Newton City Council debate changes regarding citizen participation

Mar. 11—Editor's note: The following is the second part in a two-part article covering the prolonged city council discussion about updated rules and procedures at council meetings.

COUNCIL MEMBERS NEED SUPPORT TO WITHDRAW AGENDA ITEMS

An amendment that did not pass was regarding "Rule 22: Withdrawal of Items." The updated rules states if the mayor believes an agenda item is unreasonable or detrimental, the mayor will inform the requesting council member that the support of two additional council members is required.

The request for the additional council support must be communicated no later than noon Wednesday before the scheduled meeting. Otherwise, the item will not be added to the agenda. Once a requested item is added to the agenda, only the requesting council members or a majority of council may remove it.

In the past, only the mayor may withdraw an item prior to the council meeting.

Council member Randy Ervin requested the new language be removed, saying the mayor should have overall the vision of the city. He also asked why this rule needed to be changed. Newton Mayor Mike Hansen asked council members if he ever refused an item they requested be put on agenda, and if he did if he never gave them an explanation.

"In all fairness, I have kept items off the agenda because I didn't believe that there were enough votes at that particular time," Hansen said.

The amendment to remove the updated language and give the power back to the mayor failed in a 3-3 vote. Council members Melissa Dalton, Evelyn George and Vicki Wade voted against the amendment.

COUNCIL ARGUES OVER LIMITING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

When council members were making their own amendments to the policy, it was "Rule 33: Citizen's Right to Address Council" that generated the most discussion. The update rule stated that public comments were not allowed at any other portion of the council meeting besides citizen participation and public hearings.

Which means if a citizen had a comment to make about a specific agenda item identified as an ordinance, resolution or motion, they could not speak when council members consider the item for approval or adoption. They would have to share their comments about the item during citizen participation instead.

However, several council members, and even the mayor, criticized this change.

"(Rule) 33 says somebody can talk during the open period at the first point for three minutes then they're done for the night?" Ervin asked.

"Unless it's a public hearing," council member Mark Hallam said.

Ervin questioned why council would limit citizen participation, recalling the time when he — as a citizen — convinced council members to change their vote regarding the fireworks ordinance. At the time, council was nearly set on banning fireworks. Ervin's testimonials helped flip council votes, stopping the ban.

"We've all been there where we've sat here and we've heard somebody speak on a specific proposal or motion, and then change their minds," Ervin said. "I think it's important we continue to have citizen participation."

Council member Craig Trotter pointed out that Hansen has typically let citizens speak during resolutions, ordinances and motions. Hansen said this practice was never followed in the past, but he felt it was good to seek input from citizens.

"I opened that up, and, frankly, it's been very, very successful, in my opinion, until recent events," Hansen said. "You can make your conclusions, assumptions if you will, about the issues of hand as far as what has happened in recent months. Frankly, I'm torn on this issue. Because it's worked quite well."

MAYOR WORRIES OF REACTIONARY MEASURES

Hansen told Newton News in an interview in February that the proposed changes to the council meeting rules of procedures were not a knee-jerk reaction to the court ruling regrading Petersen. Hansen said he is "disturbed" regarding the advice he has been given by council.

"I'm sure it's sound advice, but it bothers me," he said. "It bothers me to the extent that because of one situation that has occurred, we're going to shut down our entire public and not have the opportunity for them to participate. Maybe they don't think about something they want to talk about or come in late."

The mayor shared a similar stance to Ervin, reasoning that allowing citizens to speak during resolutions, ordinances and motions is valuable to the council.

Hansen said city council meetings are public meetings but are not the public's meetings to do with as they please and "tell us and say anything in the world they want to say on their mind."

While he is a supporter of the First Amendment and would fight for that right, Hansen disagrees with citizens being allowed to use council meetings to say things "that are inappropriate." Hansen said comments like that disrupt a public meeting and are not participating in city business.

"I don't know if it's worth seeking an attorney general's opinion," Hansen said. "No disrespect to our council, but I have a problem with that. You mean to tell me that anybody can get up there and say anything on their mind? ... And disrupt a public meeting for taking care of the business of the city? That's wrong."

Dalton pointed out that allowing a citizen to speak for three minutes for every item could result in disrupted time. It is vital to continue the tradition of allowing citizen participation on each and every agenda item, Hallam said. Ervin agreed.

AMENDMENT ALLOWS MORE FREEDOM FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

Newton City Administrator Matt Muckler said the updated rule would not limit citizen participation, saying that those who would want to speak on an ordinance or resolution would be able to speak on those often later agenda items near the start of the meeting. Otherwise citizens would have to wait to speak.

Depending on the agenda and the time citizens have to spend at a council meeting, they may not get a chance to offer their input.

"One way to look at this is it actually enhances citizen participation by allowing them to come in and they don't have to give up an entire meeting, they can give up five or 10 minutes," Muckler said, before Hallam offered that the city council could allow both options.

For as long as Muckler has lived in Iowa, he has worked for four mayors. Muckler said Hansen knows how to run a meeting. Sometimes when council is making rules they are making rules for future officials or mayors, Muckler said; the city has been complimented for running good, professional meetings.

"My fear is that we have a lot of back and forth from the gallery," he said. "There's a time and place to have citizen input. If they have an hour worth of input, that needs to come to you guys ahead of the meeting. And it's much more effective when a citizen reaches out to you not two minutes before making a decision."

Eventually, the city council voted to amend Rule 33. Muckler re-wrote the affected language as:

"Citizen comments will be allowed during the Citizen Participation portion of the meeting and during public hearings, ordinances, resolutions and motions. Citizen comments would not be allowed during any other portion of the City Council meeting."

City council members voted 6-0 to approve the amendment to Rule 33.