CH City Council opts to muzzle themselves

No doubt it must be a tough life being a member of the Colonial Heights City Council. Not only are these fine representatives left to guide the city through a myriad of city business issues, they also have to develop policies to guide themselves through meetings so as not to get off track when addressing citizens who appear before the board for non-agenda items. It seems there have been enough of these incidents in which a council member and a citizen discuss issues and waste city business time that council wants to change the rules to hinder such discussions.

Citing that they do not want to put out wrong or misleading information, Council’s new rule would keep its members from engaging in an open discussion about an issue that has not been raised as an agenda item. Citizens are more than welcome to request to be added to the agenda, and have to follow a small procedure to request being added to the agenda. Council says that doing so allows the city to be prepared for the subject, and lets the staff have time to research the issue so that they can respond in a helpful manner and not put anyone on the spot.

Several members of council stated that they have been put on the spot because of incomplete or erroneous information that was provided “off the cuff” and put them in an awkward position. All of this is understandable. Certainly, it’s important that the information that council puts out is accurate and as correct as possible, it deals with integrity.

The main problem with the new rule is more a matter of perception than it is anything else. From a citizen’s perspective, it comes across as another way to stifle the citizenry. Still, as Mayor Scott Davis said, people will still be able to approach council. I am reasonably sure that council is interested in hearing citizens out. They asked to change the language of the change to allow them to ask questions, ostensibly for clarification of an issue.

They cited an incident that led to a 45-minute discussion in which the same comments were dredged over and over. Still, council has the authority to nip such conversations in the bud. The onus falls on City Council to police itself on these matters.

My question is does it really require a rule change to control situations that they have the ability to control themselves? Mayor Davis said that he could halt the discussions, but he wouldn’t want to stop another council member from talking to a citizen. Yet if all of council agreed that such situations arise and that they are best not addressed in a public forum, what would be the problem with cutting them short?

John Wood opened the discussion stating that the change creates a bad perception of council. When a citizen comes before the board, they will now just have to listen, stay mute, and sit like a sphinx. Milton Freeland was told that there is no fine if a council member opted to disregard the rule and engage the citizen in open discussion. So, in reality, the change isn’t really that big of a deal. It merely sets a boundary.

But wouldn’t it be just as simple for council to cut the discussion short instead of relying on some rule as a reminder? Joe Green stated that he was probably as guilty as anyone for interacting with citizens and the change may serve to help reel him in in those circumstances.

Mayor Davis said that most citizens are unaware of the rules relating to speaking at a city council meeting. He is right. Experience is what teaches citizens that there are rules. Council is right in not wanting to put out information that may not be accurate, but isn’t this something that they can handle by policing themselves without having to create an additional rule?