ROBERT PIERCE

   • Leader & Times

In recent years, many suggestion cards have been sent online to Seward County administration, and despite some of the suggestions being submitted anonymously, they were still read aloud at county commission meetings.

Now, county leaders are looking to change that policy to require those submitting suggestions to give their name, address and phone number in order for them to be read at a meeting.

With the help of County Counsel Forrest Rhodes, the commission last Monday looked at what can be done to address the issue, and Rhodes started the discussion by looking at the options commissioners have for dealing with public comments.

“The board has no obligation to allow for public comment either in person or in writing,” he said. “Leaving aside the COVID pandemic issues where there weren’t meetings in person or there was more limited attendance, I don’t know if there’s a public body that doesn’t allow some form of comment just because they think it’s the right thing to do from staying touch with citizens, with constituents, being aware, hearing their concerns.”

Because allowing public comment is not required, Rhodes said each governing body has much in the way of discretion in deciding how to handle such comments.

“My understanding is historically, with Seward County, if someone wants to speak in public comment at a meeting, they stand up,” he said. “They have to identify their name and address, and they give their comment. But we have historically allowed the submission of written comments without requiring a name or address – essentially anonymous comments. Those have been traditionally read to the commission at the end of each meeting. There’s no action expected on any of these comments, whether in person or written.”

Rhodes asked the commission if it would like to continue with this process, and if not, the board has some options.

“If the desire is to require written comment to fall under the same requirement as in person, they have to identify a name and address to have their comment read in person just like someone would do if they were if they were at a meeting in person,” he said. “You can adopt a practice to do that. You can do it by a motion, vote and change your practice. You could do an ordinance.

However, Rhodes said he does not feel the county needs an ordinance, and a third option would be to adopt a public comment policy that addresses both in person comments and written submission and identifies whatever prerequisites expected of either.

“Presumably it would be the same requirements for both,” he said. “The format in which it’s submitted is the only difference. The board would adopt that policy at a meeting after they have a chance to review it.”

Under current policy, Rhodes said there is no accountability for anonymous comments.

“You dont know if it’s a link on the Web site,” he said. “You don’t know who the person is submitting or where they’re coming from.”

Rhodes then asked what direction the commission would like he and Administrator April Warden take on the matter.

“We can craft a policy,” Rhodes said. “If you want a resolution, we can craft a resolution. We’d want to reference whatever the new decision is so people who are submitting it in writing, if you don’t provide this information, your comment won’t be read.”

County Clerk Stacia Long asked what could be done with comments submitted under a fictitious name. Rhodes said those could be addressed as well.

“That would be up to the board to decide how they wanted to handle that,” Rhodes said. “What level of vetting would be required if the name has to match the address. You certainly could have a situation where someone could falsely input somebody else’s name and address and submit the comments. I don’t know that there’s a way to prevent that sort of spoofing short of requiring written comments be submitted in person.”

Commissioner Jairo Vazquez urged caution when dealing with fictitious names.

“I think online comments are difficult to make sure somebody doesn’t put a false name or somebody else’s name on there,” he said.

Vice Chairman Todd Stanton said the county needs a similar policy to its rules dealing with citizens comments at a meeting, which require a person to state their name and address.

“The oral comments, we know who comes and make those, and I’m glad we’re seeing more and more of that,” he said.

Warden said requiring names, addresses and phone numbers allow staff members to contact the person with other questions.

“If we do get comment cards and they do leave an e-mail or a phone number, we do try to get back to them about those, but when they’re anonymous, we have no way to do it,” she said.

Rhodes said a statement could be included to certify the accuracy of information provided. Commissioner Clay Louderback said he prefers a policy as opposed to a resolution, saying it is more straight forward, but Rhodes said a policy does not carry the force of law.

“A resolution is a regulation of the board,” Rhodes said. “If you would want the ability to pursue some sort of a punitive action against someone who knowingly submitted false information, I think you would want that to have the backing of a resolution rather than a policy. You can include the requirement in both places.”

Two suggestion cards were submitted prior to Monday’s meeting, and neither was read at the meeting. Stanton said he feels the reading of the cards needs to wait until action is taken on the comment policy.

“I think anything in the system that is unsigned, they can resubmit it once this policy is in place,” he said.

“We can postpone those to when we have the resolution,” Chairman Steve Helm said.

Whether they are read publicly or not, suggestion cards are submitted by Warden to the commissioners via e-mail, and Rhodes said having commissioners aware of the substance of comments is helpful and ultimately the purpose of the comment itself.

“It’s not just to give somebody a public forum to say something everybody else hears,” Rhodes said. “The idea is for the commissioners who in a position to act on that information to be aware of it.”

Rhodes said with last Monday’s discussion, he feels he has enough to move forward and have something for commissioners to look at and possibly vote on at the upcoming Oct. 5 meeting.