Providing time for a public comment at a city council meeting or any public meeting seems like common sense, if not a necessity, given that the meeting is, by definition, public.
The Malden City Council has decided to comment extensively on the pros and cons of setting aside time for allowing public comment at its meetings and, to her credit, Councilor at Large Debbie DeMaria has spearheaded the debate. Her efforts have triggered plenty of comments on commenting from her colleagues.
An initial proposal setting a 15-speaker limit during public comment with a two-minute limit on each speaker prompted several councilors to insist they “wanted to hear from everyone.” That seemingly receptive attitude toward the public contrasts with the fact that the council is coming late to the public comment debate.
To be fair, Malden is hardly alone with its lack of public comment periods. Everett, Somerville and Melrose elected legislative bodies don’t provide for public comment. In councils in other cities, “new business” is discussed during meetings without members of the public weighing in.
But more than a few elected officials glance at the handful of people attending a public meeting and decide there is no need for public comment periods, especially in the Facebook era.
Malden councilors appear energized by the idea of giving the public a say during council meetings. Their concerns revolve around setting time limits on comment.
“Why should we cut some member of the public off if they want to speak at a city council meeting?” Councilor at Large David D’Arcangelo asked.
“What if the first 15 people who want to speak are all on one side on an issue?” Ward 5 Councilor Barbara Murphy asked.
Giving residents, who are often taxpayers and voters, their say during a meeting seems like a no-brainer. Well-meaning elected officials like to think they are the de facto voice for the people who elected them and insist the proposals they introduce and debates they engage in reflect their constituents’ interests.
That’s a strong argument for not implementing or for limiting public comment. But Malden and other communities where elected officials have not introduced public comment could take a tip from Saugus, where selectmen allow public comment before and after meetings.
Some people show up with grievances or pointed comments they aimed at selectmen. But the comments also provide new perspectives on problems selectmen are trying to solve and new concerns warranting town attention.
Malden residents need not line up at City Hall in anticipation of being called to the microphone at the next council meeting: A motion to introduce public commenting on a trial basis failed to win council approval with councilors split 4-4 on the idea.
But for residents eager to do their civic duty and comment on city business, the wait will be worth it.
