By MONROE ROARK
mroark@TheCitizenNews.com

Peachtree City residents and members of the City Council aired differing views on what constitutes free speech at last week's regular meeting, during discussions of a proposed law that would allow more citizen input.

Councilman Dan Tennant, who was displeased at Steve Brown being refused to respond at the March 2 meeting to statements by city attorney Rick Lindsey, introduced the measure. Lindsey announced at the earlier meeting that his partner Jim Webb had filed suit against Brown for libel.

Tennant dubbed his proposal the Freedom of Speech and Fairness Ordinance, which would give any citizen who is specifically referred to in a public meeting by a city official an equal right to respond. The ordinance currently allows for citizens to speak only to specific items on the agenda.

“I came out of the [March 2] meeting with a clear understanding that our current ordinances as they relate to meeting procedures are inadequate,” Tennant said. “Citizens do not currently enjoy adequate protection to be heard by their elected representatives.”

Ironically, the way in which Tennant introduced the amendment last week emphasized certain procedural points that Mayor Bob Lenox wished to make clear to the audience, many of whom were in attendance to support Tennant.

Tennant introduced the measure with a prepared written statement, ending with his own motion to approve the amendment. The other four council members then sat silent, and Lenox pointed out that the motion appeared to be dead for lack of a second.

This did not sit well with the audience members, one of whom sarcastically noted, “It's your meeting,” referring to a previous statement Lenox had made when Brown was not allowed to speak. After warning the man that he would be kicked out if he spoke out of order again, Lenox seconded the motion so that the discussion could continue.

Once a motion is made, Lenox said, it must be seconded to be discussed. If there is no second, the issue is dead and council moves on to the next agenda item.

Tennant “made a procedural mistake” in making his motion so hastily, according to Lenox. “I want this discussed,” the mayor said. “Apparently the other council members do not.”

Lenox then informed the audience that a City Council meeting is not the kind of open forum many people assume it is. Like a state legislative gathering or a congressional hearing, citizens certainly have the right to attend but they cannot simply stand up and speak at any time.

“These meetings are not for your benefit,” said Lenox. “They are held to do the business of the city.”

Despite this, Lenox said, he has frequently “bent over backward” to let citizens have their say on pertinent issues, often to the chagrin of fellow council members who would rather move the meetings along so the city's business can get done and everyone can go home.

Councilwoman Annie McMenamin, who admitted to occasionally being one of those council members Lenox was referring to, commended the mayor for his willingness to let citizens have a say.

“This council has been most receptive to citizens at meetings,” she said, adding that various members of the media have praised the city for giving people an opportunity not typically afforded those in other municipalities. “The mayor goes above and beyond in this regard.”

Councilwoman Carol Fritz echoed those sentiments, saying that she has seen the mayor go the extra mile for citizens in meetings and that there is a good ordinance in place concerning audience participation with no real problems in the past.

Tennant's measure, however, “goes so far beyond” what is in place now that it “would turn these meetings into an absolute zoo,” she added.

This point was vigorously challenged by Tennant, who repeatedly asked Fritz how giving the citizens the right to speak would turn a meeting into a zoo.

Councilman Robert Brooks indicated that there was considerable room in Tennant's request for a reasonable discussion of the issue, but he felt it was clouded in this particular case by certain “political battles.” Brooks added that it became quite clear during Tennant's recent election campaign that he and others in the community wanted Webb, Stuckey and Lindsey replaced as city attorneys.

“If this is defeated tonight, maybe we can bring it back up at the retreat,” Brooks said.

McMenamin said that she would like to see Tennant's motion tabled and definitely brought back up at the city's April 7-8 retreat, with city staff getting more involved in the process in the meantime. She made a motion in that regard, seconded by Brooks, and it passed unanimously.