Testy exchanges as Tacoma council votes to change controversial community forum
In a rare split vote, the Tacoma City Council approved a controversial set of changes to its community-forum rules and procedures.
Community forum has for years provided an opportunity for Tacoma residents to speak directly to their City Council members at council meetings, with fewer constraints than each meeting’s regular public-comment period. The forums are only occasionally well-attended, but the prospect of changing or scaling back the forums in March resulted in backlash from a small but vocal group of opponents.
The community-forum changes voted in at the June 9 council meeting didn’t radically alter city policy. But the possibility of doing so drew about 15 commenters who urged the council to vote against the changes. No commenters spoke in favor of them.
It resulted in a rare split vote by the council and a sometimes tense discussion as some members indirectly criticized each other – another rare occurrence among a group that typically praises each other for the work done to achieve consensus ahead of such votes.
What changes did the council approve?
The changes double the duration of community forum and the speaking time for each speaker, up to two hours from one and up to three minutes from 90 seconds.
The changes also allow the option for community forum to take place outside city hall and instead at gathering spaces in Tacoma’s neighborhood council districts. An early draft suggested completely removing the forums from city hall.
The changes reduce the frequency of community forum from twice per month to once per month, and specifically state that disruptive conduct during community forum and public comment is not allowed. The changes also give the presiding officer during community forum the authority to call a recess of up to 10 minutes in the event of particularly disruptive conduct and to adjourn the meeting if the recess doesn’t stop the disruption.
The council took such actions at a meeting in February after protestors calling for federal immigration authorities to leave the city refused to stop cheering and clapping before and after speakers during community forum. Mayor Anders Ibsen called for a brief recess. When council members returned to the dais, he told attendees that, if they didn’t adhere to the no-clapping rule, he would end community forum and adjourn the meeting.
What did the council have to say about it?
The measure passed by a majority voice vote. Council members did not request a roll call vote – which would require them to each state their votes for the record. City spokesperson Maria Lee said city staff were confirming how each council member voted after the meeting but could not do so prior to The News Tribune’s publishing deadline. Council Member Sarah Rumbaugh initially moved to table the resolution, but with only the support of colleagues Olgy Diaz, John Hines and Latasha Palmer the measure failed 5-4.
Hines said he could propose amendments to the resolution that could better address some concerns that commenters raised but he didn’t think it was the “time or place” to do so.
Council Member Joe Bushnell said he wanted to approve the changes because they allowed for more flexibility with where community forum could take place. He said prior to joining the council he worked until 9 p.m. at a warehouse and couldn’t attend events like community forum. He said he supported the changes because they would make community forum more accessible to people who don’t work a traditional 9-5 job.
Council Member Jamika Scott said the resolution was a step in the right direction. But she also appeared to criticize others on the council, saying she was frustrated that they discussed tabling the measure.
“I feel like we could have gotten to a point where we had something in front of us that more people felt that they could support if people had engaged more earnestly in the conversation,” Scott said.
Diaz, who spoke after Scott, said she was voting against the changes because they weren’t “fully baked.” She also appeared to address Scott’s criticism, saying she requested a variety of amendments to the resolution when it came up at previous study session meetings but that they didn’t get incorporated into the final draft.
“I am not clear how else I could have gone about that besides voting to table it so that we could get to that dialogue,” she said.
What criticism did speakers have?
Speakers who urged the council to vote against approving the resolution said the changes would scale back opportunities for Tacoma residents to speak directly to their council members.
Speaker Marilyn Kimmerling said community forum at city hall has allowed her to learn more about the issues that other Tacoma residents face, especially those who don’t live near her. Moving community forum outside a central meeting place like city hall, she said, would eliminate that opportunity for her.
“I become more educated when I come into a full meeting of the City Council and the residents,” Kimmerling said. “How can I possibly know without hearing from the people that live there what their situations are and how I can help and support them?”
