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.

<!--

-----------