— Residents weighed in Monday with ideas about how rules governing public participation during city meetings might be improved.

Comments ranged from when citizens should be allowed an opportunity to address various issues to how much time should be granted individual speakers or groups. Discussions also included ideas about how city officials might be able to respond to comments about non-agenda items without violating open meeting laws.

For the most part, public comments mirrored concerns expressed by members of the committee appointed to review the city’s rules of decorum and public participation. The committee was formed at the request of Ward IV Councilor Wayne Johnson after he noticed inconsistencies in the rules and the way they were being applied.

“Our goal is to have a process where everybody has an equal opportunity to be heard,” Johnson said about the review and recommendation process. “The whole goal tonight was to hear from the community” about how that can be achieved.

Cedric Johnson, a retired educator and community leader, and others suggested allowing groups supporting or opposing a hot-button issue to yield remaining time to others. Johnson said when a controversial topic arises, elected officials should have the option to grant an extended block of time to opposing groups rather than limit each individual to three to five minutes.

“In order to have an open government, people must be given time to speak,” he said. “But you can’t take up all the City Council’s time listening to complaints.”

Ivory Vann suggested giving additional time to residents who plan to use props or make special presentations. Although that may be done under the present rules, Vann said requests he has made for extra time in the past have been denied.

“The citizens put you here in these positions,” Vann said while making his point about having a full and fair opportunity to be heard. “You need to listen to them.”

Although present rules provide some discretion for extending a speaker’s time, the power rests with the person presiding over the meeting. Some committee members thought that power should be shared equally among city councilors.

James Winner expressed a desire for more feedback from city councilors when a resident comes forward with a concern, a position shared by several committee members.

“I would like there to be some discussion, where we are actually sharing information,” Winner said. “I need a little more information coming back at me.”

The reason that usually doesn’t happen now is because of concerns about maintaining compliance with open meeting laws. Assistant City Attorney Matthew Beese said when a non-agenda issue is raised during the public comment period, city councilors cannot engage in discussions about the topic without violating those laws.

Both Ward IV Councilor Kenny Payne and Johnson shared Winner’s concerns along with City Clerk Pam Bates, who also sits on the committee. Bates said the silence that typically follows a resident’s heartfelt comments can be almost as frustrating as the original concern or complaint. Beese offered ideas how that might occur, but nothing was nailed down.

At the conclusion of the public hearing Monday, committee members decided to bring forward recommendations that can be used as guidance for drafting a new policy when they meet again in two weeks.

Reach D.E. Smoot at (918) 684-2901 or dsmoot@muskogeephoenix.com.