MONROE - City council members are butting heads as they seek to clarify the murky line between two somewhat competing public policies - open meeting laws and comment periods during council meetings.
On one side of the debate, Alderman Michael Boyce proposed at the council's meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 3 that the city consider following a more formalized approach to council meetings, by adopting "appropriate rules of conduct for lawfully addressing the council." This would include more detail in designating subject matter on agendas, particularly during comment periods.
Boyce added that the council needed to be careful about what statements are allowed to be made in the council meeting forum.
"Informality is counterproductive," he said.
But at the council meeting Tuesday, Jan. 17, Council President Charles Koch upheld the current council practice of allowing unscheduled statements to be made during comment periods.
"We have always been open to comments by anyone who wants to make them, whether they are the public employees or department heads. I see no reason to discontinue that," he said.
Alderman Sara Conway trumped that sentiment, saying she wanted to hear more from department heads.
"I'd hate for this (debate) to deter any department head from making statements," she said.
Aldermen Thurston Hanson and Brooke Bauman took the approach that particular comment periods are set aside for specific categories of individuals - the general public, aldermen, department heads and news reporters - and that speakers should abide by that outline.
The debate ensued after Alderman Jan Lefevre spoke to uphold a city employee's right to speak at a Nov. 15 council meeting during a specified period reserved for comments from department heads.
Lefevre's comments were in response to Boyce's statement Jan. 3. Boyce had claimed the employee's wish to make a comment was known by "multiple individuals" well in advance of the agenda being formed, but "nobody asked what the subject matter was, nor did they ask the clerk to have the statement noticed on the agenda."
Boyce backed up his request for more formality by noting past Attorney General Peggy Lautenschlager opined, in a 2004 letter to Charles Rude, then-mayor of the City of Lake Geneva, that allowing such comments is "at best, at the outer edge of lawful practice, and may well cross the line to become unlawful." Boyce also noted the attorney general encouraged eliminating "the practice of allowing staff, alderpersons and the mayor to communicate information on subjects without designating those subjects in the meeting notice."
Lefevre said the employee had asked to be placed on the Nov. 15 agenda, but through an oversight in the clerk's office where the agendas are prepared, had been left off. The employee was then told she could speak during the department head comment period, and did so only after being introduced by her own department head.
She "did nothing wrong in giving her speech and was well within her rights to do so," Lefevre said.
Lefevre added that the employee's comments were not a prepared statement, but were short, to the point and included nothing to be discussed in council.
But Boyce contended the comments were "more than just about her time as an employee at the city.
"They bordered on political," he said.
The employee, who left her position to take a job in the private sector, spoke well of the people she had worked with, and informed council members that her replacement should be paid a fair market rate if they wanted a qualified applicant. She then noted that some council members treated employees with disrespect but did not specify anyone by name.
Hanson said he was one of the aldermen who inferred the employee's statement about disrespecting employees as a reference to the vote just taken on the 2012 budget, which passed by a narrow 6-4 margin.
"... people are always welcome to speak. The whole point is to bring things forward," he said. "But (she) was not a department head and should not be allowed to speak when she did. In the public comment portion (before the main council business begins) is where she should have spoken.
"Frankly, I was surprised she was allowed speak (when she did)," he added. "We have to make sure our meetings are run better."
City Attorney Rex Ewald sees it as a matter of interpretation.
"There is a struggle in the law," Ewald said. "There are no black lines; it's all about interpretation - when it is known, then it should be put on the agenda."
Ewald said he saw "no cause for the laws to be written differently" regarding comments. Matters for discussion or that cause a vote or a decision to be made need to be on the agendas, but not simple comments like the one made by the employee Nov. 15. Not being on the agenda does not prevent aldermen or employees from making comments.
"But you're crossing lines when debates start," he added.
In her statement this week, Lefevre criticized Boyce for costing taxpayers $257 for "frivolous open records requests" in the days following the employee's comments.
On Nov. 28, Boyce requested all e-mails records within the last 60 days regarding the employee's employment and resignation; her requests to address the council; and any e-mails relating to the 2012 budget sent to or from her.
The research took more than five hours of administrator time. City Administrator Phil Rath told Boyce he would be billed for the time. But when Boyce questioned the billing, stating he had a aldermanic privilege to the information, Rath, on advice of the city attorney, retracted the bill.
Lefevre also criticized Boyce for making as many as six unscheduled statements in council between October 2010 and November 2011, which were not noted on the agendas.
"He never once put it on the agenda until the last council meeting when he knew he was going to have a prepared statement about his objection to the practices that he is objecting to and he has participated in," she said.
Boyce had previously requested the city adopt Lautenschlager's recommendations, which he said would "uphold the laws of the state, and encourage a more open and constructive dialog between elected officials, staff and the public." His Jan. 3 statement was noted in the agenda under "Business by Aldermen" as a statement by him "regarding open government and transparency."
He reiterated that request Tuesday.
"All I'm saying is that (the employee's) comment should have been put on the agenda. I ask for it not to occur in the future, and, in the future, for anyone wanting to speak to tell the presiding officer that and what they want to talk about," Boyce said.
