89.9 FM Live From The University Of New Mexico
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations
We are accountable for the content we produce. And we believe in being transparent about the flaws in our reporting and what we've done to rectify those flaws. When a story includes inaccurate information, we make changes to both the audio and the online versions of the story. We may also add crucial information that we believe should be included in the story. We indicate that these changes have been made with an Editor's Note or a Correction online. We may broadcast a correction in some circumstances or follow up with additional reporting.Questions? Comments?Contact KUNM News Director Elaine Baumgartel.

Legislature May Require Public Comment

opensourceway via Flickr
Creative Commons License

You may not want to listen to your nutty neighbor badger the city council about chemtrails or aliens, First Amendment advocates say allowing public comments—even wacky comments—is essential. A bill moving through the state Legislature would make it the law.

The proposal (HB 378), sponsored by state Rep. James E. Smith (R-Sandia Park) and Sen. Daniel A. Ivey- Soto (D-Albuquerque) adds one sentence to the Open Meetings Act: “A public body shall provide an opportunity for oral public comment on matters within the authority of the public body."                      

The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government is behind the bill.  

“We really don’t have a democracy if we’re not allowed to say things that are contrary to the actions of our elected officials,” Executive Director Susan Boe said Monday. “We really need to welcome this messiness that we call democracy.”

Critics of the bill are concerned that allowing public comment periods may take up too much time and perhaps even require them to meet more often.

But the current wording is a compromise that gives officials leeway to determine how long the comment period will be, how long each person will be able to talk—and how often the comment period will be offered, Boe said.

Although the state Open Meetings Act dictates that “all persons desiring shall be permitted to attend and listen to the deliberations and proceedings,” but it doesn’t  require the government to allow members of the public to share their opinions on the matters at hand.

Several public bodies have tried to limit public input by banning criticism or negative comments altogether. When the Village of Ruidoso created a policy than banned “any negative mention . . . of any Village personnel, staff, or of the Governing Body” in public comments, a federal court declared the policy an unconstitutional restriction of free speech because it allowed praise but not criticism.

Another recent court decision reprimanded an effort by the Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education to limit the speech of a persistent gadfly—but also pointed out the gap in the law, noting “the Legislature has not designated public meetings as public forums for speech or debate by attendees.”

The discussion of public meetings comes during Sunshine Week, a national initiative to promote dialogue on the importance of open government and freedom of information.

The House is expected to vote on the bill early this week. It would then have only a few days to get through the Senate before the 2015 Legislative session wraps on Saturday.

Correction: Daniel Ivey-Soto is a state senator, not a state representative, as  this story originally reported. We regret the error

This story is part of a reporting partnership between New Mexico In Depth, KUNM and NMPBS, People, Power and Democracy, that attempts to pull back the curtain on how the New Mexico Legislature works and, in some cases, doesn’t. It's funded by the Thornburg Foundation and the Loeks Family Fund.

Related Content