From the BCCT.
Any lawyers out there want to test the Morrisville school district's legal budget?
Democratic supervisors back lawsuit on time limits for comment
DANNY ADLER
The Democratic supervisors in Northampton said they will support an attorney suing the township and the board of supervisors for imposing time limits on public comment at the board's meetings.
A lawsuit filed by township resident and attorney Marvin Gold will go before Bucks County Judge John J. Rufe in Doylestown at 9:30 a.m. today. Gold wants an injunction to stop the supervisors from imposing time limits on public comment at their meetings.
Supervisor Jim Cunningham said in a statement via e-mail Wednesday that he opposes the former chairman's "unilaterally imposed 3-minute rule limiting public comment at the meetings. I will lend my support to Mr. Gold in securing relief from this limit on free speech for our citizens."
When the rule was imposed in September, Cunningham told the newspaper that the time limit "in and of itself is not an unreasonable thing," but criticized the board for changing rules in mid-stream.
Republican Supervisor George Komelasky, who was chairman of the board when the time limit was first imposed, said the limit was a way to stop meetings from going into the wee hours of the morning and to ensure the township conducted all its business.
Frank Rothermel, the other Democrat, claimed the limit was used to "squelch valid public concerns."
In the complaint filed in November, Gold claimed a three-minute time limit violates the state's Sunshine Act by not allowing a reasonable amount of time to speak at public meetings. He called it a "gag order on residents + with competing opinions."
When appointed supervisors' chairman Monday night, Vincent J. Deon said he would impose a time limit "only under extreme circumstances, such as those when an overabundance of citizens" want to talk during a single meeting.
No time limit was issued during Monday's three-hour meeting, the first of 2009.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The 3-minute time limit is legal when the person speaking opposes the majority of the members of the body before which they are speaking. In fact, it is legal and proper for the body majority to repeatedly interrupt and cajole the speaker during the 3-minute period, and count the wasted time as part of the 3-minutes.
The 3-minute time limit is illegal when the person speaking is a friend or ally of the body majority. They should be given unlimited time to speak in praise of the body majority, or rip new ones for minority members, audience members, or anyone else who sees things differently from them.
These are immutable scientific facts. NOT.
A time limit is reasonable to prevent filibustering and off-topic-tangent-offenders. However, this must be balanced with "reasonable" leeway. Like all laws, though, it is how you define reasonable that matters.
Post a Comment