Forum Regulars Want Their Live TV Time Four Show Up At First Session Without Cameras; Second Session Draws No One
The Spokane City Council calls it a public forum.
This week there wasn’t any public for a forum.
The council last month bounced the free-form, complaint-and-compliment session from live TV, outraging critics who call the action censorship.
During the first forum without cameras, all four people who spoke denounced the new format.
No one participated in the second unaired session last Monday - leaving council members with 30 minutes of lag time before the regular meeting began.
During the break, Mayor Jack Geraghty teased Councilman Chris Anderson for saying he didn’t think taking the session off TV would lessen public input.
“I guess I’ll have to eat my words,” Anderson said, adding with a laugh he’d bring along some hot sauce.
Frequent forum speaker George McGrath said he’s staying away because he’s incensed by the attitudes of a few council members.
“It seems our city government is electing to run by the idea ‘Don’t give us input because we’re not interested in it,”’ McGrath said.
“It’s not really a boycott,” he said. “I’m just staying away for a while to give others an opportunity to express their views.”
Other forum regulars say they’re staying away from the forum while they work to get it back on the air.
The way it is right now, talking to the council is futile, said resident Jonathan Swanstrom.
About 20 people met Wednesday with the city’s Cable Advisory Board to see what that committee could do to reverse the council’s decision.
After nearly two hours of testimony and discussion, the eight-member board voted unanimously to recommend the council return the forum to the air, said Anderson, a board member. He added that the recommendation is strictly advisory.
Last summer, the council moved the forum from its normal spot at the end of meetings to the beginning in hopes of drumming up a variety of public comment. They also decided to televise the previously unaired segment.
Some council members complained the combination was a dismal failure that attracted only a few people who came back repeatedly with the same gripes, tirades and threats.
The council voted 4-3 to take the forum off the air Jan. 23 but keep it at the start of meetings.
Council member Roberta Greene drafted the resolution favored by colleagues Phyllis Holmes, Orville Barnes and Mike Brewer.
In an effort to partially appease camera fans, the council voted unanimously to hold four televised “town hall” meetings.
At Wednesday’s cable advisory meeting, Swanstrom said some council members wanted the forum off TV because they didn’t like to hear dissenting opinions.
“They cited as reasons that some people spoke too often and they didn’t like the content of their speech,” Swanstrom said.
But Holmes said the council doesn’t fear its critics.
“Criticism is good if it’s constructive,” she said. “Condemnation is what we’re hearing … And having it on TV has nothing to do with what we’re going to hear.”
Swanstrom said taking the forum off the air keeps other residents from hearing about city concerns.
“It’s my right … to be able to listen to the testimony on (City Cable 5),” he said, adding that a heart condition often keeps him away from council chambers.
Pete Powell said he’d never spoken at the forum but watches it nearly every week. “I do not want to lose the opportunity to share that,” he said.
The Rev. Bob Lyons, an advisory board member, said he was confused by the council’s decision. “The purpose of (Channel 5) is to advise the public,” he said. “It’s a bit confusing to me why people would be denied access to this channel.”
, DataTimes