Legislators Debate Additional Public Comment Sessions at Meetings

By Holly Crocco

While public comment is currently allowed at the end of the Putnam County Legislature’s formal voting meeting each month, lawmakers are considering amending the legislative manual to mandate that public comment is allowed during discussion of items before they are voted on – not just at the conclusion of the meeting.

Such is the process at legislative committee meetings, or “workshop” meetings, if you will. There, issues are discussed, department heads are brought in to answer questions and provide expertise, and resident comments are heard while the discussion is taking place.

While some lawmakers say opening up public comment on matters during the voting meeting provides for better public engagement, others say it will only make the formal voting meetings more arduous.  

“I do want to think about, seriously, whether or not it would be practical to have public comment during our voting meetings,” Legislator Dan Birmingham, R-Brewster, said during the March 17 Rules Committee meeting. “Honest and honorable people can disagree on this matter. People can hold a good and honest opinion one way or the other.”

He shared his opinion that public comment is most appropriate at the committee meetings because that’s when most of the “work” is done.

“There’s never any sort of public discussion when there’s a voting meeting at the State Assembly, State Senate, U.S. House or Representatives or U.S. Senate,” said Birmingham. “The work gets done in the committee meetings. That’s where we’re here for three hours, four hours a night… I would be against having a comment period during our full session because that’s our voting meetings. That’s where we are essentially considering voting on the work we get done during the month.”

Legislator Greg Ellner, R-Carmel, agreed that the committee meeting is where the discussion should take place.

“Public comment is always necessary, and ever since I’ve been on the Legislature it always happens and it’s never been limited,” he said. “Just like tonight. We’re here a long time. But I agree regarding the full. Full meetings can get extremely long and it can be unfair to people who are sitting here waiting.”

Legislator Amy Sayegh, R-Mahopac Falls, concurred.

“We always have public comment at our committee meetings, we also have access to our department heads and have testimony from our legal counsel,” she said. “At the full Legislature meeting, after we’ve already done the committee work, we don’t have access to all the department heads, so I don’t think it’s really practical after each agenda item. Although, at the full meetings it’s always good to hear from the public at the public comment session.”

Legislator Bill Gouldman, R-Putnam Valley, said he agreed with his colleagues in theory, but not everything goes through committee first.

“We’re discussing all day the legislative manual, which did not go through committee first,” he said. “If everything went through committee first, we would not have to have this discussion in the full. But we all know everything doesn’t go through committee first. Somethings go right to the full. How do you vet things? How do you get opinions at the full? You can’t.”

Legislator Erin Crowley, R-Mahopac, who introduced the resolution to extend public comment at the full Legislature meetings, reinforced this sentiment.

“Not everything is done through committee, so if we’re going to consider removing (public comment) from the full, we’d also have to remove putting any new business on the full agenda because that wouldn’t allow us to have the conversation that would allow the public to chime in and have the conversation.”

Crowley said guidelines can be set regarding time limits and content, to make sure public comment on an agenda item prior to a vote is concise, focused, and orderly. This, she said, would provide a positive environment for more discussion and help lawmakers make better informed decisions.

“Citizens can use their voices being heard in an effective way, which enhances trust in government,” said Crowley.

Legislator Nancy Montgomery, D-Philipstown, said she’s disappointed the resolution codifying public comment that was passed through committee in February was pulled from the March full meeting, and is again being debated.

“The precedent has been set by this Legislature, and this Legislature cannot be trusted to allow public comment on the policies you put forward,” she said. “You’ve put policies forward and pushed them through at the full Legislature meetings without public comment, so we know the public doesn’t always have an opportunity to speak on very important issues that affect them directly.”

Legislator Toni Addonizio, R-Kent, clarified that the lawmakers are not looking to restrict public comment as it now stands.

“I just don’t want anyone to be under the impression that we’re stifling anyone,” she said. “Nobody’s ever stifled, all the years I’ve been here.”

However, Addonizio noted that some people attend the full Legislature meetings without having attended or watched the committee meetings, and want to ask questions that have already been answered or rehash debate that’s already taken place.

“If we want to have discussions, it should be in the committee,” she said.

Legislator Paul Jonke, R-Southeast, said that if comment was allowed on each agenda item at a full meeting, the night would be endless.

“The business of this Legislature gets done in the committee – tonight’s a perfect example,” he said. “We had two agenda items that probably went at least an hour each. We do have seven committees, so logistically if we’re going to allow public comment at the full meeting, we’re probably going to have to start the meeting sometime in the early afternoon.”

Jonke encouraged the Legislature to codify all the public comment it wants – just not at the full meetings. “No one was limited in the time they were allowed to speak tonight,” he said. “I don’t think we’ve ever put a time limit on public comment.”

Resident Brett Yarris said amending the legislative manual to require the allowance of public comment provides residents with reassurance.

“If it doesn’t go to committee and goes right to the full, the public is bypassed,” he said of certain resolutions. “If it does go to the full … you guys can just take it off the agenda altogether. So why codification is so important is it protects the public’s ability to have a voice in this.”

Further, Yarris said the resolution makes sure no “bad actors” can come along in the future and find loopholes to take those protections away from the public.

“If there’s a topic that comes up that’s under extreme public scrutiny and you say, you know what, we’re going to bypass the committee on this because we don’t want the public to know, we don’t want the public to be involved, we’re going to bypass the committee and we’re going to go right to the full body … well now the public has been completely bypassed,” he said. “This isn’t about what you do, it’s about what you can do.”