At an April 2 meeting of the Westbrook City Council, James Tranchemontagne, a resident and local business owner, rose to speak during the public comment period. Reading from prepared remarks, Tranchemontagne, a member of a group known as Westbrook Taxpayers United, said irresponsible spending and a misguided attitude toward economic development are hurting the city, and offered remedies he felt would help attract new businesses.

Well, he said most of that. Some of it was read by another audience member, who went to the podium to finish the speech after Tranchemontagne exceeded his allotted three minutes and was cut off by the council president, Brendan Rielly. Rielly had allowed an extra minute or so to Tranchemontagne, who argued for more time before leaving the podium after about six minutes, some of which was taken up by a terse back-and-forth between the business owner and the councilor. Rielly later called the exchange the “single most disrespectful event” in his 11 years on the council, for which he rightfully said he was “blessed,” given that the argument would barely raise an eyebrow in most council chambers.

The issue is not one of personality conflict, but of public access.

A long-serving and well-respected member of the council, Rielly was simply enforcing the rules, which give residents three minutes to speak on any topic and were laid out at the beginning of the meeting, just as they are at every meeting. From a practical point of view, meetings are held so that the council can complete its business. Residents are allowed to speak as a privilege, but their time must be limited so that councilors can move on to the orders of the day.

But Tranchemontagne cannot be faulted for questioning why, on a relatively slow meeting night, he could not be given a few extra moments to address his city’s governing body. As Tranchemontagne said near the end of his remarks, if he had not been interrupted, the whole thing would have been finished in a matter of a few minutes, and the council could have gone about its business, having satisfied a resident who only wanted to be heard.

The policies of local governing boards vary with respect to public comment. In Scarborough, for instance, residents addressing the council on a particular agenda item are limited to three minutes, while those speaking in the public comment period are given five minutes. At Windham Town Council meetings, residents are given three minutes each in the public comment period, though the chairman can grant an additional three minutes. Gorham Town Council allows public comment of “a reasonable time” for both non-agenda items at the beginning of the meeting and during the meeting on items being discussed.

Sometimes, school boards handle public comment differently. In Westbrook, comment is allowed only on agenda items. The same holds true in Scarborough, where officials use separate public input sessions to hear from residents. In South Portland, residents are allowed time both to comment on agenda items and have an open discussion.

As the recent meeting in Westbrook shows, however, it is the application of these rules that matters. To be sure, meetings cannot be free-for-alls where residents are allowed to speak without restrictions. But elected officials must be flexible and accommodating when opening the floor to residents. Emails, letters and phone calls can be entered into the record, but they simply do not have the power of public statement, no matter how empty the meeting hall.

Public comment can be messy. It can be upsetting to image-conscious officials. It can be crude and digressive. But it must be heard. More than passing ordinances or reviewing budgets, that is the burden of elected office.

Ben Bragdon is the managing editor of Current Publishing. He can be reached at bbragdon@keepmecurrent.com or followed on Twitter.

Copy the Story Link