Decorum Changes Tabled Again After Residents and Council Members Question Their Purpose

By Ashton Seales

Proposed rules still fail to address the unruly gallery behavior originally cited as the reason for changing them

Marion City Council’s proposed decorum changes stalled once again Monday night after residents and council members raised a question that committee supporters have repeatedly struggled to answer:

What problem would these new rules actually solve?

The July 6 meeting of the Legislation, Codes, and Regulations Committee listed the proposed amendment to Rule 27 of Marion’s council rules as old business. The committee consists of Ralph Smith, Scott Crider and Dan Clark.

By the end of the discussion, two of the committee’s three members voted to table the measure rather than send it to the full City Council.

For now, the proposal will not advance.

Crider Questions the Language and the Timing

Council Member at Large Scott Crider signaled his opposition almost immediately, raising concerns about both the wording of the proposal and the timing of the effort.

Several residents then approached the podium to address the proposed changes.

One speaker focused on the difference between the words “may” and “shall” in language governing when the council member presiding over a meeting signals that someone may approach the podium.

That distinction is not merely grammatical.

“May” generally gives the presiding officer discretion. “Shall” generally creates a requirement. In rules controlling when citizens are permitted to approach and address their elected representatives, that difference matters.

Vague or discretionary language can be enforced differently depending on who is speaking, what that person is saying or who happens to be controlling the meeting.

Marion Already Has Decorum Rules

Other residents returned to the central problem with the proposal: Marion City Council has operated under established procedural and decorum rules for years.

The responsibility for maintaining order already belongs to the council member leading the meeting and, during regular council sessions, the president of council.

Residents questioned what rewriting or duplicating those rules would accomplish when the existing rules are not consistently enforced.

A new ordinance cannot force leadership to lead.

A new paragraph in the city code will not solve selective enforcement, hesitation from the chair or an unwillingness to address disruptions when they occur. If council leadership refuses to use the authority it already possesses, providing that same authority in slightly different language changes nothing.

The problem is not necessarily that Marion lacks rules.

The problem may be that those responsible for enforcing them have chosen not to do so.

The Missing Gallery Rules

Another resident asked committee members to explain a glaring contradiction that has followed the proposal since the decorum debate began.

Council Member Dan Clark previously cited unruly conduct from people seated in the gallery as a reason for pursuing new rules.

Yet the proposed changes do not appear to establish any new standards specifically addressing gallery members.

The resident asked why the stated reason for the proposal was disruptive audience behavior when the proposed ordinance did not address audience behavior.

No direct answer was provided.

The resident then asked the equally important question:

Why now?

The response received was:

“If not now, when?”

But that is not an explanation of necessity.

It does not identify a deficiency in the existing rules. It does not explain what conduct the proposed language would prevent. It does not reconcile the original complaints about the gallery with an ordinance that fails to address the gallery.

“If not now, when?” assumes that the changes are necessary without first demonstrating why they are necessary.

Rollins: Codification Will Not Fix a Failure to Enforce

Council Member at Large Aaron Rollins approached the podium and echoed many of the same concerns raised by residents.

Rollins noted that the procedures council is attempting to codify are already available through its existing rules and Robert’s Rules of Order.

He also questioned what codification would accomplish if council leadership remains unwilling to enforce those standards.

Most importantly, Rollins returned to the proposal’s unexplained contradiction: the alleged conduct that started the discussion involved residents in the gallery, but the proposed ordinance does not address that conduct.

The committee was therefore being asked to advance legislation that did not appear to solve the problem used to justify its creation.

Frustration Is Not an Answer

Clark appeared increasingly agitated as residents and fellow council members continued questioning the proposal.

At one point, he threw himself backward in his chair in apparent frustration during the discussion.

What remained missing, however, was a clear explanation of why the changes were needed.

Visible frustration does not answer the public’s questions. Neither does repeating that the matter should be addressed simply because it has been discussed for several months.

When elected officials propose restrictions or additional controls affecting public participation, the burden should be on them to explain the specific problem, demonstrate why existing rules are inadequate and show how the proposed language directly addresses that problem.

That case was not made Monday night.

Two Members Vote to Table

A motion was eventually considered to move the proposed decorum changes forward to the full City Council.

Two of the three committee members instead chose to table the measure.

Tabling the proposal does not permanently defeat it. Committee members may bring it back for additional discussion or revision.

But it prevents the measure, in its current form, from advancing to council.

That matters.

The City’s official recording of the July 6 committee meetings is publicly available through its Facebook page.

Rules Cannot Replace Leadership

Marion City Council already possesses the authority to maintain order during its meetings.

The presiding officer can recognize speakers, enforce time limits, address actual disruptions and apply established rules without creating vague new provisions that may be used inconsistently.

If gallery conduct is the concern, council should explain why and propose language directly addressing gallery conduct.

If podium speakers are the concern, council should identify the specific behavior that existing rules cannot address.

If the real problem is inconsistent enforcement, council should acknowledge that changing the ordinance will not fix it.

Public meetings belong to the public. Reasonable rules may be necessary to allow government business to proceed, but those rules must be clear, narrowly applied and connected to actual disruptions - not discomfort with criticism.

For one more night, unanswered questions were enough to stop this proposal from moving forward.

It was not a permanent victory.

But it was another small victory for free speech.