One week after the Chattanooga City Council was “shut down” for over seven hours, speakers at Tuesday night’s council meeting will have a limited amount of time to speak about issues. Last week’s lengthy public comment section saw over 150 Chattanoogans call for the council to divest from the police department and to invest in other parts of the community. During the 3:30 meeting, the City Council wondered if there was a way to limit the number of speakers to avoid that marathon session from happening again.
At the start of the 6 p.m. session, it was decided to have a total of one hour of public comment and to limit speakers to two minutes instead of three.
Vice Chairman Ken Smith said 209 people had signed up to speak and just 6-10 were on a different topic. The latter were called first. He said, "A lot of the same names are on the list from last week."
“You all adopted current rules of procedure in November of last year, and they included provisions for the time of public comment in section seven of that document,” said city attorney Phil Noblett earlier Tuesday. “You also included a provision to say the rules may be amended at any time by a majority vote by the council. You just have to have a vote during the meeting to make that determination.”
Each of the council members voiced their thoughts on last week’s long meeting, and they each said that emails and phone calls and visits would be desirable compared to a long string of public speakers.
“Personally, I’m not able to be on another seven-hour council meeting,” said Councilwoman Demetrus Coonrod. “I get that everyone wants their voice to be heard, but for me I will not be on that long. I have a granddaughter who is going through some things, and I’m not going to miss another opportunity to sit at the dinner table with her or read her a bedtime story or tuck her into bed. She comes first.”
She added, “Now if any of my constituents have any issues about it and want to share, they can reach me at my email, they can call me, or they can set up a Zoom meeting. That’s how I prefer for them to reach me.”
Councilman Anthony Byrd also agreed with his fellow council member. He asked for his constituents to reach him through phone calls or emails. He told the council he has had numerous conversations with people who are both for and against divesting from the police over the last week.
“I want to talk to people and I want to hear their voices, but what I don’t appreciate is when I see graphics being put up that simulates Pornhub and they say the City Council got gangbanged the other night by the community. I think that’s disrespectful when this council did everything they could to respect the pure fabric of democracy by listening to everyone.”
“I think it’s really disrespectful when you see a charge of people saying that they want to send people to sign up and saying ‘let’s give it to them again.’ You’re not giving us nothing but disrespect. Even though all we’re trying to do is respect you.”
Councilman Russell Gilbert echoed his colleagues. He said he disapproved of people who were not trying to talk, but rather make a point. He called it “ironic.” He compared and contrasted how the city is focused on and how the county is regarded, and how the sheriff’s department has avoided scrutiny.
“We as a council try our best to lend a voice to our constituents, and we are constantly trying to change rules to make them be able to speak at the city,” said Councilman Gilbert. “It’s ironic that the more we do, it’s not enough. But the other government side, all they get is ‘we are going to turn our back on you.’”
“We went til one in the morning. So to me, whatever we do is not enough, and we have done more than any other municipality. Who shot the tear gas? It was the Sheriff’s Department, it wasn’t the police. But I haven’t seen anyone complaining about that. They come to us about things to do with the sheriff’s department, and we don’t have any jurisdiction about that.”
Councilman Darrin Ledford agreed, citing how the last meeting went on til the morning hours in order for everyone to be heard. He said he was “appalled” by what he called the “social media circus” he saw.
“These issues that we have to solve, we have to get to solving them,” said Councilman Ledford. “And for people to use us as a propaganda tool is not something I’m in favor of tonight.”
Councilman Erskine Oglesby told the council he has received calls, emails, and texts from constituents about these issues. He said he has meeting set up over the next two days to speak with people as well. He asked if some sort of time limit could be implemented on the public comment section, which Is what spurred Attorney Noblett’s statement.
Councilwoman Carol Berz said she only found out after last Tuesday night's meeting "about the crude comments. If there is crudeness and not one of healing, it is a process I will not participate in."