By Jim Bloch
You may still have your voice heard at the Port Huron City Council meetings without filling out a signup sheet. Even if you do not live in the city or own a business in the city, you may still have your voice heard at the meetings during the same comment period as residents.
The city council defeated a new set of guidelines for public comment in a 3-3 vote at its regular meeting Nov.10. Mayor Anita Ashford and council members Barb Payton and Conrad Haremza voted against the measure. Mayor Pro Tem Sherry Archibald and council members Bob Mosurak and Teri Lamb voted for it.
Under the proposed resolution, the first public comment period would be reserved for “city residents and business owners only” who had signed the signup sheet.
Toward the end of the meeting — after the city manager’s report, consent agenda, unfinished business, communications and petitions, resolutions and ordinances — non-residents who signed the signup sheet could address the council on matters under the city’s jurisdiction.
“Don’t let anybody fool you,” said resident Ken Harris, as heard on the recording of the meeting posted on YouTube. “We’re talking about freedom of speech tonight.”
Harris said the Michigan Attorney General has ruled that the “public” means residents and nonresidents – cities cannot segregate nonresidents to separate times for public comment.
To some, making business ownership a requirement of speech appeared to have echoes of property-based voting requirements in the U.S. 200 years ago.
“I feel like my voice is not wanted to be heard here,” said Curtis Karl, a resident of Port Huron Township, who works in the city and pays the city tax of half a percent. “If you’re going to take taxes out of my paycheck, I want my voice to be heard.”
“It’s sad we’re talking about this,” said Trash the Clown. “I mean, going after free speech? It doesn’t make us look weak. It makes you look weak. You should be embarrassed even talking about it… Trying to tell us who can talk based upon where they live.”
One resident asked what would happen if he wanted to speak to an issue that came up during public comment, but he hadn’t signed the signup sheet.
At least 10 people from the public spoke against the resolution. Nobody supported it.
“None of us want to discriminate based on content or the way someone is dressed or the visuals if they want to show something to council,” said City Manager James Freed, defending the resolution, which he initiated.
City Attorney Todd Shoudy called the resolution “viewpoint neutral.” He said it did not present first amendment issues because it allowed everyone to speak.
“I feel Mr. Freed has put this forth without considering the implications of this,” said council member Payton. “I do think you’re muzzling some of the residents.”
Payton said her votes have sometimes been influenced by comments from the public, including nonresidents. She said people called her all day opposing the measure.
Mayor Pro Tem Sherry Archibald said the residents who contacted her supported the changes.
Mayor Ashford characterized the resolution as dividing people as opposed to bringing them together.
The measure contained other conditions governing public comment, such as speakers being forbidden to yield their time to other speakers. Persons addressing the city council would have had to “speak from the podium, respect the decorum of a business meeting, direct their comments to the mayor and city council, and follow the rulings of the chair.” Speakers would have been forbidden to make “ad hominem attacks unrelated to matters of public concern.” To preserve the order and decorum, the audience would have to refrain from “excessive” cheering and applauding during meetings.
The audience cheered and applauded when the resolution failed.
Jim Bloch is a freelance writer based in St. Clair, Michigan. Contact him at bloch.jim@gmail.com.
