Sign up for our email list
Not sure if you heard, but the Niagara Falls Council Chairman started last night’s meeting with a statement telling everyone that public speaking is a privilege, not a right.
In a statement he issued, he said two people who have been complaining about the city’s contract with a Grand Island animal shelter are barred from public speaking at meetings until after June 4, essentially suspended. They can come back after that. If they act up again, he said the city will ban them from speaking for the remainder of the year.
Can he and/or the city do that? Anything in law or opinion that speaks to something like this?
I have copied staff from the Cornell University Law School First Amendment Clinic on this email in case they have an opinion to share.
The last page of the meeting agenda linked below references rules of order.
I don’t see stated in these rules of order the right to ban people from speaking at meetings. Nor do I think the Council President has the power to ban people on his own. Any actions taken by the City Council require a vote of the full Council. Usually rules require warnings and authorize the police to take action as they deem appropriate.
The Council has the right to create rules for public comment, which must be approved by the full Council. Whatever their rules of enforcement are they need to be followed.
Below are some opinions from the Committee on Open Government, which may be helpful:
https://docsopengovernment.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o5607.htm
“if a chairperson seeks to prohibit a person from speaking, but another member of the Legislature disagrees, that member could in my view introduce a motion or resolution to permit speaking, and if the motion or resolution is carried by a majority of the total membership of the Legislature, I believe that the chairperson’s stance could be overridden.”
https://docsopengovernment.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o5552.html
https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o5286.html
https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o4044.htm
“From my perspective, the President of the Council presides over Council meetings. It is questionable, however, whether he may validly determine unilaterally whether the subject matter of comment proposed by a person desiring to speak involves City Council business. He is but one member of the Council, and I believe that the Council, if necessary, should determine by means of a majority vote of its total membership (see General Construction Law, §41) if there is a question or disagreement regarding whether a subject relates to City Council business. I believe that the Council in that circumstance should determine whether the subject may be raised, rather than the President of the Council reaching a determination alone.”