|
Article Audio:
|
SARATOGA SPRINGS — A proposed ordinance regarding public comment during Saratoga Springs City Council meetings would require those seeking to speak provide proof that they either live, work or own property in the municipality.
The statute, proposed by Public Safety Commissioner James Montagnino, would also prioritize speakers in order by city residents, those who work in the city, those who own property in the city, and then everyone else — allowing speakers four minutes each in a 30-minute period.
Montagnino said people would provide items like a phone bill as proof of residency and that Skidmore College students would be considered residents.
Montagnino said he proposed the ordinance after he saw at least one city resident unable to speak at the Sept. 7 meeting.
“The City Council has assiduously attempted to adhere to the goal of full public participation in the workings of our local government,” the ordinance states. “Unfortunately, however, many times the citizens who live, work, vote and pay taxes in our City are unable to participate in the public comment period at City Council meetings because most or all of the time allotted to public comment is hijacked by individuals with a particular agenda who do not reside in Saratoga Springs, who do not work in Saratoga Springs and who cannot legally vote in Saratoga Springs.”
The proposal also comes after Montagnino filed a disorderly conduct complaint against Saratoga Black Lives Matter co-founder Chandler Hickenbottom in February for not ceding the microphone at a council meeting. Organization co-founder Lexis Figuereo also received an obstructing governmental administration charge. The complaint against Hickenbottom was dropped but the complaint and charge against Figuereo are still in court.
Figuereo said the ordinance is an infringement upon people’s First Amendment right.
“I never heard of this being done in any other city meetings in Schenectady, Troy or Albany or any surrounding areas,” he said.
He also said he and many other BLM members are residents of Saratoga Springs.
Figuereo said he sees no benefit in this ordinance. He also said there are plenty of people who spend money in Saratoga Springs and should be able to speak.
“You don’t have to live in Saratoga Springs to have an opinion about Saratoga Springs,” he said. “If you have family in Saratoga Springs and you don’t live in Saratoga Springs, you can still have an opinion about it. If you have family that goes to schools in Saratoga Springs schools, you can still go to school board meetings and speak out whether you live in Saratoga or not because it still affects you.”
Mayor Ron Kim criticized the ordinance, as did Paul Wolf, president of the New York Coalitions for Open Government.
“Prioritizing public comment in the way that has been proposed is a bad idea and would most likely not survive a legal challenge,” Wolf said. “I have never heard of a public body requiring people to provide written proof of residency, employment or ownership of real property in order to speak at a public meeting. In a public meeting where the public is allowed to comment, everyone should be treated the same way. Having a tiered caste system where certain classes of people are given priority to speak is a terrible way to run a Saratoga Springs City Council meeting.”
Wolf said the City Council should look at expanding its public comment period past 30 minutes so that anyone, regardless of where they live, work or own property can speak.
Kim said he is pretty sure the ordinance won’t even make it to a vote.
“It’s what I would expect from Jim Montagnino, who now expects we’re going to go back to the futile ages and only allow people who are landed gentry to speak at city council meetings, because that’s essentially what he’s saying.
Kim said the measure pushes certain people to the back of the line.
“I think in the 1950s they told people to go to the back of the bus based on certain criteria,” he said.
Wolf also noted that the state’s Committee on Open Government has issued past advisory opinions related to public comment.
In 2019, the committee issued an opinion in which it noted that public bodies can request someone provide certain information like their name and address but the speaker is not required to provide it.
“Several reasons are offered for that advice,” the opinion states. “First, in general, significance of a comment or point of view involves its content, not the identity of the individual who may have spoken or written. Second, over the years, this office has been contacted by women who are victims of batterers. They have wanted to offer a point of view or information, but in order to avoid harm, there has been reluctance to disclose their names or addresses. In a different context, situations involving school board meetings have been described in which a parent offers a comment, and there is retribution directed later at his or her child.”
Montagnino said the City Council knows about the ordinance but he has not spoken to them about it. He also said he doesn’t believe there would be a legal basis to sue the city.
