Coalition For Open Government weighs in on new rules for Niagara Falls City Council meetings

A police chase that began early Wednesday in Aurora ended with two people in custody after officers used a PIT maneuver to stop their vehicle along Interstate 25 near Arapahoe Road, authorities said.

Aurora police said the incident started around 1:30 a.m. when officers responded to a felony menacing call near 32nd Avenue and 32nd Place. Officers began following a red pickup truck eastbound on Colfax Avenue toward Interstate 225 when a white truck entered the chase area and tried to block them from reaching the initial suspect’s car.The chase continued south on I-225, where police said a man in the white truck began shooting at officers. Near Arapahoe Road, officers performed a PIT maneuver, causing the white truck to flip.Two occupants from the white truck were taken to a hospital with minor injuries and are now in custody. Police said a gun was recovered from the truck.

No officers were injured during the pursuit. Police are still searching for the suspects and the red truck involved in the initial felony menacing incident and have not yet identified them.

The investigation is ongoing, and authorities are asking anyone with information to contact the Aurora Police Department or Metro Denver Crime Stoppers.In an afternoon news conference, Aurora police officials provided updates on what happened that morning.

The initial call for the felony menacing charge came in around 1:30 a.m. near Sable Boulevard and East Colfax Avenue. Responding officers found a vehicle matching the description of the suspects’ vehicle from the 911 call, and a sergeant authorized a pursuit.

Once that car got on southbound I-225, the white truck joined the chase, with the driver positioning himself between the red truck and the pursuing officers.It passed 4-1, with the only “no” vote cast by Councilman Danta Myles, who told 2 on Your Side, “the voice of the people shouldn’t be muzzled.”

Let the people speak

“You are trying to restore some dignity and order to these meetings,” said one woman while addressing lawmakers, who lauded the measure as a means to restore decorum and civility in a society where some find that quite lacking.

However, most residents who spoke expressed disagreement.

“This is not about decorum or civility. It’s about control,” insisted one man, followed a woman who told the council, “you’re just trying to silence the people that you don’t want to answer to, and that’s wrong.”Niagara Falls is not alone among municipalities and school districts whose governing boards have in recent years adopted measures putting limits on time and topics residents can speak about at their public meetings, and whether they can expect an answer from their elected representatives.

Boards adopt rules for speaking

“I think this is part of a growing and unfortunate trend where local governments are putting restrictions on hearing from the public,” said attorney Paul Wolf, President Emeritus of the New York Coalition For Open Government. “Part of your job as an elected official is to hear from the public, and yes, sometimes that means you’re going to get criticized. But you know that comes with the job.”Wolf notes that municipal boards are allowed to set policies for their meetings and the participation of attendees.

“There is nothing in the open meetings law that says the public has a right to speak, which is crazy to me. There are several states that do mandate it, but New York is not one of them. The New York Coalition for Open Government believes it should be mandated, so they only allow public comments if they want to, and some communities don’t. Most do, and they are allowed to put rules and restrictions and a process in place,” he said. Loud and Passionate

“I attend a lot of public meetings, and at times people can become loud. At times, people can become passionate. But our whole democracy is based on people being loud and passionate. That’s what America is about,” Wolf said. “Certainly people cannot be advocating violence and there are some limits.

“But I think in general most elected officials are far too thin skinned and far too over-reactive in limiting what people can speak about, or saying don’t mention us by name, or don’t be critical about us. You know, I think it’s just going too far.”

In reviewing the policy adopted in Niagara Falls, Wolf found some areas of concern, although a three-minute time limit for speakers was not among them.

“I personally don’t have a problem with the time limit, and I think three minutes is reasonable,” Wolf said. “I think there needs to be limits and that people need to make their point succinctly so that others can be heard as well. But they were asking people to show up 10 minutes before the meeting starts to sign in, and I don’t see why that should be required. You should be able to sign in up until the time public comment begins, and even after they’ve exhausted the sign-in sheet, why not ask if there is anyone else that is interested in speaking?They also had a section in there about not airing your personal grievances.

Well, people take hitting a pothole personally. People take bad or unresponsive government personally. So yes, this is the time to air your grievances. And when your elected officials frame rules preventing you from verbally attacking people … one person’s verbal attack is another person’s passion and personal grievance, so I think that’s really open to some pretty broad interpretation.”