Singling out speakers treads on shaky ground

We’ve all known people who just talk too much. They go on and on

about nearly nothing, a habit that -- after minutes, hours, days and

years -- can become extremely aggravating. Luckily enough, we always

can walk away from, hang up the phone on or just start avoiding these

annoying personalities.

Members of the Newport Beach City Council aren’t that fortunate,

however. Essentially paid volunteers, by running for office, they

have chosen to listen to residents, developers, gadflies and assorted

cranks talk about whatever they see fit during the public speaker

portions of council meetings. And so they were right on Tuesday when

they decided against restricting speakers’ time on certain agenda

items to three minutes from five. Doing otherwise would have been a

regulatory version of cutting off speakers who drone on and on every

meeting.

Instead, the council altered its procedures so that anyone wishing

to talk about items on the “consent calendar” will have to wait until

the end of the meeting. It is a fair compromise, one affecting items

considered routine by city staff that often include second readings

of ordinances, approval of minutes and other minor acts of governing.

But it still is one with a few potential problems.

The most serious concern we have is that change was made with a

few notable “offenders” in mind. The rationale for the change is

understandable, however. Too often, it is all too clear that people

standing before the City Council are talking about issues that are

not important to them. Why they are up there varies. Perhaps they

like to hear themselves talk. Maybe they are trying to get under the

collective skin of the City Council. And, yes, they often are the

same people who stood up at the last meeting, probably making the

exact same point and making the meeting last just a little longer

than needed.

But as understandable as the reason is, city leaders also should

realize that they appear to have made a change to city policy

directed at particular people who seem to abuse their right to speak.

And any government that makes specific rules to corral specific

people borders on abusive, if not totalitarian. That is a strong

word, and while we are not applying it to City Hall for this

decision, it is what lies at the end of the line of such thinking.

City leaders should recognize that and perhaps reconsider if they are

comfortable with the change.

Another concern lies in the very nature of the consent calendar as

routine. One person’s idea of unexceptional can be a life-or-death

matter for someone else. Forcing people who care deeply about an

issue to wait hours to have their say, goes against ideals of public

participation in government and takes power out of residents’ hands

and puts it too much into the hands of elected officials.

This issue is not the fault of officials in City Hall, however.

Anyone who has been to or watched a Newport Beach City Council

meeting (or, for the record, Costa Mesa City Council meeting) knows

there are a handful of people who abuse their right to speak. They

are the ones responsible for creating an environment in which city

leaders feel it necessary to put off public comment until the end of

the meeting. They are the ones who are to blame when a resident, who

comes to the council wishing to talk about an item on the consent

calendar, has to sit through an entire meeting to be heard.

They should be ashamed of themselves for so hijacking city

meetings that such a change has become necessary in the eyes of city

leaders.