Resident told comments on Pittsfield City’s new surveillance ordinance ‘are not for tonight’
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
During public comment at a Pittsfield City meeting, a resident who identified himself with two name variants was instructed that remarks about the city’s recently enacted surveillance ordinance would not be accepted that evening; an unidentified speaker earlier referenced allegations and systemic failures.
At a Pittsfield City public meeting, a resident who identified himself in the record as “Peter Mercat” (the transcript also renders his name as “Peter Marquette”) was told that comments about the city’s recently enacted surveillance ordinance were not for that night’s public comment period.
An unidentified speaker earlier in the public comment period made a closing remark about ongoing allegations, saying the issue involved “the system that gave them power to protect future generations” and called for changes to prevent others from suffering similar harms. The speaker concluded, “Thank you very much.”
The resident identified as Peter gave his town of residence as Monterey and provided an address after being asked: “I live in Monterey,” and then “46 Harmon Road.” He then began to raise a question about whether comments made before the public comment period applied to the topic at hand, and was told that remarks about the newly enacted surveillance ordinance were not being accepted that evening. The exchange ended with the resident acknowledging the procedural instruction.
No formal motion, vote, or ordinance text was read or debated during the segments covered in the transcript. There is no recorded formal action on the surveillance ordinance in these segments; the transcript only captures the procedural direction that discussion of that ordinance was off the table for that meeting’s public comment period.
The meeting record shows limited public-comment activity in these segments: an unidentified speaker’s concluding statement about alleged wrongdoing and systemic issues, and a procedural exchange in which a resident who gave a name and address was told his intended comments about surveillance were not appropriate for that night’s public comments. The transcript does not include details of the surveillance ordinance itself, any staff explanation of why comments were restricted, or any subsequent opportunity to speak on that subject.