> Later in the evening Mia Heider tried to speak out about Flock during public comments about a housing issue. Police arrested her while Schrag looked on. “Sorry ma’m,” the mayor said as police led Heider away in handcuffs.

I mean, what is the appropriate response to someone refusing follow protocol after giving guidance that there's a different topic at hand now? There was a comment session on Flock cameras, people talked about it, then they moved onto housing. You can't run a public meeting where people get to drag every issue back to their favorite issue uninhibited, it just literally doesn't work. The meeting would run 24/7/365 and still nothing would get done.

▲

someonebaggy an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Sure makes it awfully convenient to end a comment session when you don't want to hear what's being said. We are approving the budget for the death ray, do we have any objections? You have five hundred microseconds to object. Let the record show there were no objections. Guards, arrest that man for speaking after the time for objections has ended.

▲

Manuel_D an hour ago | parent [-]

The comment session was for an entirely unrelated issue.

> Heider explained that she waited until the public comment period for a different issue, filled out a form to talk, and then got up to deliver a written statement about Flock cameras.

It wasn't that the council disagreed with what Heider said, it's that what she was talking about was unrelated to the meeting.

▲

xboxnolifes 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

It was unrelated because the entire session about flock was skipped.

▲

Manuel_D 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

That doesn't make make it permissible to hijack other meetings. The point remains, she was not removed for simply voicing opposition to Flock cameras. The was arrested and removed for trying to derail an unrelated meeting.

Someone going on the stand to rant about abortion during a meeting on sidewalk codes would similarly get removed.

▲

Matl 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Translation: Those in power are allowed to execute 'illegal' chess moves, (skipping the Flock discussion), but the public can't do the same to try and discuss things that officials want to avoid discussing.

▲

JKCalhoun 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

And arrested?

I doubt you are pro-Flock, perhaps you don't like civil disobedience?

	▲	dekhn 30 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Many of us on this thread have experience with city councils and are anti-Flock and pro-civil disobedience. We're arguing with you from a point of praticality related to city business meetings. Practicing civil disobedience at a city council meeting is fraught with peril- for example, you're preventing other people from having their topics discussed/voted on. From my perspective, if your goal is to make actual change, getting arrested at a city council meeting speaking on the wrong topic is not a particularly effective method.
	▲	Manuel_D 34 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The point of civil disobedience is to be arrested. That's the goal of civil disobedience.

▲

golf1052 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How it works in Seattle is that people are supposed to sign up and talk about things on the agenda for that council meeting but they are not stopped from talking about anything. This is why you'll see people like Alex Tsimerman (look him up) speak nonsense at nearly every council meeting. The councilpeople just ignore those comments and I believe they aren't included in the meeting record since they're off topic.

There's other ways to also try and limit the length of public comment, if there's more than say 30 people signed up, reduce public comment from 2 minutes per person to 1 minute. Be aggressive about cutting mics rather than giving everyone 10 extra seconds. For topics that council knows will be contentious and attract a lot of public comment they'll either hold multiple public comment blocks that day or literally just do a marathon session, 4-5 hours of just public comment.

Finally, if enough people are frustrated enough about an issue to constantly show up to public comment to talk about it, councilmembers should try meeting with those people at a different forum to at least hear them out to try and diffuse their anger. Council meetings should not be the only other place where residents can talk to their councilmembers.

	▲	dekhn 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Thank you for mentioning this. I think a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand city council meetings and just how many disruptive people who want to play out the clock talking.

▲

JKCalhoun 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"The meeting would run 24/7/365…"

Maybe: 24/7/52

Or: 24/365.25

(Always bothers pedantic me.)

▲

iAMkenough an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

As a community leader, it would be to publicly acknowledge that there are concerns, then schedule a town hall meeting for their constituents to discuss those concerns with subject matter experts at a more appropriate time.

That's apparently asking too much.