Muncie residents press council to reverse public-comment changes as council debates filing rules

MUNCIE — Dozens of residents who filled the council chamber urged the Muncie City Common Council on Monday to restore public-comment procedures they said will silence civic input.

Speakers told the council they opposed several rule changes introduced in January by Council President Jeff Green: moving public comment to the start of meetings, cutting speakers’ time from three minutes to two, and restricting comment when ordinances are introduced. "Removing comment from the public for the introduction of an ordinance seems counterproductive," said Elizabeth Riddle, a long-time Muncie resident, arguing oral input during introduction can surface useful ideas councilors had not anticipated.

Other speakers echoed concerns about safety and access. "I don't have an address to give out," Daisy Dale said after the council temporarily rolled back a requirement that podium speakers state their full home address. Joseph Souza, who testified earlier this year at the State House, warned the proposed changes could be illegal and "gonna get you sued," saying the new rules made it harder for residents to sign up and participate.

The public-comment period consumed more than an hour, with residents of different neighborhoods urging the council to keep comment at the end of meetings and to preserve a three-minute limit. Jackson Franklin, a combat medic and paramedic who said he lives in District 3, told the council, "Public comment is democracy in action," and urged restoring opportunities for residents to respond to matters after they are discussed.

Separately, the council debated Ordinance 3-26, which would reorganize section 32.39 of the Muncie code and tighten procedural prerequisites for filing ordinances and resolutions. Council members described the measure as a clarification to ensure ordinances presented to the council carry an explicit sponsor signature and have been approved for form by legal counsel. Councilman Roe Selby said the ordinance would "build public trust in the council and our city government."

A contentious amendment proposed adding the city controller as a required signer for ordinances. Supporters said the controller's review could help catch financial implications; opponents warned it could blur separation between legislative and executive functions. "Adding the controller to every ordinance could allow an executive office to block council-sponsored legislation," a resident told the council during debate.

Council discussion included several procedural challenges, motions to amend, and a brief recess as members and the city clerk debated drafting language and the meaning of "or" versus "and" in the filing provisions. Legal counsel clarified that section b of the draft relates to filing—who may forward a signed and attorney-reviewed ordinance to the clerk—whereas paragraph a addresses approval for form.

Council action on Ordinance 3-26 included votes on multiple amendments; the transcript records several roll-call exchanges and a motion to adopt "as amended." The public meeting closed with that item still the subject of active procedural discussion and multiple recorded votes. The council moved on afterward to several other matters, including police salaries and zoning resolutions.

What comes next

Council members said they would continue deliberations and that certain procedural clarifications could be revised after consulting the clerk and legal counsel. Several public speakers urged that any final rules be posted in advance and go through a transparent public-comment and voting process so residents can respond before changes take effect.