I don't disagree with all of these things but we *also* have to be pragmatists and work with the alderman you have not the alderman you want. In this case, he was spot on and did the right thing. Give the guy a W today.
I don't disagree with all of these things but we *also* have to be pragmatists and work with the alderman you have not the alderman you want. In this case, he was spot on and did the right thing. Give the guy a W today.
I have corresponded with Biss about this problem. I suggested he should rule the hateful comments out of order, not because they are offensive (which opens the 1st Amendment can of worms), but because they are irrelevant. (Nothing on the agenda to consider whether rabbis crawl up from sewers, etc.)
He replied that unfortunately, an OMA counselor had said that any restriction of content would be a violation.
I found only one sentence in the OMA about rights of non-members attending an open meeting, at 5 ILCS 5, sec 2.06 (g): тАЬAny person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body.тАЭ So if you flout those rules, you forfeit your right to speak, ThereтАЩs nothing in the OMA that says all subject matter must be permitted.
RobertтАЩs Rules is quite emphatic: in Section 61.19 it says тАЬAn assembly has the right to protect itself from annoyance by nonmembers.тАЭ The chair тАЬhas the power to require nonmembers to leave the hall, or to order their removal . . . and the nonmembers have no right of appeal from such an order of the presiding officer.тАЭ
So Biss reserves the right to shut us up, but has no plan to silence the Nazis?
I don't disagree with all of these things but we *also* have to be pragmatists and work with the alderman you have not the alderman you want. In this case, he was spot on and did the right thing. Give the guy a W today.
Yes, but then he floated a motion to restrict citizen comment to 30 minutes instead of 45. I can't figure the guy out.
I mean there were nazis zoom bombing the whole citizen comment thing!
I have corresponded with Biss about this problem. I suggested he should rule the hateful comments out of order, not because they are offensive (which opens the 1st Amendment can of worms), but because they are irrelevant. (Nothing on the agenda to consider whether rabbis crawl up from sewers, etc.)
He replied that unfortunately, an OMA counselor had said that any restriction of content would be a violation.
I found only one sentence in the OMA about rights of non-members attending an open meeting, at 5 ILCS 5, sec 2.06 (g): тАЬAny person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body.тАЭ So if you flout those rules, you forfeit your right to speak, ThereтАЩs nothing in the OMA that says all subject matter must be permitted.
RobertтАЩs Rules is quite emphatic: in Section 61.19 it says тАЬAn assembly has the right to protect itself from annoyance by nonmembers.тАЭ The chair тАЬhas the power to require nonmembers to leave the hall, or to order their removal . . . and the nonmembers have no right of appeal from such an order of the presiding officer.тАЭ
So Biss reserves the right to shut us up, but has no plan to silence the Nazis?
I think it will be moot shortly since they seem to have moved on
I sure hope youтАЩre right!