School Board looks at limiting public comment

[Guest guest]

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

School Board looks at limiting public comment

Plan to restrict topics of discussion at meetings draws fire

By _JESSICA BLANCHARD_ (mailto:jessicablanchard@...)

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Public speakers at Seattle School Board meetings have exposed environmental

hazards in schools, pressed district officials to acknowledge

multimillion-dollar budget shortfalls and lobbied to scrap a controversial

school-closure

plan.

Those critical voices would be largely silenced under a policy the board will

consider Wednesday that drastically limits the comments people can make at

regular meetings.

Under the proposed policy, citizens would still be able to sign up for 20

three-minute speaker slots at the twice-monthly meetings, but they'd be barred

from talking about a topic unless the board was scheduled to vote on the issue

that evening.

Comments on other subjects would have to wait until a monthly " community

conversations " meeting, when the board's executive committee would select about

five issues to discuss at a town hall meeting-style forum. If adopted, the

change would take effect Oct. 5.

Board members backing the move say it would lead to more meaningful

conversations with community members, but district critics and free-speech

advocates

fear a chilling effect.

" It's outrageous. ... It's right out of a Kafka novel, " said Mark , a

parent-activist whose impassioned speeches to the board about

lead-contaminated school drinking water trained the public spotlight on the

issue.

tried and failed numerous times to get district officials to pay

attention to the water issue, and finally opted to air his concerns during a

board public-comment session.

" A number of these School Board members won't talk to you outside of the

board meeting, so the public testimony is the only substantive way of voicing a

complaint about the district, " he said. " If you're not allowed to speak out --

and they're not taking care of problems in the first place -- nothing ever

gets accomplished. "

Board member Darlene Flynn, who proposed the policy change, said the existing

public comment format doesn't work.

Flynn said some people either don't understand how to get on the speaker's

list or are frustrated by the three-minute time limit. Those who do speak

out often complain that board members and Superintendent Raj Manhas don't

respond to their concerns.

At the " community conversations " meeting, board members could ask questions

of speakers, address their concerns and have district staff members on hand to

provide more information, Flynn said.

There's no intention of censoring who can speak or what topics can be

discussed, she said, adding that the monthly forums might actually allow the

board

to resolve some of the issues that bring back the same speakers to each

meeting.

" To me, it seems like we're adding something, not taking something away, " she

said. " People may find it's more satisfying or less satisfying -- we won't

know until we try it. "

The proposed change appears to be legal, but whether it's good policy is up

for debate, said Doug Honig, a spokesman for the ACLU of Washington.

A board official could easily quash the testimony of someone they don't want

to hear from, Honig said, and some topics can't wait to be addressed.

" If a sudden problem arises in the district, such as a discovery that there's

lead in the water, and citizens want to comment on that -- putting possible

comment off to later in the month can be problematic, " he said.

Other school districts, such as Bellevue, set aside time at the start of

board meetings for people to comment on topics that aren't on the agenda. Then

during the meeting, people can comment on individual action items as they come

up.

Seattle School Board President Brita -Wall said the sheer number of

people who want to speak makes it difficult to have that kind of format here.

Moving some of the public comments to a separate community forum would help the

board be more productive and responsive to community concerns, she said.

" If we have some sort of format that's more interactive, maybe we'll be able

to mutually educate each other, " she said. " Ideally ... people will be able

to talk with us, not at us. "

Opponents of the proposal, including board member Sally Soriano, hope to

persuade the board to hold off on changing the rules until they've determined

whether the forums are a more effective way of gathering public opinions.

" It's important for parents, if they have difficulties, to come down and air

them in front of the board, and for the press to hear that and for the public

to talk to each other, " Soriano said.The existing public-comment session is

a positive force as well, said parent-activist Westbrook. It helps

people connect with one another, share what's happening at other schools, put

problems in perspective and highlight successful programs, she said.

The proposed change, she said, feels uncomfortably close to censorship --

especially since board members -Wall, Irene and Jan Kumasaka would

be making decisions on what topics will be considered at the community

forums.

It's disappointing that some board members who ran for office on a platform

of openness are now trying to limit speech, Westbrook said, adding that the

rule change seems ill conceived. " I'd hope the uproar would be pretty loud, "

she said.

P-I reporter Blanchard can be reached at 206-448-8322 or

_jessicablanchard@..._ (mailto:jessicablanchard@...) .