The Grand Rapids school board is rightly disturbed by the raucus conduct at its public meetings. The heckling, showboating, and insults by some attendees is disgraceful -- and should NOT be tolerated.
However, instead of taking the necessary measures to remove from the meeting members of the public who will not conduct themselves in a civil manner, the board, along with new superintendent Bernard Taylor's support, wants to manage public comment at school board meetings. Their plan is to force a person who might want to make a public comment to alert the school board of that fact in advance of the meeting, provide his name and address to the board, and then receive instructions from school officials that comments not related to the meeting's policy agenda are prohibited.
Furthermore Superintendent Taylor wants to further restrict public monitoring of school board meetings by terminating their broadcast on cable TV's public access channel for education. That reveals the real agenda of Grand Rapids school officials. By itself, one might conclude that the board and the superintendent have merely taken a wrong path in controlling the crowd at public meetings with the proposed advance-notice rules. But blacking out public viewing of school board meetings on cable TV, which has no impact whatsoever upon the atmosphere of those meetings, can only mean that the overall objective of these changes is to limit and control public input to and knowledge of the school board's decision-making.
The school board should reject this attempt to manage speech. Keep the meetings open to spontaneous public comment. Exercise judgment to cut the mike for those who are abusive, insulting, or out of order. Eject hecklers who disrupt the meeting. (Yes, I know these things require backbone from our school officials. But is that so much to ask to maintain decorum?) And, of course, keep broadcasting the school board meetings on cable TV.
Mr. Tingley: You might want to read the Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.263(4), which states: "A person shall not be required as a condition of attendance at a meeting of a public body to register or otherwise provide his or her name or other information or otherwise to fulfill a condition precedent to attendance."
Posted by: Catherine Mish | July 31, 2006 at 11:25 AM
Bill and L.A.W.,
How interesting that Ms. Mish from the GR City Attorney's Office would comment about the Open Meetings Act in regards to public comments and the GR School Board Meetings. Ms. Mish must have conveniently "forgotten" how the Grand Rapids City Clerk and the City Attorney's Office also condone and support the deletion of important public comments and the blatant altering of the public record when it comes to what is actually said during GR City Commission meetings - by both the public and elected and appointed city officials. Ms. Mish and her corrupt cronies at the city should definitely be cleaning up their own illegal acts first before they start throwing stones at other entities in this community (not that there's any excuse for what the GR School Board is proposing to do here.)
Posted by: Phyllis Jennings | July 31, 2006 at 12:06 PM
Ms. Mish,
That's very interesting. Thanks for the information. I'll look into it.
Regards,
Bill Tingley
Posted by: The Executive Director | July 31, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Hi, Phyllis.
Your last statement is what merits our attention. The school board is out of line.
As for Ms. Mish, I have criticized her in the past because as a member of the city attorney's office she has defended city government positions that I have found to be contrary to the best interests of the residents and taxpayers of Grand Rapids.
However, let me apologize to Ms. Mish for not distinguishing between her person and her office. I've been over-the-top in my remarks about her in that regard, and so I also apologize to you, Phyllis, and L.A.W. readers for creating the wrong impression about Ms. Mish. The fact is, unlike her colleague Dan Ophoff, Ms. Mish has performed her obligations to her client, the City of Grand Rapids, honorably and ethically.
Even the worst reprobates are entitled to legal representation in our judicial system, and Ms. Mish has done nothing wrong is providing the city government with a defense against the hazardous waste and FOIA complaints we have had against it. (And more about the latter in the next couple of days. Stay tuned.)
The bottom line is that there are too many lawyers who play fast and loose with the rules and cross the line into misconduct. Ms. Mish is not one of those lawyers.
Regards, Bill
Posted by: The Executive Director | July 31, 2006 at 12:50 PM
Ms. Mish - the people are not required to register just to attend the meeting, only to speak.
The reason for registering for a chance to speak is that there are two times available for public comment. The first time is for comment related to any action items on the agenda for that night. The second time is for open comments. Registering is a way for the audience members to be called down at the appropriate time - plus they receive a "thank you" letter from the Board president for taking part in the meeting.
From my viewpoint, the problem lies with how the meetings are run. The Board president has the right to terminate a person's speech if it is abusive or has nothing to do with the proceedings or responsibilities of the District or Board. The failure to act by the Board president(s) in the past, allowing this type of behavior to continue, shows a lack of understanding in their responsibilities and the willingness to use the power of their position as it was intended, to maintain order. It is more than just a title, however, that has not been proven as very few in the position have any remote knowledge of how to conduct a meeting and are not well versed in Board policy and Robert's Rules of Order.
As far as viewing the meetings on channel 27 - I'd be very curious as to how many viewers actually watch this station. I don't have cable, but when I have come across it, it hasn't been that informative.
Limiting public comment or viewing in any way should not be the direction this district (or any public office, for that matter)is going in. It needs to listen more to the people who are still here because many times, if they are at a meeting with a complaint, that's their first step towards the door. To be told "go ahead, leave", like some parents have been told, is not the way to conduct business.
Posted by: Beentheredonethat | July 31, 2006 at 01:03 PM
Hi Bill,
I'm sure that LAW readers will be very interested to read the new revelations you apparently now have to share about Ms. Mish and her actions.
What LAW and readers still need to remember, however, is that in addition to the GR School Board, the City of Grand Rapids and the County of Kent are both out of line when they edit and significantly alter the public record when it comes to the valid and reasonable concerns that our families have expressed about the corruption and suspicious death cover-up that runs rampant at the Kent County Medical Examiner's Office and the fact that Dr. Stephen Cohle needs to be investigated now. There are no excuses for what these governmental entities are doing to our families, Bill, and all of us will continue to pursue the truth and justice.
Posted by: Phyllis Jennings | July 31, 2006 at 01:10 PM