Decorum and free speech in local government
Trying to suppress speech results in the message you were trying to suppress getting amplified far more than it would have been had you just left it alone.
Printed in the Herald-Times, December 1, 2024
To the Editor:
It has always been a normal part of politics to examine the motivations of elected officials voting on legislation and budgets. Indiana law requires candidates for elective office to disclose conflict of interests if they are running for a "lucrative" position, and the threshold for a position to be designated as "lucrative" is very low. This applies to both state and local office. These transparency requirements, along with rules for when elected officials must recuse themselves from votes, are designed to prevent corruption and ensure that the citizens have all relevant information.
This is also something that is done informally through political debates. At a Bloomington City Council meeting last month, an employee of the Mayor's Office questioned two councilors' interest in a department's budget due to familial relationships. One of the targeted councilors then moved to impose more strict limitations on what can be said at council meetings under the guise of maintaining "decorum" at council meetings.
The problem with suppressing speech, through whatever means you seek to do it, is that the message you were trying to suppress winds up getting amplified far more than it would have been had you just left it alone. The controversy was covered in the Herald-Times, the Indiana Daily Student and the B Square Bulletin precisely because one city councilor had attempted to use procedural rules to stop such criticisms in the future.
The best solution, as with any debate over public policy and public funds, is full transparency. Instead of shutting down a deputy mayor making an argument about alleged conflict of interest, address the criticism directly and explain why there is no conflict or how it is being overblown. Allow both the public and city officials to make their arguments (while not allowing things like obscene language) and then address the argument openly. Invoking "Roberts Rules of Order" makes it look like a cover-up, not a legitimate attempt to increase civility in public discussions.