 |
FREEDOM OF SPEECH: The right to express one's thoughts and opinions without government restriction, as guaranteed by the First Amendment
(Black's Law Dictionary).
The appointment of a Task Force to study Agri-tourism was the issue addressed.(see Eureka Engages an Agri-tourism Task Force.) Task Force candidates were present in the audience.
In my opinion Mr. Otto's presentation, based on his expertise and experience, was submitted with the best of intentions. It was certainly worthy of serious consideration by the Town Board members and the Task Force and was not intended to be a threat
.
On October 20 Supervisor Ceminsky sent a written statement to the Township Board and Task Force making the following statements.
"While I appreciate Jeff Otto's knowledge, I believe it is the Board of Supervisors who are directingthe committee on Agri-tourism. I do not recall where the Board authorized Mr. Otto to be giving direction to the Agri-tourism committee. Second, why is this (Mr. Otto's written comments) being sent to the committee before it is reviewed by the Board of Supervisors? As at this point we have not authorized the use of a planner or the expenditure of any funds for this committee. If Mr. Otto is going to be directing the committee without the authorizatiuon of the Board of Supervisors, why did we setup a committee in the first place? It seems
Mr. Otto does not have confidence that the committee is going to see things his way. The committee was established to review the information that has been presented to the Township up to this point, and for them to come back with what they have for recommendations to the Board based off of what the committee has reviewed. As a Supervisor of Eureka township, I feel that the input from Mr. Otto is inappoppriate, as it was not directed by the Board of Supervisors and the Agri-tourism committee has not submitted any reports to the Board as of today. To continue, I feel we need to let the Agri-tourism committee move forward as I have confidence that they will do the job presented to them without outside influence." (emphasis is mine)The Eureka Policy on Citizen Input and Conduct at Township Meetings states:
"Citizens are welcome and encouraged to attend any and all meetings of the Township Board of Supervisors. To allow Township citizens and members of the general public the opportunity to provide input and comments on Township related issues. Individuals or groups wishing to address the Township Board are encouraged to complete an Agenda Request Form and request that an item be put on the agenda for discussion at a regular Township Board Meeting."
The policy also requests that anyone bringing written materials to the meeting have seven copies available; five for the Board, one for the public and one for the official record. Mr. Otto followed the proper procedure and requested the Township clerk to add his name to the agenda.Is Supervisor Ceminsky suggesting that the information presented by Mr. Otto will be utilized by the Board and Task Force, but only if they agree with the content?
I believe freedom of speech means the freedom to communicate ideas without unwarranted government suppression and restriction and to protect the individual's ability to think and express one's thoughts; not to control. Does anyone find this applicable when referring to Supervisor Ceminsky's comments above? Supervisor Ceminsky has taken the liberty to exercise freedom of speech; I believe he should respect every other citizen's right to do so as well. I also believe criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. What are your thoughts?
Freedom of speech, sure. But what does this say about Mark Ceminsky? I don't always agree with Jeff Otto, but I'll say this: he's a smart guy, he does his homework, and he's as honest as they come. I tend to trust people until they give me reason to distrust them. By wanting to silence Jeff Otto, Mark Ceminsky has earned my distrust. I am now suspicious of everything he does or says.
ReplyDeleteIf I could predict the near future, I believe it is possible the policy regarding citizen input at Board meetings will be amended to eliminate citizen ability to speak at Board meetings. An amendment to the policy should involve a majority vote by Board members and not a single act by the Chair. Would this be considered unwarranted Government suppression of speech?
ReplyDelete