“What grounds would they have to sue the city?” he said. “It gives everybody an opportunity to be heard, it’s just prioritizing who gets heard first.”
Montagnino said the ordinance would also allow people to send in written comments that would be made part of the record if they weren’t able to speak.
SARATOGA SPRINGS — A proposed ordinance regarding public comment during Saratoga Springs City Council meetings would require those seeking to speak provide proof that they either live, work or own property in the municipality.
The statute, proposed by Public Safety Commissioner James Montagnino, would also prioritize speakers in order by city residents, those who work in the city, those who own property in the city, and then everyone else — allowing speakers four minutes each in a 30-minute period.
Montagnino said people would provide items like a phone bill as proof of residency and that Skidmore College students would be considered residents.
Montagnino said he proposed the ordinance after he saw at least one city resident unable to speak at the Sept. 7 meeting.
The proposal also comes after Montagnino filed a disorderly conduct complaint against Saratoga Black Lives Matter co-founder Chandler Hickenbottom in February for not ceding the microphone at a council meeting. Organization co-founder Lexis Figuereo also received an obstructing governmental administration charge. The complaint against Hickenbottom was dropped but the complaint and charge against Figuereo are still in court.
Figuereo said the ordinance is an infringement upon people’s First Amendment right.
“I never heard of this being done in any other city meetings in Schenectady, Troy or Albany or any surrounding areas,” he said.
He said he and many other BLM members are residents of Saratoga Springs.
Figuereo said he sees no benefit in this ordinance. He also said there are plenty of people who spend money in Saratoga Springs and should be able to speak.
“You don’t have to live in Saratoga Springs to have an opinion about Saratoga Springs,” he said. “If you have family in Saratoga Springs and you don’t live in Saratoga Springs, you can still have an opinion about it. If you have family that goes to schools in Saratoga Springs schools, you can still go to school board meetings and speak out whether you live in Saratoga or not because it still affects you.”
Mayor Ron Kim criticized the ordinance, as did Paul Wolf, president of the New York Coalitions for Open Government.
“Prioritizing public comment in the way that has been proposed is a bad idea and would most likely not survive a legal challenge,” Wolf said. “I have never heard of a public body requiring people to provide written proof of residency, employment or ownership of real property in order to speak at a public meeting. In a public meeting where the public is allowed to comment, everyone should be treated the same way. Having a tiered caste system where certain classes of people are given priority to speak is a terrible way to run a Saratoga Springs City Council meeting.”
Wolf said the City Council should look at expanding its public comment period past 30 minutes so that anyone, regardless of where they live, work or own property can speak.
Kim said he is pretty sure the ordinance won’t even make it to a vote.
“It’s what I would expect from Jim Montagnino, who now expects we’re going to go back to the futile ages and only allow people who are landed gentry to speak at city council meetings, because that’s essentially what he’s saying.
Kim said the measure pushes certain people to the back of the line.
“I think in the 1950s they told people to go to the back of the bus based on certain criteria,” he said.
Wolf also noted that the state’s Committee on Open Government has issued past advisory opinions related to public comment.
In 2019, the committee issued an opinion in which it noted that public bodies can request someone provide certain information like their name and address but the speaker is not required to provide it.
“Several reasons are offered for that advice,” the opinion states. “First, in general, significance of a comment or point of view involves its content, not the identity of the individual who may have spoken or written. Second, over the years, this office has been contacted by women who are victims of batterers. They have wanted to offer a point of view or information, but in order to avoid harm, there has been reluctance to disclose their names or addresses. In a different context, situations involving school board meetings have been described in which a parent offers a comment, and there is retribution directed later at his or her child.”
Montagnino said the City Council knows about the ordinance but he has not spoken to them about it. He also said he doesn’t believe there would be a legal basis to sue the city.
“What grounds would they have to sue the city?” he said. “It gives everybody an opportunity to be heard, it’s just prioritizing who gets heard first.”
Montagnino said the ordinance would also allow people to send in written comments that would be made part of the record if they weren’t able to speak.
Categories: -News-, Email Newsletter, Govt./Politics, News, Saratoga County