Tuesday's discussion was detailed on the council agenda.
On one side of the debate, Alderman Michael Boyce proposed at the council's meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 3 that the city consider following a more formalized approach to council meetings, by adopting "appropriate rules of conduct for lawfully addressing the council." This would include more detail in designating subject matter on agendas, particularly during comment periods.
Boyce added that the council needed to be careful about what statements are allowed to be made in the council meeting forum.
"Informality is counterproductive," he said.
But at the council meeting Tuesday, Jan. 17, Council President Charles Koch upheld the current council practice of allowing unscheduled statements to be made during comment periods.
"We have always been open to comments by anyone who wants to make them, whether they are the public employees or department heads. I see no reason to discontinue that," he said.
Alderman Sara Conway trumped that sentiment, saying she wanted to hear more from department heads.
"I'd hate for this (debate) to deter any department head from making statements," she said.
Aldermen Thurston Hanson and Brooke Bauman took the approach that particular comment periods are set aside for specific categories of individuals - the general public, aldermen, department heads and news reporters - and that speakers should abide by that outline.
The debate ensued after Alderman Jan Lefevre spoke to uphold a city employee's right to speak at a Nov. 15 council meeting during a specified period reserved for comments from department heads.
Lefevre's comments were in response to Boyce's statement Jan. 3. Boyce had claimed the employee's wish to make a comment was known by "multiple individuals" well in advance of the agenda being formed, but "nobody asked what the subject matter was, nor did they ask the clerk to have the statement noticed on the agenda."
Boyce backed up his request for more formality by noting past Attorney General Peggy Lautenschlager opined, in a 2004 letter to Charles Rude, then-mayor of the City of Lake Geneva, that allowing such comments is "at best, at the outer edge of lawful practice, and may well cross the line to become unlawful." Boyce also noted the attorney general encouraged eliminating "the practice of allowing staff, alderpersons and the mayor to communicate information on subjects without designating those subjects in the meeting notice."
Lefevre said the employee had asked to be placed on the Nov. 15 agenda, but through an oversight in the clerk's office where the agendas are prepared, had been left off. The employee was then told she could speak during the department head comment period, and did so only after being introduced by her own department head.
She "did nothing wrong in giving her speech and was well within her rights to do so," Lefevre said.
Lefevre added that the employee's comments were not a prepared statement, but were short, to the point and included nothing to be discussed in council.
But Boyce contended the comments were "more than just about her time as an employee at the city.
"They bordered on political," he said.
The employee, who left her position to take a job in the private sector, spoke well of the people she had worked with, and informed council members that her replacement should be paid a fair market rate if they wanted a qualified applicant. She then noted that some council members treated employees with disrespect but did not specify anyone by name.
Hanson said he was one of the aldermen who inferred the employee's statement about disrespecting employees as a reference to the vote just taken on the 2012 budget, which passed by a narrow 6-4 margin.
"... people are always welcome to speak. The whole point is to bring things forward," he said. "But (she) was not a department head and should not be allowed to speak when she did. In the public comment portion (before the main council business begins) is where she should have spoken.
"Frankly, I was surprised she was allowed speak (when she did)," he added. "We have to make sure our meetings are run better."
City Attorney Rex Ewald sees it as a matter of interpretation.
"There is a struggle in the law," Ewald said. "There are no black lines; it's all about interpretation - when it is known, then it should be put on the agenda."
Ewald said he saw "no cause for the laws to be written differently" regarding comments. Matters for discussion or that cause a vote or a decision to be made need to be on the agendas, but not simple comments like the one made by the employee Nov. 15. Not being on the agenda does not prevent aldermen or employees from making comments.
"But you're crossing lines when debates start," he added.
In her statement this week, Lefevre criticized Boyce for costing taxpayers $257 for "frivolous open records requests" in the days following the employee's comments.
On Nov. 28, Boyce requested all e-mails records within the last 60 days regarding the employee's employment and resignation; her requests to address the council; and any e-mails relating to the 2012 budget sent to or from her.
The research took more than five hours of administrator time. City Administrator Phil Rath told Boyce he would be billed for the time. But when Boyce questioned the billing, stating he had a aldermanic privilege to the information, Rath, on advice of the city attorney, retracted the bill.
Lefevre also criticized Boyce for making as many as six unscheduled statements in council between October 2010 and November 2011, which were not noted on the agendas.
"He never once put it on the agenda until the last council meeting when he knew he was going to have a prepared statement about his objection to the practices that he is objecting to and he has participated in," she said.
Boyce had previously requested the city adopt Lautenschlager's recommendations, which he said would "uphold the laws of the state, and encourage a more open and constructive dialog between elected officials, staff and the public." His Jan. 3 statement was noted in the agenda under "Business by Aldermen" as a statement by him "regarding open government and transparency."
He reiterated that request Tuesday.
"All I'm saying is that (the employee's) comment should have been put on the agenda. I ask for it not to occur in the future, and, in the future, for anyone wanting to speak to tell the presiding officer that and what they want to talk about," Boyce said.
Tuesday's discussion was detailed on the council agenda.