Star Editorial – Importance of public comment

By Michael and Victoria Howell, Bitterroot Star Publishers

In our system of government, we elect people to represent us in the activities of setting and implementing policies. We entrust them with the responsibility to make the best decisions regarding the future of our community. However, we do have a chance to weigh in before any decisions are made, through the public comment process that is enshrined in Montana’s constitution. Montana’s laws on open meetings and the right to know and participate are some of the strongest in the nation.

Even when meeting virtually, all comments should be read aloud so that the people watching or listening virtually can hear them, and so that the public knows for certain that their comments are being considered by the council members.

So, we are baffled by what appears to be the Town’s recent stifling of public comment.

For example, a recent council meeting had only two agenda items under new business, Discussion/Decision: Establishing a Local Board of Public Health for the Town of Stevensville and Discussion/Decision: Use of Face Coverings in Public Settings to Help Prevent the Spread of COVID-19. Just two items, but items of great interest to the citizenry. In fact, 20 businesses signed a letter regarding these agenda items. But shockingly, the letter was not read during either public comment or correspondence! There is no valid excuse for this.

During the meeting, comments were apparently coming in by email but those, too, were not read out loud. One council member said she had received some emails from one of her constituents but she was not allowed to read those into the record. Another council member had citizens at his house who wanted to comment but they were not allowed to.

There is no good reason not to initially allow public comment, and to also allow some latitude due to the challenges of meeting virtually. And in this case, time constraints were not an issue, since the agenda was extremely short. Certainly profanity, repetitive comments, or overly lengthy comments could be reasons to curtail public comment. But in this case, public comment was never allowed to start!

We were told that this oversight was due to the shortcomings of the Zoom software. But we have watched numerous meetings of other entities on Zoom and they were able to receive and hear public comment. (If there is a problem with this at the Town, most likely the cost of correcting it, if any, would be covered by CARES Act reimbursement.) 

The audience at that recent council meeting was assured that any public comments would be added to the record and distributed to council members and posted on the website after. The reason that is not sufficient is that the whole point of public comment is to allow for the potential to influence the council in its decision making. The council members need to hear from the public that they serve. It’s not just a formality; it’s a very significant part of our government process.

Fortunately, there were no decisions made on those two agenda items, except perhaps the decision to do nothing at the time. That’s lucky, because if a decision had been made, without considering public comment and without actually letting the rest of the public hear that comment, the decision could be illegal.

The mayor has now added a phone-in option for people to comment during real time. That should be a real improvement, as long as it works properly. 

Unfortunately, part of the reason the meetings went from in-person to virtual was because some members of the public refused to respect social distancing measures. But now that the meetings are virtual, it’s imperative that the mayor and council show the public that they are serious about hearing what the public has to say. The town may be meeting the letter of the law; they need to show us that they care about meeting the spirit of the law as well.