So, here are two questions that have caught the public’s attention in the past week: how much time should citizens be given to address the city council, or for that matter, how much time should council members have to speak at council meetings? And second, does the city have the power to exclude the use of municipal facilities from individuals and organizations?

The first of those questions ignited a shouting match Wednesday at the intergovernmental committee meeting as it moved to adopt new council rules. The heated exchange came to an abrupt end as the committee went into recess and three police officers showed up at council chambers.

The policy on the use of municipal facilities – in this case the community room in the Sawtooth Annex building – has been deemed as giving city officials “open-ended, completely unbridled discretion to determine” who uses the facility by Steven Brown, executive director of the  American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island.

“The city simply cannot give itself the authority to control a public forum in this arbitrary manner without infringing on basic free speech rights,” Brown writes in response to an inquiry made by Robert Cushman.

Cushman said Sunday he read the policy giving the city the power to select who can use the community room from the city’s website. Specifically, at issue is the phrase: “The office of the Mayor reserves the right to determine use of the rooms, to assess fees for use of the rooms, and to cancel or reschedule all arrangements, at its discretion, with or without cause or reason, and without liability.”

Cushman questioned the provision and penned a letter to the ACLU. He also raised the issue on his Facebook page, The Taxpayers’ Spin, learning from a reader that the library has the same policy. He believes the city should name a commission to review city policies regarding to use of its facilities.

Mayor Frank Picozzi is taking Brown’s interpretation under advisement, noting that essentially the same policy is used by the Warwick Public and the Providence Public Libraries. To his knowledge there have been no claims of denial of freedom of speech rights concerning use of city facilities.

Also, he believes the issue surfaced because the city refused to reserve the room for more than 20 meetings over the course of the year for the Warwick Taxpayers Association. Picozzi said municipal use of the room takes prescient and that he thinks booking in advance of a month by outside groups doesn’t work.   

In the case of the Community Room and the library, Cushman thinks “tweaking the policy” is all that’s needed.

More than a few tweaks were on the minds of those who spoke at the council meeting and Ward 5 Councilman Ed Ladouceur who introduced a barrage of rule amendments aimed at making them friendlier to public discourse. 

Setting the stage for verbal combat, McAllister prefaced the proposed rules as part of an overall effort to make the council more accessible to the public before the measure was brought up in committee. He spoke of how the rules would increase public comment from 15 to 30 minutes, giving each speaker a limit of five minutes and how the public is not afforded such a “unique” opportunity by Congress or the state General Assembly.

The committee recommended, and the council approved, increasing the limit for public speaking from 15 to 30 minutes although Rob Cote, the first of four speakers appearing before the committee, viewed the overall rules as an effort to stifle public input. Cindy Wilson, also a frequent member of the public to address the council, echoed much of what Cote said. Barry Cook, President of the Warwick Taxpayers Association, said the group is lobbying for passage of state “Good Government” legislation that would enhance public participation at both the council and school committee meetings in Warwick and throughout the state. New to addressing the council, Tina Langill applauded the live streaming of council meetings and suggested a means of remotely including the public through emailed comments and questions.

Is 5 minutes enough?

With his voice escalating, Cote questioned the rule to limit public comment to five minutes per speaker. He asked why a speaker couldn’t talk for longer if the full 30 minutes set aside for public comment hadn’t been used.

“This is what we deal with,” he charged McAllister, “You’re afraid to let the general public speak on the issues.”

Cote objected to speakers being interrupted with reminders of how much time they have left to speak.

McAllister tried to speak over Cote telling him he wouldn’t tolerate dragging the city clerk into the discussion. Cote insisted McAllister is looking to cut off comment. Finally, McAllister called for a five-minute recess and left the podium.

When the committee meeting resumed, in a lowered voice, Cote recommended the council adopt a monthly report on the status of the city’s structural budget deficit whether it’s $8 million, $11 million or $14 million. There was no comment from committee members or the council.

In an interview Friday, Ladouceur reviewed amendments he proposed but failed to reach a vote including giving speakers a maximum of 10 minutes if there was unused time leading up to the 30 minutes; that names of those signing up to speak be read off prior to the public session and identified as being present and that council members be given more than 10 minutes to address an issue.

“That’s outrageous,” Ladouceur said of an effort to “muzzle” him. He said he was elected to speak for the public and limiting his time is silencing the public. Ladouceur said he is not concerned how long the meeting takes… “we should take the time that it needs.”

“This isn’t about whether you [council members] about whether you like or dislike the message and the messenger,” he said

What really rankled Ladouceur, however, came when it was time to vote. Twice he had asked whether he would have the opportunity to comment before the vote and on both occasions he was assured that would be the case. Before calling for a vote, McAllister asked if there were any additional questions and there being none, he called for the vote. Ladouceur exploded. He wanted to know why he couldn’t comment, insisting a comment is not a question. After consulting with Council Solicitor William Walsh, McAllister let Ladouceur speak. The final slap came after the vote, when Ladouceur reasoned the change from 15 to 30 minutes for public comment was better than nothing. He asked that the vote be reconsidered so he could cast a yes vote. He was denied. The council rules passed by an 8 to 1 vote.