Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Meetings Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Marys Council tables proposed public-comment ordinance after sharp public objections
Summary
Following a large turnout and multiple public comments opposing new rules on public remarks — including requiring street addresses, emergency-ordinance status, and a five-minute limit — the council voted to table Ordinance 202504.
The St. Marys City Council voted to table Ordinance 202504 after multiple residents raised privacy and free-speech concerns and urged the council to delay or discard the proposal.
Residents who spoke during the public-comment period said the draft ordinance would require speakers to provide a street address and would treat the measure as an emergency ordinance, shortening the period for public legal challenge. Judy Wayne, a resident who addressed the council, said, “I don't think that I would like to give my home street address just to stand up and talk to my council members.” Wayne also warned that labeling the measure an emergency ordinance “takes away the public's right to rescind that ordinance,” a point she said council members did not fully understand.
Other speakers voiced similar concerns about privacy and limits on public participation. An attendee identified only as Sandy said she opposed the five-minute cap because she sometimes needs additional time to ask follow-up questions. Julie Spearman said the ordinance “is invading our privacy” and urged the council to drop it. John Burglar and several other speakers described worries about how minutes and committee records are handled and criticized a perceived decline in public engagement.
After the public comments, Councilmember Buck said he would move to table the ordinance to give the council time to address the concerns raised by residents. Buck made the motion to table; Councilmember Childery seconded. When members voted to table, six members raised hands in favor and one member (Mister Viscero) was recorded as opposed; the mayor announced the motion carried.
Council members said they had not previously seen this level of turnout on a single proposed ordinance and acknowledged the need for more public discussion. The ordinance will be set aside pending further review; the council did not adopt the proposed public-comment rules at this meeting.
