Apache Junction City Council is considering to move the "call to the public" portion of regular meetings to the rear and will stop televising or streaming it online by the first week of July, city officials said.

City Attorney Joel Stern says he is anticipating the measure to be voted on and approved at council’s July 7 regular meeting. The council discussed the matter at a June 15 work session.

"This is just a discussion on it," he said in a phone interview June 16 of the work session. "It is not going to be voted on, until it has a public hearing. It is an ordinance."

The amendment to Chapter 2 of city code — which is being done with an emergency clause — allows the current council to change meeting procedure, according to the work session agenda.

"They (council) feel it is an emergency preservation of the community to get it done," Mr. Stern explained. "Does it have to be? That is up to the council; it is no one else’s decision."

According to state statute, when a city or town passes into law a new ordinance, that new city code becomes enforceable 30 days after the date of the public governing body approving it.

But when an emergency is declared — which in this case applies, Mr. Stern contends — the new city code as soon as it is approved by a three-fourths majority vote becomes a rule instantly. Three fourths majority is six of the seven members of council.

According to state statute, an emergency can be defined as "necessary for the immediate preservation of the peace, health or safety of the city or town."

Ordinance 1342, which is anticipated to be voted on during a public hearing 7 p.m. Tuesday, July 7 at City Hall, 300 E. Superstition Blvd., states, among other things, that "many individuals since October 2007 who spoke at ‘call to the public’ verbally attacked the mayor, city council, city manager, city attorney and other staff members with defamatory statements ..."

The proposed ordinance also states that council finds the new changes to how and when "call to the public" is allowed to be viewed or participated in as within the "best interest of the community."

Since the overwhelming defeat of the Nov. 4 recall election, which targeted five members of city council, a member of city council has made a motion each meeting to move "call to the public" to the end of the meeting.

Any member of the general public can speak during "call to the public," but is limited to three minutes of speaking time. There is no limit to how many members of the public may speak, according to city code.

According to Mr. Stern — and he says confirmed through state law — "call to the public" portions of council meetings are not a right, but rather a privilege that Mr. Stern says city council has been "generous" with.

"Oh hell yeah, you don’t even need to have one," he said of "call to the public" being a privilege and not a right of the people. "‘Call to the public’ is not a guarantee in any city or town."
Although Mr. Stern says the time set aside for public comment is not a right, city council is eager to hear input on community matters, but only constructive viewpoints.

"That is the whole point of ‘call to the public,’" he said. "The council wants to hear from the general public on matters within the city."

Mr. Stern says the proposed ordinance would be an administrative change to city code, which precludes any chance for a referendum challenging the validity of the measure.

If within 30 days of a new city code becoming ratified, a certain percentage of the electorate that elected the sitting council could sign petitions forcing a public vote on the matter, state statute states.

But since this ordinance is only an administrative action and is on an emergency basis, that course of action would not be possible, Mr. Stern said.

"It is the effective date; if you had 30 days then you could go refer the matter," Mr. Stern said of what an emergency clause attached to a city ordinance does. "We are not doing this to get around this rule."

Dan Barr, who is a First Amendment lawyer on retainer for the Arizona Newspaper Association, says that when it pertains to open meeting law an emergency clause is typically used when a public meeting must be scheduled with less than 24 hours of public notice.

Mr. Barr also explained that acts of God — such as earthquakes, floods or severe weather — are typical reasons for a city or town to enact an emergency measure.

"Whatever they are using it for, if they are giving it any more than 24 hours notice then I don’t know," he said in a phone interview. "Maybe they are changing the city code. I would look at that."

Liz Hill, assistant ombudsman for public access, which is an agency of the Arizona State Legislature specializing in complaints of violations of state law, agrees.

"They are probably basing it on what they are declaring an emergency," she said of how state statute can be interpreted. "Maybe that is the problem, it is that they are not being straight forward for what that provision is for."

Ms. Hill says there could be issue with how the city of Apache Junction is using the emergency provision for state statute referring to referendum petitions against municipal actions.

"They are changing something internally," she said. "One concern would maybe be what are they doing with those emergency clauses?"

During the June 15 work session Councilman Richard Dietz clarified that "call to the public" will still be recorded and available for anyone of the public to view, just not televised or streamed online at http://www.ajcity.net.

Mr. Stern explained that all "call to the public" request forms — if the new ordinance were to become the rule — must be given to the city clerk prior to the city manager’s report. A request form includes the person’s name, address and contact information.

The city manager’s report usually follows consideration of the consent agenda, awards and proclamations and any announcement of public events, according to recent meeting agendas.

"So, if I see somebody coming up and I stop real quickly, they’re too late?" City Manager George Hoffman jokingly asked at the June 15 work session while council chambers filled with laughter.

"That I would say is point of order, and that answer would be ‘yes’" Mr. Stern replied during the work session.

Councilwoman Robin Barker said she agrees with the change to meeting procedure.

"I like it," she quipped. "And I will be real quick with the point of order."