Wohlgemuth: New rules to stifle public participation in city government

A democracy encourages and values civic engagement and participation. Conversely, a dictatorship discourages public participation by placing inane impediments to public input. These types of governance are not limited to the national arena; they apply to the local level as well. Consider the recent action by the Salisbury City Council president.

At the conclusion of a hastily scheduled 12/16 Special Meeting, city council president Doughty unilaterally announced changes to city council meetings effective January 2025 without any reason or explanation! His dictate included the following changes:

• Reducing the number of public council meetings from the current 4 per month to 2 per month
• Requiring that public comments be made in-person-only, thereby eliminating the current option to comment via Zoom BUT retaining that option for council members
• Reducing the time allowed for each citizen to publicly comment at meetings to only 2 minutes
• Changing procedures for individuals to comment at meetings by REQUIRING either:
• Online registration of intent to speak no later than noon on the day of the meeting, or
• Submission of handwritten registration before the 6 pm meeting start time

These changes are nothing short of a dictatorial attempt to STIFLE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION in city government! Curtailing options and imposing challenging obstacles before being allowed to publicly comment is a flashing red warning to citizens that their input is neither wanted nor important. By contrast, a democracy values and encourages civic engagement; it does not place inane limits and obstacles on public participation!

These changes indicate yet again that Doughty has ignored city regulations applicable to city council meetings! Regulation 2396, adopted 4/28/2014, governs the Salisbury City Council Regulations and Rules of Order. This resolution is the policy. There are procedures in place that must be followed to change it. Any changes must first be introduced as an amendment to the current resolution that governs city council meetings. Upon an amendment’s introduction at a work session, the public is allowed to comment. The amendment then moves to a legislative agenda as a numbered resolution, whereupon the public may again comment. Only then can the council vote on it and implement the changes!

To date, no new resolution has been proposed to amend the Salisbury City Council Regulations and Rules of Order!

These changes run afoul of just plain common sense when considering health impediments; transportation issues; or time constraints due to work, family, or illness, etc. that may preclude a citizen’s in-person attendance. Additionally, these changes pose constitutional challenges pertaining to First Amendment rights and Americans with Disabilities Act rights!

Doughty’s attempt to severely limit participation in local government is undemocratic, dictatorial, antithetical to transparency, and downright unconscionable.

Carolyn Wohlgemuth
Salisbury resident
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.