All still welcome during public comment at Bethlehem City Council

BETHLEHEM, Pa. — Anyone and everyone still can get their five minutes at the lectern before Bethlehem City Council after a resolution to limit public comment to include only “residents and taxpayers” was tabled on Tuesday.

The vote to set the resolution aside for now passed 4-3, following a motion from Councilman Bryan Callahan.

Council members Michael Colón, Rachel Leon, Colleen Laird and Callahan voted in favor.

Council members Grace Crampsie Smith, Hillary Kwiatek and Kiera Wilhelm voted against the motion.

Officials were set to potentially make a final decision on limited public discussion following some long meetings centered around calls for council to pass its own Israel-Hamas war cease-fire resolution.

There was no announcement Tuesday on if or when the resolution would be discussed again in the future.

'We do have limits'

Grace Crampsie Smith, who consulted with the panel's solicitor and put together the resolution, said amending the rules wasn’t an “off-the-cuff” reaction to the March 5 meeting, and wasn’t meant to interfere with anyone’s First Amendment rights.

She’s been an advocate for the oppressed her entire life, she said.

“If I could go and settle the horrific atrocities that are happening over in Palestine, I would be there in a heartbeat — but I can’t,” she said.

“Unfortunately, part of life is that we do have limits.

And we are elected to address the issues and business relevant to the operation of the city of Bethlehem.”

She said not being able to address city business, as was the case on March 5, was something that couldn’t happen again.

“There were people at this table that decided they needed to have police escort [them] out of this building because they were fearful of retaliation by the group that, for all intents and purposes, created a mini riot,” Crampsie Smith said.

On the Sunshine Act

Council solicitor Stephanie Steward said the Sunshine Act’s language includes some “fairly broad” and “undefined” terms in regards to public comment.

She made clear that even in the event of the resolution being passed, identifying oneself during public comment would “essentially be an honor system.”

Basically, those speaking could say they’re a resident or taxpayer, and could then choose whether or not to identify themselves any further from there.

“This proposed resolution does not impose a requirement that a person, that a speaker, identify themselves other than as a resident or a taxpayer; there’s, of course, no requirement that you give your address,” Steward said.

Yeas and nays from council

Councilwoman Colleen Laird said she was “generally supportive” of the resolution during its first reading at the previous meeting.

But she’s had some time to think on it, and she said she’s there to represent and listen to her constituents regardless of how long the meeting goes.

“I do have concerns [with] codifying limitations on who can participate in public speech as well as the practical implementation of such a rule, which sounds like it’s rather unenforceable,” Laird said.

“I also recognize that limiting my residency or taxpayer status does not ensure that comment remains focused on city business.”

Councilman Bryan Callahan said that even if the resolution passed, any non-residents still would have the right to email council members, the city clerk or go before their own respective leadership with their concerns.

He also said the council agenda more often than not has timely business that must be addressed within a certain time frame.

Citing previous meetings this year with public comment surrounding the Walnut Street Garage demolition and rebuild, potential development of Hanover Apartments and more, Councilwoman Kiera Wilhelm said it doesn’t take nonresidents to create a long and contentious night at Bethlehem Town Hall.

“Nonresidents have brought, respectfully, many of you have brought, respectfully, issues before council that have been informative, and I believe you should continue to be able to do so,” Wilhelm said.

“It’s going to be our loss if we negate that option.”

” … To me, this resolution — which is based on only one scenario and one perspective on that scenario — feels reactionary, and an outside response that ultimately cuts off our nose to spite our face.”

Takes from residents, one nonresident

“The situation with folks coming to council to voice their opinion and demands on the Israeli-Palestine situation, last meeting, got way out of hand,” resident Bud Hackett said.

But he said the public comment process is “flawed” and could use some adjusting to ensure residents feel more heard by their representatives.

Officials sometimes tell those at the podium they can stay until the meeting is adjourned and consult with a particular city employee about their specific issue.

For example, that person can hang back to speak one on one with Public Works Director Michael Alkhal about a bad pothole on their street.

“Telling someone to wait around until the end of the meeting is just not effective, good government,” he said.

A few different people throughout the evening called the resolution a “breach of trust,” “discriminatory,” “disheartening” and “retaliatory.”

“While the council’s action may be based in some legal ground, it nevertheless sends a very stark and reverberating message, which is, 'We want to silence you. We don’t want to hear from you,’” said Ruby Khallouf, a Pro-Palestine resident of Bethlehem.

“And respectable council, we will not be silent.”

A person who identified themselves as Quincy, from Salisbury Township, said their home gets its water through Bethlehem services.

And such a resolution would be bad news if any utility issues arose.

“Your resolution to forbid me from speaking at your city council meetings is of great concern to me, my entire household,” Quincy said.

“My parents are busy this week — but they have been begging me to tell you not to pass this resolution.”