Michigan City council’s proposal to remove ‘communications’ from agenda draws sharp public criticism

Council President Tillman pushed forward an ordinance that would remove routine "communications" — written correspondence received and announced by the clerk — from the formal order of business for Michigan City Common Council meetings, prompting extensive public comment and heated debate on May 19.

Supporters of keeping the existing practice said the brief read-aloud creates a visible, real-time acknowledgment that citizens’ letters and emails reached the council. "Including communications in the order of business creates a visible real time acknowledgment that written correspondence has been received," said John Carrington during the public-comment period. "Striking communications means important letters, data and concerns from residents...can be quietly filed away without any public acknowledgement."

Multiple residents urged the council to reject the change. Kyle Ratliff said removing the item would be "an unnecessary restriction on public input that reduces transparency and accountability in our local government," and Dominic Yankee told the council the proposal looked like an effort to avoid public scrutiny because it was introduced on a primary election day.

Council members who spoke in opposition said removing the item would weaken public trust. Councilman Paul Przybalinski said he had not heard any public comment in favor of the change and called the communications entry "about transparency" and something that had been in the city code for decades.

The sponsor, Council President Tillman, defended the move as a response to repeated abusive, defamatory and threatening correspondence received by council members over several years. Tillman said the communications would still be filed and available to council members and the public through the clerk’s office, but the short, routine acknowledgment on the meeting agenda created inefficiencies and sometimes involved material that was "not for council." "This isn’t silencing anyone," Tillman said, arguing the city already makes records available and that the measure was about meeting flow and staff time.

The dispute focused on whether availability under public-records law is an adequate substitute for a visible, agenda-level acknowledgment. Supporters of the existing practice said the on-agenda mention signals public input in real time, even if no council action follows. Opponents of the practice said the clerk still distributes and file-stamps correspondence and the council will continue to receive it.

After hours of public comment and council discussion, the ordinance was carried forward for third reading, preserving an opportunity for further amendment and debate at a future meeting. No final policy change was adopted at the May 19 session.

What happens next: The ordinance will return for third reading, when sponsors and opponents can propose changes or the council can vote to adopt, amend or reject the measure.