Spokane City Council reconsiders limiting open forum after backlash

In the face of criticism, the Spokane City Council has punted on a vote on major changes to public comment at council meetings until Jan. 22.

Among a number of changes, the proposal sponsored by Council President Betsy Wilkerson would have dedicated one meeting per month for open forum testimony, ending the practice at each weekly meeting. During this time, the public is able to talk about any issue not currently up for consideration or a vote, such as unaddressed problems facing the city or a previous Council action that the speaker believes was a mistake.

Currently, 15 people are able to speak at each week’s meeting for up to 2 minutes apiece, with priority given to the first to sign up and those who have not spoken at a prior meeting that month. The proposal would allow up to 40 people to speak during a monthly open forum instead, still for 2 minutes each.

The proposed changes came in response to recent organized testimony by pro-Palestinian activists who disagree with an Oct. 9 resolution in support of Israel. The lion’s share of slots during open forum have frequently been taken up by opponents to this resolution in recent months.

On Monday, several of the same residents opposed to the Oct. 9 resolution testified in opposition to the proposed changes, arguing that they limited the public’s ability to speak to their elected representatives.

Initially, Wilkerson expected the proposal to pass. During a Monday committee meeting, however, Spokane City Council Policy Director Chris Wright noted that the mood had since shifted.

“The consensus I’m hearing is we’re going to keep open forum every Monday night,” Wright said.

In a Monday text, Wilkerson noted that the public’s response to the proposal had “not been favorable,” and that the City Council was now considering shifting the open forum from the beginning of Monday meetings to the end, allowing legislative items to be voted on and addressed by the public earlier in the night.

That adjustment may be among the changes voted on in two weeks. Additionally, the City Council will consider banning the public from standing during meetings. A number of audience members, who already are not allowed to cheer or boo, frequently stand in support of speakers during open forum or turn their backs in opposition.

“This is not simply because we don’t like people standing up, this is disruptive, not just to council, but also to the audience, who have to figure out how to watch the council when someone is standing up in front of them,” Wright said Monday.

Justice Forral, an activist with Spokane Community Against Racism who has been an organizer for the pro-Palestine opposition to the council’s Oct. 9 resolution, said that the rule change seemed to be an attempt to quash dissent.

“Just like when people kneel for the flag, it’s a way for us to express something silently, politely, without disruption,” Forral said. “ It’s just interesting that the moment we start to use our rights, they try to get around them.”

The City Council also is considering allowing members of the public to testify anonymously, among other changes to public testimony rules. Previously, speakers were required to give their first and last names. Councilmembers had clashed last summer with Dave Miller, who signed up repeatedly as “Dave M” and declined to give his last name, spending several minutes on multiple occasions deciding whether to allow him to testify.

In August, Miller had filed an ethics complaint against then-Council President Breean Beggs and a number of councilmembers claiming that his rights had been infringed, though he withdrew weeks later after the recently appointed Council President Lori Kinnear agreed to allow him to testify without providing his full name.

“I chose not to pursue that for anyone because it became more of an issue than felt it was worth at the time, and we had bigger things to consider than Dave using his last name,” Kinnear, whose term on the council ended late last year, said in a recent interview.

However, Kinnear maintained that requiring the speakers to provide their full names was important.

“It was very much about people being on the record for whatever they were saying, and when you’re anonymous, the weight of what you say is greatly diminished,” Kinnear said. “You don’t have the courage of your convictions.”

She conceded that the council had no process to verify a speaker’s name, and recalled when someone signed up as “Chuck Roast.”