Akron voters will decide this November whether citizens should be permitted to speak during City Council meetings.
City Council voted in a special meeting Wednesday to put a charter amendment on the ballot requiring council to adopt legislation providing for speaking periods during regular and committee meetings. Council would have to approve the legislation by March 1.
Council rejected petitions submitted by former Akron Councilman Ernie Tarle for a different charter change requiring speaking periods.
The city’s law department found Tarle’s petitions had enough valid signatures — about 4,600 — but lacked the affidavits required under the city’s charter.
Council President Marco Sommerville thought council should put its own charter amendment on the ballot in case Tarle challenges council’s rejection of his petitions and succeeds in getting his amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot.
“I can’t take the chance of that other piece getting on there,” Sommerville said. “It’s just too messed up.”
Council, which won’t return from its summer break until Monday, held a special meeting to meet Friday’s deadline for getting a charter change on the November ballot. Council Clerk Bob Keith will deliver the charter amendment to the Summit County Board of Elections this morning.
Citizens currently are not allowed to speak at Akron council meetings unless a public hearing is held on a specific topic or they receive permission from the council president.
After Tarle announced his petition drive last year, Sommerville started a speaking period during the half-hour before council meetings begin. At least one council member, along with representatives of various city offices, is present to hear comments.
Tarle’s view
Tarle has said he isn’t satisfied with this speaking period because it doesn’t give the public the opportunity to address the entire council.
Sommerville permitted Tarle, who sent him an email asking for permission to speak, to address council at the start of Wednesday’s meeting. Tarle urged council members to allow his proposed amendment to go on the ballot.
“Tonight, you have the power,” he said. “Make sure the will of the people is done. That’s your job.”
Tarle’s charter change would have required a 30- minute speaking period during regular council meetings and 15 minutes during council committee meetings, with individuals permitted to speak up to three minutes.
Because of a charter change voters approved last November, Tarle wasn’t given a second chance to circulate his petitions and correct the deficiencies.
Council voted 12-1 to reject Tarle’s petitions because of the affidavit deficiency.
Councilman Bruce Kilby, the dissenting vote, argued that council hasn’t always followed the charter and shouldn’t in this case.
“I’m not going to support the denial of this,” he said.
Kilby, however, supported the alternative charter change, saying it is “a step forward.” He was joined by the rest of council.
“It’s better than people submitting a letter and getting permission,” Kilby said. “It doesn’t impose a right to speak like Tarle’s initiative would have. It’s probably a step forward, and it’s good.”
Council’s charter plan
The proposed charter change headed to the ballot would require council to “enact legislation to permit members of the public to address council at council and committee meetings.”
The comments would have to be “in accordance with the rules of council” and the majority of council could vote to extend the speaking period.
The amendment also says council can “impose reasonable limits on speaking and may restrict speakers to matters within council’s authority.”
Councilwoman Tina Merlitti said this means council could prohibit someone from complaining about Congress, tax codes or the diabetes foundation.
She said that if voters approve the amendment, a special committee would be formed to look at how other cities handle speaking periods.
Sommerville said council also would hold a hearing to get public input before voting on the ordinance. Sommerville thought Tarle’s language would be disruptive because one council member would have had the opportunity to extend the speaking period as long as he or she wanted.
He said he’s not opposed to a formalized speaking period during meetings but wants this done in “an organized, manageable, methodical way that is productive.”
Legal action doubtful
After the meeting, Tarle said he probably won’t pursue legal action since council put its own amendment on the ballot. He initially didn’t realize council had taken this step.
“As long as the people get to speak and our government listens, then we accomplished what we set out to do,” he said. “We win — kind of.”
Stephanie Warsmith can be reached at 330-996-3705 or swarsmith@thebeaconjournal.com.
