05/14/2020
Tuesday, May 12th’s Roanoke Times article describing the action City Council took amending City Code to provide a public comment period during our Council meetings lacked adequate detail causing concern for many.
To be sure, City Council approved the First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 2, Article2, Sec 2-56 pertaining to the order of proceedings at Regular Council Meetings to include a Public Comment provision.
The process, structure and guidelines for the public comment process have not been fully discussed, vetted, decided nor approved by Council - which is required. The City Manager and staff can make recommendations but Council will ultimately approve how the Public Comment provision will work.
My view is citizens should be able to speak and ask questions in a structured way at Council meetings. This can be as part of normal, existing Public Hearing agenda item and/or now with the Public Comment section added to the regular meeting agenda. Speaking topics and time limits seem to be prudent guidelines to put in place to help track discussion content and progression to conclusion. City Council is working through a process to define these parameters but it is yet unfinished.
Anyone suggesting we on City Council are deliberately trying to prevent transparency, public comment or withhold information is pushing a false narrative and providing a disservice to those who allow and accept the premise.
Moreover, and specific to the RT article, any General Assembly activity related to the topic of amending Salem City Code providing a Public Comment period during our City Council meetings, was well after this was being discussed, determined and outlined by our staff and Council in relation to requests for public comment by our citizens late last year. Our action in Salem wasn’t “prompted” by anyone outside Salem nor driven by a new state law from Richmond. The Citizens of Salem demanded a Public Comment provision and the City responded.