Please remember to call, write and/or attend Council’s Special Meeting on changes to public comment AND to the definition of a “meeting”.
Please remember to call, write and/or attend Council’s Special Meeting on changes to public comment AND to the definition of a meeting, happening at 5 pm.
What seems to be falling under the radar is that the proposed Ordinance, in addition to restricting public comment, also includes changes to the definition of a meeting. Councilmembers really should respond to citizens' questions about why those changes to the definition of a meeting are being proposed, and what the impacts are, although let’s face it, they are likely to downplay the impacts.
On page 22 (see the gray numbered boxes in the lower right hand corner), you can see just a few of the changes that many citizens are concerned about. Essentially, Council wants to change the fundamental definition of a meeting to exclude electronic communications (such as private texting or email). This means that the changes would allow two or more members of council to communicate by email and text message without it being a “meeting”, a Draconian change to the open meetings law. As of now, THREE or more members cannot meet and discuss City business in private, even by electronic communication (texting, email, etc), because such Council business must be open to the public (not done in secret). Some Councilmembers claim that their proposed changes simply align with the new state law that applies to state legislators (not City Councils), HB24-157. But, that state law has also been heavily criticized by first amendment experts as anti-transparent and fostering secrecy. There is no reason for City Council to implement this change unless they are attempting to stifle transparency and public access to their electronic text messages and emails that include discussions of City business.
Furthermore:
1. As currently proposed, the ordinance absolutely allows a future council to limit public comment to agenda items only, and to one hour only, and to eliminate general public comment that usually occurs at the beginning of a meeting.
2. The ordinance also passes the buck to the state when it comes to electronic messages. Sadly, other cities may soon be lobbying the state to get the same exemption for the Sunshine Law that the state legislators just gave themselves.
3. Also, none of the changes around public comment will do anything about disruptive attendees, which this ordinance is ostensibly about. A disruptive attendee will disrupt anyway.
The proposed changes have all the appearance of Council using this contrived "crisis" to cut the public out rather than using their existing code and abilities to evict disruptive attendees.
It seems very unfair that the City drafts these changes in secret, then calls a SPECIAL meeting for an immediate vote on the changes they drafted, then subsequently tries to claim misinformation. Perhaps if they were less secretive to begin with, they would NOT be accused of being secretive by multiple advocacy groups and concerned citizens in Fort Collins.
Thank you for all you do,
PFC Organizers
