Members of the Lake Wales City Commission
by James Coulter
A controversial resolution to moderate public comments at Lake Wales City Commission meetings – a resolution many residents felt tantamount to censorship – failed to pass with a 3-2 vote.
At their regular meeting on Tuesday evening, city commissioners considered a resolution that would have determined when and what public comments could be made during meetings.
According to the resolution, comments that were “most relevant” to the meeting’s agenda items could be delivered at the start of the meeting, while “less relevant” comments would have to wait until the end of the meeting.
Per the city staff memo, public comments at the beginning of the meeting would be reserved for “comments on items appearing on the meeting’s agenda upon which the Commission is scheduled to vote.” Meanwhile, all other miscellaneous comments would be reserved for near the end of the meeting.
“The matters can include those of which the speaker feels the general public should be aware,” the memo stated. “For example, past comments have been about issues concerning the United Nations, sustainability, climate change, religion, diversity, socialism, and the like.”
The resolution would have also moderated what could and could not be said during these public comments, requiring that these comments “must be respectful, directed to the Chair and not to anyone in the audience, and may not include personal attacks or campaigns for public office.”
These requirements were modeled after an agenda from Charlotte County, with the framework proposed by Commissioner Robin Gibson. He was prompted to propose these requirements following the most recent city elections when he experienced public comments that were “divisive” and “rude.”
“This has come about because of my own frustration,” he said. “There were times people were angry, shouting; one time we had to suspend meeting because of the conduct that was going on…So let’s do something about it.”
However, Gibson appeared alone in his sentiment, as the resolution only received two votes in favor of it. Although many of the commissioners agreed that many public comments were rude and divisive, they did not agree that the proposed resolution was the best solution.
Commissioner Carol Gillespie outright stated that she felt the resolution and its proposed measures were an attempt by the commission to “oppose the right to speak of citizens.” Moreover, she claimed the proposed rules violated Florida’s Sunshine Law, which protects transparency in state government.
Commissioner Gillespie claimed the requirements placed “restrictions on the ability of the public to speak.” She argued that rules had to be “content neutral,” and by dictating what matters the public could comment on during meetings, these proposed rules would have violated Florida Sunshine Law.
“Who decides if a speaker will come up to the first part of the meeting?” she asked. “Who decides if they are veering off subject matter? Ultimately, it will be the mayor. It will be a restriction of free speech…[The only] interest being served is to make it harder for the public to participate and make their concerns made at meetings.”
Commissioner Keith Thompson made the only other vote in favor of the resolution. He claimed it was necessary to ensure that public comments highlighted the most important parts of the meeting.
“Can we take care of the business that needs to be taken care of, and then I can listen to you talk about what you want to talk about?” he asked.
Many public residents spoke out against the proposed resolution, arguing that it was tantamount to “censorship.” Catherine Price argued that the proposed rules set up a double standard for the city commission.
“You want to talk about how you want to hold us accountable for what we say at this podium,” she said. “How do we hold you all accountable for what you say?”
Charlene Bennett felt the resolution exhibited a blatant “patriarchal attitude” among the city commissioners, especially with many speakers at public comment being women speaking out against male commissioners.
“I don’t know what I’m madder about, the patriarchy or the hypocrisy,” she said. “Just because something is not on your agenda, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be on the agenda. That doesn’t make it irrelevant.”
