Why Codifying Public Comment Matters:

At Monday’s (3/17/2025) legislative meeting, the debate over whether public comment should be codified into the legislative manual exposed fundamental flaws in the in the argument to keep putting off the codification of public speaking rights.

Some legislators defended the status quo, insisting that public participation should remain confined to committee meetings—a practice that isn’t even codified itself. Other legislators, along with myself and other members of the public, highlighted the dangers of leaving public input to the whims of those in power.

But the conversation didn’t stop there. What followed was a revealing exchange about transparency, accountability, and the public’s right to be heard—not just when it’s convenient for legislators, but as a protected principle of governance.

Legislators like Chairman Birmingham, Legislator Jonke, and others argued that public comment should primarily take place in committee meetings, since that is where legislative work happens. They suggested that full legislative meetings should be limited to voting, not public discourse.

But this reasoning collapses under scrutiny. As Legislator Gouldman pointed out, not everything goes through committee. Some legislative items bypass committees entirely and go straight to a full legislative vote. If public comment is only permitted at the committee level, then any matter sent directly to the full meeting effectively shuts the public out of the process.

The argument was also self-contradictory: if the legislators truly believed that committee meetings were the appropriate forum for public input, why hadn’t they codified that practice? Leaving it to custom rather than law allows future legislators to remove public comment entirely—without accountability.

Legislator Gouldman challenged his colleagues on that very point. He made a motion to immediately move codification to a vote. There was no second.

One of the most revealing moments came when Legislator Jonke suggested that the public didn’t need to “weigh in” on discussions about “their” legislative manual, and that only the nine legislators themselves should be involved in that.

(For video of each of the legislator’s comments, read to the bottom)

Legislator Birmingham quickly said he didn’t agree with that assertion and has since changed his position on that point.

This casual dismissal from Legislator Jonke speaks to a broader problem: some legislators seemingly view public participation as an inconvenience rather than a democratic necessity.

One legislator said that government “moves too slow”, and seemingly intimated that the removal of public participation at full legislative meetings would make it move faster.

The idea that legislative procedures affecting public engagement should be decided without public input is precisely why codification is necessary, in my opinion.

Perhaps the most cynical argument of the night was the claim from Legislator Jonke that this issue was only being raised because it is “election season”. The suggestion that public concern over transparency is mere political posturing ignores the very real frustrations of residents who feel sidelined in their own governance.

My first remarks directly responded to Legislator Jonke’s claim that this was only an issue because it was campaign season, seemingly taking a shot at my running for office and/or Legislator Crowley who made the resolution, and herself is on the ballot in November.

I made it clear perhaps some people who come to these meetings, as I did on February 19th when this was first introduced, and see how poorly this body operates, get inspired to run based on the current Legislature’s behavior.

I went on to make clear that this debate isn’t about political timing—it’s about ensuring that public participation in government is protected as a right, not left as a privilege that can be revoked at any time.

Following the legislators' debate, I further emphasized the central issue: if public comment is not codified, it can be taken away at any time. This isn’t about what current legislators choose to allow; it’s about what future legislators coulddo if given the opportunity.

I also reminded the room that every fundamental right the public enjoys today exists because it was codified. The U.S. Constitution would not have been ratified without the Bill of Rights—legal guarantees that protect citizens from governmental overreach. The same principle applies here: unless public comment is explicitly protected, it remains vulnerable to elimination.

This debate is about more than just meeting procedures. It’s about the fundamental relationship between government and the people it serves. Should public input be a right that lawmakers must respect, or a privilege they can revoke when it becomes inconvenient?

The legislators who opposed codifying public comment insisted that the public can always participate at committee meetings—while conveniently ignoring that they have the power to change that at any time. By contrast, those in favor of codification recognized that governance should not depend on the goodwill of politicians alone.

This fight is far from over. This was merely yet another discussion. If public engagement is as important as everyone claims, then it should be written into the rules—not left to chance.

Note: These are highlights of each Legislator’s comments, edited for time. To view the discussion in full, you can visit here.