Letter to the editor: The public deserves to be heard in meetings

Posted

Multiple recent stories in The Item have reported that public participation has either been restricted or suspended in meetings of Sumter City Council, county council and school board. COVID-19 precautions underlie the county council and school board suspensions, while different reasons have been given for the city council's restrictions on public participation. Nonetheless, there are significant representative governance grounds why each of these stories separately is worrisome. Taken together, they raise alarm bells.

Given COVID-19, county council suspended public comments in March 2020, and the school board did as well in April 2020. Both suspensions remain in place (Item Feb. 2 and 20, 2021). While the city council has permitted public comment in the large expanse of the Opera House (with social distancing available), participation has been restricted for certain individuals at recent city council meetings (Item Jan. 27 and Feb. 18, 2021).

It's heartening the Sumter County administrator recently said that the county council plans to reopen for public comment if COVID-19 cases continue to decline (Item Feb. 25, 2021). The school board chairwoman has also mentioned that suspension of public participation will be reviewed soon (Item Feb. 20, 2021). That said, it's striking both of these suspensions, as well as the limitation on public participation by city council, were all separately defended on the basis that communications with council members or board members can be done via private emails, meetings and calls, acknowledging that input into decision making is done in private outside the public process.

While private input from constituents is often useful to the decision-making process of elected leaders, in representative government, public participation should always be preferred over non-public "backdoor" input. Public input is included in meeting minutes that can be accessed by the broader public whereas private input cannot. Public input encourages public debate whereas private input keeps things in back rooms.

The quick justification by each of the city council, the county council and the school board that private communications are suitable for matters under their consideration raises the question whether these bodies should amend their rules to require that certain private communications on topics decided by these bodies be added to the public record. This is a tricky issue. While a need certainly exists for developing a public record that informs and supports the decision-making of public bodies, there is also the need and value of private communications with elected leaders.

Given the recent suspension and restrictions on public participation, this question should be directly confronted. Sunlight is unquestionably good for representative and deliberative government; darkness is not. Perhaps all private communications from those who have a direct financial interest in matters being decided should be required to be added to the public record. Thought and discussion would need to be had as to exactly what a "direct" financial interest means, but it would be a worthwhile exercise.

Different points apply to the Sumter City Council's restriction that denies the ability of certain individuals to speak at its meetings. Limiting comments to only those individuals who reside within city limits has been defended on the basis that it's a longstanding city council rule (Item Jan. 27, 2021). However, more important than "we've always done it this way" is how does the rule currently impact city council meetings and the public's participation in them these days.

Limiting public comments to only individuals who reside within city limits means that companies, churches and nonprofits located in the city and whose interests are vital to the city are not allowed to present at city council meetings if their representative is not a city resident. Is it always appropriate to limit affected interests to backdoor communications with city and county leaders? Further, when is someone a city resident for this purpose and when is that status lost? Is there a better way to take these charitable, business and religious interests into account when Sumter City Council meets publicly?

Just like city council currently is comparing Sumter to 13 other cities when contemplating increases to water bills (Item Feb. 24, 2021), the city council should compare its procedural rules with other cities' rules because, like water pipes, rules can get rusty and need replacement. A quick Google search found the City Council Rules of Procedure of Danville, Virginia, a city with about the same population as Sumter, that state "[c]ommunications from visitors shall be for the purpose of allowing members of the public to present any matter, which, in their opinion, deserves the attention of the council." The Danville rules don't require someone to be a city resident to speak.

There will be different examples of other city council rules, some more restrictive and some less, but we need to move forward in Sumter by developing the best governmental process we can devise to ensure transparent and open local government. By analogy, college football coach Nick Saban teaches us that to be good in football you need to continually focus on the process.

Good government is also all about the process. Given the recent suspensions and restrictions on public participation in Sumter government meetings, let's take some time to develop a more inclusive process to encourage public participation in Sumter government. It will be well worth the effort.

ARCHIE PARNELL

Sumter