No more out-of-town public comments at Washington City Council

WASHINGTON — City council members voted 5-1 last week to enact a new rule barring people from speaking during the group’s public comment period unless they live or own property within city limits.

“We are a city council, not a county council,” said Washington City Council Member Fran Stigers. “If you live out in the country, go see the supervisors.”

While city officials did not invoke his name, the move was heavily implied as a countermeasure against Mike Murphy, a farmer who lives 10 miles south of Washington, but who farms on a lot bordering city limits, owned by his parents.

Murphy is somewhat infamous for scathing tirades opposing construction along Buchanan Street — which borders the family’s farm — where he claims construction contractors have violated property lines, broken fences and altered water drainage.

“I’m going to be completely honest, he’s made me very uncomfortable, and we all know who we’re talking about,” Stigers said. “This guy is off.”

Murphy, for his part, said he was outraged by the change.

He points to other parts of the municipal government that explicitly seek to ensure representation for unincorporated community members near the city - like rural representatives on the municipal planning and zoning commission and library board of trustees - as proof that the new rule is unreasonable.

“This law makes no sense. They want to do stuff like what they did on Buchanan, but they don’t want you to say anything about it,” he said. “Because I don’t live in the city limits of Washington, I don’t have any opinion in Washington ever again? … I’m a firm believer that this rule, the only reason it’s coming up is because I stood up and aired their dirty laundry.”

The rule does not stop out-of-town comment makers from speaking during public hearings — which are distinct from public comment periods — nor does it keep them from petitioning officials for a place on a meeting agenda, where speeches are not restrained by the three-minute limit or other rules of the public comment section.

Most elected officials said the limitation was fair, given those alternative ways of getting municipal attention.

“(We’re) not stopping anybody,” Council Member Elaine Moore said. “If there’s somebody that needs to speak, we have avenues to speak with our administrator and our mayor, who can present any other discussion.”

Still, it adds a barrier that could have held up several influential comment makers in the past, including Washington Economic Development Group Director Mary Audia, representatives for some advocacy groups like Escucha Mi Voz, and the occasional disgruntled farmer.

Council Member Illa Earnest was the lone vote against the rule change. She said it was bad optics for the city.

“I think we’re solving a problem that doesn’t exist,” she said. “We can deny (them), or we can listen. They may have something that we want to hear anyway … I just think it looks bad, refusing somebody the opportunity to address the council. If we had an ongoing problem, I would certainly support (it).”

With the new rule implemented March 19, the council won’t have a chance to test enforcement of it until its April 2 meeting, at the earliest.

While Iowa law requires public hearings in some cases, it does not mandate that local governments routinely provide time for input at their meetings. Still, most cities do so, usually with limits on speakers’ allocated time, rules against profanity or verbal abuse, and stating that council members won’t respond to public comments and questions on the spot.

“Although many cities provide time for public input, it is not a requirement of the open meetings law,” says one guidance document from the Iowa League of Cities. “Many cities provide a time for public comment in order to allow citizens to give feedback and have input in their city government. Cities can make rules of conduct for their meetings to ensure the meetings are orderly.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com