Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Board Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greenburgh board debates rules on responses and staff media protocol amid concerns about civility
Summary
Board members debated proposed rules limiting responses to public comments and a process for staff to coordinate media responses. Supporters said the measures protect staff and keep meetings orderly; opponents called it censorship and argued elected officials must be able to answer critics.
At the May 19 Greenburgh town board work session, members debated proposed rules that would limit board replies to public comments and channel official town responses through designated staff or counsel.
One board member said elected officials should be free to speak directly and insisted the public should decide at the ballot box: “We’re all independently elected, and we should be able to say whatever we want,” the supervisor said. Other members urged time limits, civility and adherence to rules adopted earlier in January to prevent meetings from derailing.
The deputy town attorney and other supporters described the proposal as standard procedure to protect staff and to coordinate official responses on town business: staff have sometimes felt pressured to respond immediately to media queries and may not have the information to do so accurately, the deputy town attorney said. Advocates framed the rule as neither censorship nor a limit on personal speech but as a way to prevent staff from being placed in difficult positions.
The discussion grew testy at points: board members argued over whether the policy addressed a specific negative news article and whether it would be used for political purposes. Participants acknowledged that adjustments to rules require majority support and that any change should be carefully written and brought back for review.
Outcome and next steps: members agreed to revisit and refine rule language at a future meeting, and one board member offered to draft suggested changes on time limits, rebuttal periods and meeting decorum for consideration.
