Dunn County Board could limit certain comments to public hearings
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By LeAnn R. Ralph
MENOMONIE — A new ordinance being considered by the Dunn County Board would eliminate public comments at county board meetings on topics that were part of a public hearing which has already been held.
The purpose of the public comments portion of a meeting is for members of the public to bring issues to the attention of the county board or the committees so those issues can be referred to committees or to the county manager, said Nick Lange, Dunn County corporation counsel, at the Dunn County Board’s September 18 meeting.
The proposed ordinance, which came before the county board September 18 for a first reading, creates parameters and sets up rules for public comments, he said.
Public comment also is not a way for the public to “interrogate board members,” Lange noted.
During the rezone process, the Planning, Resources and Development Committee holds a public hearing on the proposed zoning change that allows members of the public to speak for or against the proposed rezone.
The PR&D committee is a “deliberative” body using a quasi-judicial process to make a decision on whether to recommend that the county board approve the rezone, Lange said.
Without the proposed ordinance in place, what happens now is that members of the public come to the county board to advocate for — or to speak against — “something that has already been adjudicated,: he said.
In other words, people are making comments at county board meetings on topics that were already the subject of a public hearing that has been closed.
“It is not fair to speak on public hearing topics during public comments,” Lange said.
The pertinent section of the proposed ordinance reads, “Public comment will not be permitted on proposed actions for which a public hearing has previously been held, including for amendments of the county zoning ordinance, or for political campaigning. Personnel issues shall not be raised during public comment, but should be directed in writing to the County Manager.”
Candidates
Carl Vandermeulen, county board supervisor from Menomonie, wondered why political campaigns were eliminated from public comments by the proposed ordinance.
“It’s important for people to run for office, so why not?” he asked.
In the past five or six years, department heads running for public office have used their report time to have a lengthy political speech, Lange noted.
The Dunn County Board is “politically neutral,” and county board meetings are not a campaign format, said Paul Miller, county manager.
Gary Stene, county board supervisor from Colfax, noted the proposed ordinance also would preclude candidates from introducing themselves — “I’m so and so, and I’m running for …”
Stene wondered if there would be a way to limit people to only introducing themselves as candidates running for a particular position without allowing them to make a political speech.
Lange said he would take a look at crafting language for the proposed ordinance that would allow political candidates to introduce themselves.
Mike Kneer, county board supervisor from Menomonie, said he wanted political campaigning taken out of the section pertaining to prior public hearings and personnel issues.
Lange assured Kneer he would work on drafting some new language for the ordinance.
Public hearing
Mike Rogers, county board supervisor from Menomonie, said that since the Dunn County Board does not hold public hearings, county board members would not hear the testimony given at a public hearing.
Rogers said he wanted the opportunity to hear from the public.
‘I think it’s unfair and unrealistic,” he said.
Zoning changes are delegated to the PR&D committee, Miller said.
If every county board member should hear the testimony, then the Dunn County Board should hold the public hearings, he said.
When members of the public speak about a public hearing topic as part of public comments at the county board meeting, it is a violation of due process, Miller said.
The public comments at the county board meeting allows the public hearing to continue with no witnesses under oath, as they are in a public hearing before the PR&D committee, no cross examination and no way to “vet” the information, he said.
The county board should either conduct the public hearings or delegate the matter to a committee to gather evidence and testimony, Miller said.
The Dunn County Board makes the decision “on the record of the public hearing and not on the testimony,” he said.
The public often does not know what their limits are at a public meeting, noted James Tripp, county board supervisor from Menomonie.
If the ordinance is adopted and people must speak on a public hearing topic only at a public hearing, they will “be upset they can’t address the county board,” he said.
Communication
The proposed ordinance does not prevent members of the public from communicating with county board members, Miller said.
Members of the public can talk to county board members either by telephone or in a face-to-face meeting, he said.
County board members are here to serve the public, and the county board should not “squash” their ability to speak, Rogers said.
The proposed ordinance does not eliminate public comments, Lange said.
For some matters, such as those that have been the subject of a public hearing, public comment at county board meetings is inappropriate, he said.
It is not fair for Party A to present more evidence to the county board that was not presented at the public hearing, and Party B does not know about Party A’s additional testimony because Party B could not attend the board meeting, Lange said.
The Dunn County Board can remand agenda items back to the PR&D to re-hear testimony under oath and with cross examination. The county board can send the item back to the PR&D committee to reopen the public hearing, Miller said.
The Dunn County Board is expected to vote on the proposed ordinance at the October board meeting.
