8/07/2007

5 Minutes

The City passed a Resolution allowing 5 minutes for public comment.

I think that was a good move. While I still think the time limit is unnecessary, this demonstrates responsiveness to public concerns.

Unfortunately, I think the Resolution is probably illegal.

Anyone? Anyone?

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

What are the teeth? I read the proposed resolution and I saw nothing about a penalty for running over your 5 minutes.

Will they Susan "O" all offenders, or just the ones asking the real tough questions?

Are they going to buy a big countdown timer? How about an official professional timekeeper? Hire more enforcers ready to pounce and drag?

Anonymous said...

With it's restrictions, it appears to violate the First Amendment to the Constitution. I'm no lawyer, but how in the hell can someone on the city council ban "impertinent speech"? Or any of the OTHERS for that matter. "vulgar"? "racist"? "inciting violence"? Come ON! To me, it simply shows how stupid the council is. They're goin' where no city council has gone before! I mean, WHY would they add these restrictions? And will they have Corky ready to pounce and arrest anyone for being "impertinent"??? If I was the city attorney, I'd take the mayor aside and advise her to NO WAY IN HELL have someone arrested for being "impertinent"! Too little, too late, too stupid, too unconstitutional! Pretty much says it all.


LK

Hawkeye said...

For those of you keeping track at home that means: no vulgar, profane or impertinent speech AND no racist, discriminatory and incitingly violent speech AND under no circumstances may you refer to the Mayor as a "big girl".

Anonymous said...

Hawkeye, I like your style, you IMPERTINENT BASTARD! (if I knew your race, I'd insult you there too!)


LK

Anonymous said...

It's a credit to the Cascade County commissioners that they have not engaged in this feckless assault on the First Amendment, and I do DOUBT the legal process of this 'resolution' as opposed to an ordinance, which demands a public hearing, two-three readings and a final vote.

Anonymous said...

The mayor and her cohorts are NOT listening to the public.

They are scared to death of the reaction they received when their cop assaulted Susan Overfield. (And yes, it WAS assault on her. He didn't identify himself in any way. Also, they DIDN'T arrest her, no reading of rights, no booking, just two misdemeanor tickets.)

This is a scared group trying to look tough and trying to put fear into anyone who might consider speaking on subjects the mayor and her group don't want discussed.

Legal? I don't believe it. This is content restriction.

5 minutes? C'mon. We don't have so many people showing up to meetings as to warrant a time restriction.

Use your 5 minutes wisely - that's all the time it will take to vote them out.

CH

Anonymous said...

Hawkeye -

Do you think we could call her "THAT WOMAN"????

Anonymous said...

I agree with the right to free speech take on this attempt to stiffle comments. Especially since the commission appears to make decisions in pre-public discussions without public input.

This is disturbingly reminiscent of communism.

GeeGuy said...

I think LK is closest. I do not think a City Commission has the legal right to limit "speech" based on racial content.

Did anyone hear what John Angry (formerly known as "Shut up and get out") supposedly said to trigger this?

Hawkeye said...

"Do you think we could call her "THAT WOMAN"???? "


No shouting will be allowed.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, let me start over....

do you think we could call her "that woman."?

Anonymous said...

Let's be nice and civil and use the proper PC. Have you not been re-educated to understand the diversity of others?

....its "that womyn"

Anonymous said...

Ya know, I've been thinkin'. Since they want to run it like a kindergarten, why don't they just give DETENTION to evil doers?! Look, politics ain't beanbag. They need to get real. I'm not saying that you draw the line at fisticuffs, but for God's sake allow some debate!

LK

Anonymous said...

"That woman" (sexist, but that's allowed) who heads an all white (oops! racist) City Commission has the gall (impertinence) to expect us, the taxpayers (how vulgar of me mention us) to pay for the things she wants to do in this city, but to shut the h**l up (sorry, profane) when it comes to having an opinion (insolent attitude)

But, hey, it was under 5 minutes - do you think I could get it read before they drag me away?

MM

Anonymous said...

Too funny! Luv it.

LK

Anonymous said...

"read before they drag me "

...only if you aren't smiling, sneering or snickering as you read it.

PL - lol

Anonymous said...

What didn't they just specify:

1)all speech must be monotone
2)stare at the ground
3)under no circumstances are you to look the mayor in the eyes

Anonymous said...

Now that's funny:

under no circumstances are you to look the mayor in the eyes

Anonymous said...

Maybe we should ask our venerable governing body why an alleged religious group is allowed be so disrespectful as to protest all day at the funeral of some young soldier who was unnecessarily killed in Iraq, and a citizen with a written outlined agenda cannot speak at a public meeting without being physically "escorted" out if she talks more than three minutes. Now to be five minutes.

B.R.

Anonymous said...

The problem is this city commission will not hear or allow any facts presented by the citizens to change their minds.

It does not matter if 3 minutes or 60 minutes. The rubber stamp will fall and the predetermined motions will pass.

They limit time because this petty niggling by the citizens is white noise to them.

Dona Stebbins and the speech police monitoring this blog, just so you know this is not racist or vulgar speech. "Niggle;" To be preoccupied with trifles or petty details. "White noise;" a noise produced by a stimulus containing all of the audible frequencies of vibration; "white noise is a good masking agent"

LT