannas.
Pave from the River to the Sea, so parking in Palestine can be free!
Open dissuasion and opinions are frowned on now adays. Both the MAGA's and the Dem left wing radicals are destroying their own in pursuit of party purity, No dissenting opinions allowed.
Check out the county dems site. Luke Verdes dared criticize Biden and the Democrat purists are roasting him alive. Independent and CRITICAL THINKERS ARE NOT ALLOPWED. follow THE LEADER.
They are as bad as the Trumpers.
I think this sales tax argument is bogus. Other than Philadelphia and made Allegany County, you don't pay sales tax by county or municipality - it all goes to the state.
A reasonable alternative is to say that any impacted person can comment at meetings on agenda items, regardless of where they live, but that only city residents or property-owners can be recognized to discuss items that are not on the agenda.
My understanding is that an impacted person living in an adjacent municipality cannot be refused the ability to speak on a land development matter under State law. However, if they live 20 miles away and are only trying to stop a project because it would be a competitor to their business, then they do not have a right to speak.
Comments that do not relate to agenda items should definitely be held at the end of a municipal meeting. If 100 people want to talk for hours about something that has nothing to do with a local goverment, then tell them to turn out the lights when they are done.
Post a Comment