Coercion Charge Has Commissioners Rethinking Public Comment Time

By Desiree Parker Thursday, January 21, 2010

At last week’s James City planning commission meeting, a cutting remark made during the public comment portion led to discussion about how far is too far when it comes to what folks can say in a public forum.

Local Bob Richardson, who has been very vocal in his disapproval of the current Board of Supervisors and some of the people they’ve appointed to the Planning Commission, accused people “higher up” in the county of pressuring staff to recommend approval of a development. He also said this coercion “would suggest to me corruption within the higher ranks of James City County.”

At the end of the meeting, Vice Chair Reese Peck was visibly upset by the remarks, and he asked staff to look into removing Richardson’s remarks from the record and from the video of the meeting. “I just cringe that our [meeting] is going to be rebroadcast… with unsubstantiated accusations made in an inappropriate forum,” he said. He said corruption was a serious charge better left to law enforcement officials to investigate.

Peck pointed out that the public comment section is “a privilege that’s been extended to [citizens],” and not a right. According to Deputy County Attorney Adam Kinsman, neither the planning commission nor the board of supervisors is legally obligated to have time set aside for regular public comment.

Commissioner Debbie Kratter argued that restricting what people say is a violation of the Constitution. “I’d rather we feel badly than we take action that would prevent anyone from exercise that most fundamental of our American rights,” she said at the meeting.

Staff decided to keep the comment on video in its entirety, because censoring it wouldn’t be likely to hold up under judicial scrutiny, Kinsman told WYDaily.

He also pointed out that the county supervisors and the planning commission have very few limitations on public comments, unlike other some other jurisdictions, and that they have leeway to make stricter guidelines. Content-based restrictions, though, are more likely to run into legal issues, he says.

Richardson has had similar run-ins with supervisors, and received several letters from County Administrator Sandy Wanner admonishing him for personal attacks during supervisors’ meetings.

Richardson says about his comments Wednesday, “first and foremost, [the comment] was a statement of opinion,” and not a personal attack. Also, he defends his position about the development in question and his opinion that staff should not have recommended it.

Commissioner Jack Fraley, who recommended the public comment section be added during his first term, says it “provides more transparency, and provides the opportunity for more public interaction…the more people who participate, the more trusting they’ll be of what we’re doing. And, they have lots of great ideas.”

He says some commissioners have shared their doubts about the public comment section. “I think the public would be very disappointed if they didn’t have this opportunity. I’ve been disappointed a person or two have used it to make personal attacks… and I fear that if it continues, there will be a backlash.”