BY MARK SARDELLA
WAKEFIELD – Placing limits on the public’s access to the levers of local government was a topic of debate at last week’s Town Council meeting, but the consensus of the board was to make no changes to current practices.
The discussion stemmed from two separate proposals floated by Councilor John Carney. One involved limiting public participation at Town Council meetings. Carney’s other suggestion was to make it more difficult for articles to be placed on the Town Meeting warrant via citizens’ petition.
Carney suggested that the Town Council should change its longstanding policy of allowing “public participation” at the start of every meeting. The Council’s written policy allows for 15 minutes of public participation at each meeting. The allotted time is to be divided by the number of people wishing to speak, but in no case may any individual speak for more than three minutes. There is typically no back-and-forth discussion between any speaker and the board during public participation.
Carney’s issue with public participation as it is currently practiced appeared to be with the system’s potential for abuse.
He opined that it was “crazy to allow people to come in and chastise us” on random issues rather than requiring citizens to get on the meeting agenda to discuss an issue of concern.
“Anyone should be able to write to the Town Council and it should be put on the agenda,” Carney said. “That’s how you allow the public to have their say.”
Councilor John Crisley disagreed, noting that he “got to know Wakefield better through public participation” at meetings. Before joining the board, Crisley took advantage of public participation on multiple occasions to speak in favor of bike lanes.
He called public participation “an important vehicle,” adding that he would not be in favor of decreasing the public’s opportunities to speak to the Town Council.
Councilor Jonathan Chines agreed, noting that the policy includes mechanisms to assure that there is the appropriate level of public participation.
“We struck the right balance,” he said.
Councilor Brian Fox observed that there were two items on last week’s meeting agenda aimed at “stifling peoples’ right to speak.”
“It’s been a workable policy,” he maintained, noting that so far this year, only 13 people have spoken during public participation.
“I don’t see what we’re trying to stop when it’s not happening,” Fox said.
Picking up on a point that Carney had made, Town Council chair Mehreen Butt suggested that emails from the public could be listed on the board’s meeting agendas “so people will know that we heard them.”
Councilor Doug Butler was receptive to Carney’s position.
“We have ample places to listen to townspeople,” he said. “The way we do it is not particularly effective. I don’t think John’s wrong.”
Councilor Stacey Constas insisted that everything that Carney was concerned about was addressed in the policy.
“It’s important that we solicit and receive people’s public participation,” she said.
The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law does not require municipal boards to allow public participation during meetings and Town Counsel Thomas Mullen has consistently advised boards against the practice.
Ultimately, Carney said that he had raised the issue for discussion and would be comfortable continuing with the current approach.
The other issue that Carney asked the board to address at last week’s meeting related to the way that citizens petitions come to appear on Town Meeting warrants.
He noted that over the last several years, articles have appeared on every Town Meeting warrant that many felt were inappropriate. Carney didn’t specify which articles, but he appeared to be referring to pro-Palestinian articles at successive Town Meetings asking the town to boycott and divest from doing any business with Israel.
At the Annual Town Meeting last spring, Carney moved for “indefinite postponement” as soon as such an article was announced by the Town Moderator. But Moderator William Carroll ruled Carney’s motion out of order.
At last week’s Town Council meeting, Carney wondered if the number of signatures required to place an article on the warrant should be increased from 10 to 200 to make it more difficult to place these types of articles on the warrant.
But Town Counsel Thomas Mullen said that state law holds that only 10 signatures are needed to place a citizens’ petition article on a Town Meeting warrant.
Carney then asked if a change could be made to make it easier for someone to “move the question” if an article was inappropriate for Town Meeting.
Mullen said that the Moderator could still rule such a motion out of order if it were made too early.
There was some confusion as to whether Carney’s suggestion would involve changing the Town Charter or the town bylaws.
Councilor Stacey Constas saw a potential for abuse in Carney’s suggestion, saying it would make it “very easy to shut down debate at Town Meeting.”
Councilor Butler agreed.
“Town Meeting is the place to have discussions, as ridiculous as some of the discussions are,” he said. “Let people have their say, even if they say things we don’t like.”
Carney acknowledged that his position was in the minority on the board.
“I just think it’s ridiculous to allow this to come up over and over,” he said.