Muzzling public’s input delivers wrong message

AN UNFORTUNATE TREND is taking shape in Luzerne County, and it smacks in the face of the democratic process. As caretakers of an institution rooted in the First Amendment, it makes us want to scream.

First, Wilkes-Barre City Council was considering levying a fee for people staging public protests. Thankfully, that measure has been put on hold and the American Civil Liberties Union is weighing in.

Now to the south in Dorrance Township, the board of supervisors enacted a resolution that severely limits free speech at township meetings. Specifically, the regulation called “Resolution No. 1 of 2008” restricts public participation to township citizens and puts a 10-minute cap on township residents’ right to speak out.

Most disturbing is that the resolution specifically states: “There will not be question-and-answer sessions.” That means if a citizen attending the meeting sees a questionable ordinance or policy passed, he or she has no right to question supervisors as to why it was done or press for more details.

Pardon us, but did Luzerne County, Pa., suddenly become a Third World country that outlaws dissent? Do the Dorrance supervisors have some odd affection for the Kremlin? Did they forget that disagreement is bound to be a byproduct of public policy at any level of government?

We understand the rationale for the resolution’s passage; in fact the resolution itself spells that out. It says, “to accommodate all persons who desire to speak on matters of legitimate concern to the Township and to limit abuse of public and non-public officials and employees, the reasonable rules are necessary regarding public participation.”

There’s no question that with two unprecedented issues before it – the possible expansion of the Small Mountain Quarry and a major subdivision proposal – the supervisors’ board has heard more public discourse than it dreamed possible. Its members have been confronted, confounded, consumed, conflicted, congratulated and condemned.

Those of us who work behind office desks in secured buildings can’t begin to imagine the emotional stress that small-town officials caught in the windstorm of controversy sometimes endure. They can be surrounded by citizens on one side who opposed a project and wealthy special interests on the other promoting plans that many residents would view as progressive. Jobs, the landscape and infrastructure costs often fall into the mix.

There’s also the occasional citizen who has an ax to grind, and finds the town meetings the place to do his or her swinging, regardless of the public relevancy.

But these forces must be controlled. Robert’s Rules of Order enforced by a strong chairperson who exercises reasonable judgment often suffices. If that doesn’t work, some towns have been known to have a police officer or constable on standby.

But an anti-democratic regulation – though passed with the best intentions – certainly is not the right path for the future. Though it’s probably legal, it’s bad law, it sets a bad precedent and it’s ripe for abuse.

In fact, it’s enough to make one scream for the Constitution, a better Sunshine Law and even a First Amendment lawyer.

Resolution No. 1

• Only Dorrance citizens/taxpayers or their legal representatives can speak at meetings.

• It allows two comment sessions. Citizens can comment on agenda items when the meeting begins. An open public comment period will be held at the end of the meeting.

Clear 30°

Opinion

Resolution No. 1

Place Quick Ads