St. Petersburg City Council members want to discourage irrelevant monologues from the public, perhaps by ceasing to show open forums on TV.
By CARRIE JOHNSON
Published May 5, 2004
ST. PETERSBURG - They're like recurring characters on a weekly television show.
War protesters show up en masse and plead with the City Council to pass an ordinance denouncing the president. Uhurus and their sympathizers criticize the police. Venerable gadfly Emily Rogers Coeyman, who has attended nearly every council meeting for the past 30 years, peppers the members with questions.
Every other Thursday, these activists wait patiently for the portion of the St. Petersburg City Council meeting known as open forum, where each is granted three minutes of speaking time.
It is an opportunity to air grievances, demand answers and, in some cases, mug for the television cameras, which film the meeting for WSPF-TV, the city's television station. At times, the forums have stretched an hour or longer, to the frustration of many at the meetings.
Now some council members have suggested a way to minimize the grandstanding: Shut off the cameras during open forum.
"If people want to get up there and talk about something relating to the city, I have no problem with it," said council member John Bryan. "Otherwise, let them buy TV time like any other group."
The proposal is certain to be met with strong resistance, both from First Amendment advocates and forum participants.
"I think that's a lousy thing to do," said Coeyman, 82, who rarely misses an opportunity to speak at a City Council meeting. "Open forum gives me a chance to ask questions. I may not get answers, but at least the information has been expressed and people know it's out there."
The council has been holding an open forum twice a month since 1987, according to the City Clerk's Office. Anyone who lives or owns property in St. Petersburg is eligible to speak. There's no restrictions on subject matter, but citizens are only allowed to participate once a month and must limit themselves to three minutes.
City Attorney John Wolfe said changing the open forum shouldn't create any legal problems. The council is under no obligation to hold a public comment period, let alone televise it, he said. And many of the council gatherings, including workshops and subcommittee meetings, aren't televised.
Another option, Wolfe said, would be to hold the open forum at a different meeting, away from the television cameras.
"Television is not required under the Sunshine Laws," Wolfe said, referring to Florida's open records policies.
Public comment periods have made news several times recently. Last month, the Hillsborough County Commission voted to ban longtime government watcher Mark Klutho after Klutho called the acting county attorney, who is black, "boy" during an open forum.
Pinellas County commissioners tried to tighten public speaking policies last May, but the effort was short-lived. The new rules barred "irrelevant, impertinent or slanderous" comments and limited each speaker to addressing a topic only once every 30 days.
The commissioners abandoned the rules after only a month, saying they had "overreacted" and placed unfair limits on free speech.
The St. Petersburg City Council first broached the subject of taking open forum off the air during a recent subcommittee meeting. Bryan was the strongest supporter, saying too many people were exploiting the free television time to discuss topics unrelated to city business.
"We don't have an obligation to televise open forum," he said. "It is not a right."
St. Petersburg wouldn't be the first local government to switch off the television cameras. The Tampa City Council has two public comment periods, one that is televised and one that isn't.
The first one, which is broadcast, allows citizens to speak to topics that are on the council's agenda but aren't scheduled for a public hearing. The second, held at the end of the meeting without the cameras, is for general comments.
The Pinellas and Hillsborough county commissions, as well as the Clearwater City Council, televise their public comment periods.
Joyce McCarty, a frequent speaker at St. Petersburg's open forums, most recently to protest the situation in Iraq, said the City Council meeting is the only avenue for many groups to take their message to the public.
"This is how we reach the community," McCarty said. "People wouldn't get the information without it."
Even if there is no legal violation, the City Council could take a big hit politically for changing the open forum, said Darryl Paulson, a University of South Florida professor who teaches a course in St. Petersburg politics. "People will clearly look at this as a form of censorship," Paulson said. "Not having the television cameras on will tremendously diminish the concept of open forum."
It's a difficult situation, Paulson noted. The City Council doesn't want to give political groups a platform for fear of appearing to endorse their message, but they should also be reluctant to limit freedom of speech.
"The best way to approach it is to have some sort of general disclaimer at the beginning of the open forum," Paulson said.
Several of the council members have asked the city clerk to schedule a meeting to discuss the proposal. A date has not yet been set.
But not everyone on the council endorses the idea.
"The open forum is a part of open government," said council member Jay Lasita. "There would have to be a really compelling reason to change the policy, and even in that circumstance, I can't see myself supporting it."
