In this Special Report, Eileen addresses City Manager James Freed’s motion to change the rules for Public Comments at the City Council meetings. Freed wants to segregate the residents and business owners from the non-residents: The former would be “allowed” to speak at the beginning of the meeting and the latter would have to wait until the end.
“King Freed” is also proposing that all persons wishing to speak be required to sign in thirty minutes before each meeting begins.Â
Mr. Freed,
I am writing to address a serious governance problem involving Port Huron’s public comment rule that separates speakers by residency. Specifically, your rules allow residents and business owners to speak before votes are taken, while non-residents, including people who work in the city every day, are pushed to the end of the meeting after decisions have already been made.
This creates two separate forums inside a single public meeting. One forum where input matters, and another where it does not. This is not a procedural issue. It is a denial of lawful public participation, and it conflicts directly with state law, the City Charter, and binding Supreme Court precedent.
Michigan’s Open Meetings Act requires that every person be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before a public body acts. There is no residency requirement in the statute. The relevant section is here:
https://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-15-263The City Charter has similar language. It requires that citizens must have a reasonable opportunity to be heard. It does not qualify this by ZIP code or property status. The 2024 amended Charter text is here:
https://cms9files.revize.com/porthuronminw/Documents/Government/City%20Council/City%20Charter/Charter_Amended%202024.pdfThe First Amendment does not permit this form of identity-based separation. Public comment periods are recognized as a limited public forum. That means rules must be reasonable, neutral, and cannot discriminate by identity. Residency is an identity. When a government body places one identity group in the meaningful comment period and shunts another identity group to the end, that is discrimination in a public forum.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that Americans have a right to petition their government without being forced to reveal who they are, where they live, or what category they fall under. These cases include McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, Talley v. California, and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Stratton. You cannot require identification in order to exercise First Amendment rights. If we cannot be required to identify ourselves at all, then using residency as a basis for separating speakers is unconstitutional on its face.
Your current rule also creates unequal forums. People who work in the city, who are affected by policing, development, taxation, transit, permitting, and city-wide policies, are denied meaningful participation. They are given time only after the decisions have already been made. That defeats the entire purpose of public comment.
I am asserting that this public comment rule be reviewed and corrected immediately so that every person is allowed to speak before action is taken, without identity requirements and without residency-based segregation. This is not about personal preference. It is about lawful governance under OMA, the Charter, and the Constitution.
Please confirm receipt of this email and provide a timeline for when this rule will be addressed.
I look forward to your clarification,
Craig R. Schlinkert
USN Ret.
🎬Enjoy ALL BWHL Shows 
Editors Note: This video is an editorial, the thoughts, opinions, beliefs, viewpoints, and accuracy expressed in this program are not necessarily those of GBS Media or Blue Water Healthy Living.
