3 Minute Rule

As long as I am in the mood to write half-assed mea culpas, this will be a good time to agonize a bit more over the 3 minute rule. As I have thought about it and thought about it over the last several days, I can certainly see arguments on both sides. Since there is really no correct answer, the existence of differing, valid points should surprise no one.

And, in the end, I guess I remain weakly opposed to the rule. The last grain of sand on the scale, so to speak, was seeing the rule in action. The vision of seeing a concerned citizen forcibly removed from a public meeting beckons one to thoughts of other systems of governance besides our open and participatory form.

Let me start, though, with the opposing premise. City Officials should not be required to listen to speeches ad nauseum, unrelated to the jurisdiction or interests of the City. (In fact, I complained about this in instances involving our former Mayor's willingness to allow the anti-gambling contingent to rail against gambling, something over which City Government has no power.) It seems to me, though, that the Commission has the power to limit irrelevant discourse with or without a time limit.

Wolfpack, then, raises an interesting point in this regard. Am I "suggesting that speaker’s time be limited based on content at the mayors discretion?" Yes. And no. I am suggesting that if a speaker is making a comment on a point relevant to some issue under the City's consideration, the speaker must be given some latitude beyond a time limit. If, on the other hand, a speaker's points are wholly unrelated to any topic over which the City has the power of governance, then I am not so sure the speaker has a right to address the City Commission at all.

I am very hesitant, too, to fall into Wolfpack's trap about the "quasi-mentally ill." Perhaps this is because I no doubt fall into the category of crackpot in the minds of many. I refuse to marginalize differing viewpoints as "crazy" or "mentally ill" no matter how off base I think they are. You see, whispering campaigns of marginalization are abhorrent, and merely represent a way to exclude opposing viewpoints from the discussion.

Let's consider a couple examples. First, there is Johnny Angry. I am sure he fits into the "you know who they are" category. Why is his right to participate any less than some other citizen? Is it because you disagree? Because he makes an effort to participate at every meeting? Because he is sort of funny? Because his themes remain the same?

How about another example, our sometimes frequent commenter, Larry Kralj. (No offense Larry) Larry often uses 'colorful' language, peppered with hyperbole, and makes up funny names for public figures. Does this impact his credibility with some readers? Absolutely. Should it impact his ability to make his statements? No, not as long as he veers free of libel.

There is also a risk of manipulation of public input. How? By placing a contentious matter on the "Consent Agenda," thereby removing the right to comment on it. If someone, like Susan Overfield, has strong feelings on an important issue, her ability to make her point has been arbitrarily limited by...whom? Who decided that the Animal Shelter issue should be on the consent agenda that week? Who decided, then, that she was to receive only 3 minutes?

Speaking of manipulation, remember that the City Government has no similar limitations. Officials can speak without limit on topics, they invite others in to speak without limitation, yet the public can be limited. A Commission meeting is a fairly controlled environment, and there is at least the perception that it can be manipulated by government to limit cogent input and reach a predetermined result.

This 3 minute rule is a tough question. There is no correct answer. I agree that every speaker should be able to make his or her point in 3 minutes or less. But for the reasons set forth above, I still think it is a bad idea.