RE: http://www.washtimesherald.com/local/local_story_177234922.html

quote:

Originally posted by Reporter Smith:
In anticipation that the debate on the variance would be hostile, Spillman, who was acting as chairman in Shield’s absence, asked at the start of Wednesday’s meeting that potential witnesses be sworn in such as a courtroom witness would.

The move, Spillman said, was to protect the hearings’ “quasi-judicial” integrity and these rules will be enforced at all future hearings.

And what if they are not? What if, say, next November, "witnesses" aren't sworn in at a Zoning Appeals Board meeting? Will heads roll?

Obliging ordinary citizens to utter oaths before commenting on questions concerning our community is a transparent ploy to intimidate & stifle public input. Only a Judge has the authority to sternly remind a witness that he is "under oath." And subject to penalty of perjury, we presume? No common council in the land can countenance a kangaroo court.

quote:

“These meetings are hearings to determine fact from applications for either a variance or conditional use exception to the zoning code to the City of Washington,” Spillman said. “These hearings are similar to, but not as formal as, the conduct of a court of law.”

As a wise woman once said, one can't be a little bit pregnant. Either a hearing is formal, or it isn't. Dissembling a courtroom atmosphere in a setting designed to gauge public sentiment -- & learn rather than lecture -- marks the height of improvisation & violates townsfolks' trust.

quote:

Potential witnesses were also asked to stay relevant to the topic and not to levy any personal attacks or they would be asked to sit down. If they did not comply, they would be asked to leave.

Here's where the rubber always hits the road -- when the Reporter shifts into passive voice to shield actors in question. Put a subject in front of an active verb, Nate. J-School 101.

quote:

Local resident and activist Steve Charles was asked to leave after he did not follow those rules.

Again w/ the passive voice. Who asked the local resident to leave the hearing? And who at the Times-Herald decided to editorialize that the local resident did not follow the rules? A news analyst or Editor makes such a judgment, not a beat reporter.

quote:

Charles, who was trying to talk about the Zoning Code in general and not specifically about the case, was found to be out of line, and when he refused to sit down, City Police asked him to leave.

The report again lapses into passive voice to shield us from knowing which judge found sworn testimony of the local resident of the neighborhood in question to be "out of line." That the City Police intervened is precisely what we anticipated would take place under ad-hoc (read informal) "rulesmaking."

Remarkable that the Times-Herald would opine that the Zoning Code does not bear specific relation to a case before the Zoning Appeals Board. But then, the reporter seemingly saw no irony in one BoardMember's assertion that the unauthorized driveway is an "exit, not an entrance," & thus omitted mention of it from his article.

I would like to see a legal opinion on how the board can legally have residents who are expressing comments on a zoning issue sworn in as they are in court. I have never heard of this and it just seems like Spillman is off base on this and trying to intimidate people from speaking. Will the board members themselves be held to that standard as well when they make comments?

Kudos to the board! Reno1 has done this just to garner attention for himself in order that he may be portrayed as some sort of hero, instead of the loud-mouthed trouble maker that he appears to be.

I too would like to see the legal opinion of how they can conduct a meeting in such a matter. I am fairly sure the board would not have done so, considering the volatility of the situation, without some legal footing.

quote:

Originally posted by wwn1:
I too would like to see the legal opinion of how they can conduct a meeting in such a matter.

Well, we're finally reaching a consensus. Everybody in town, it seems, would like to know by what authority the Opinion Board, er, Zoning Appeals Board requires citizens in a free republic to utter oaths before giving their two cents worth on an issue concerning our neighborhood's safety & tranquillity.

quote:

I am fairly sure the board would not have done so, considering the volatility of the situation, without some legal footing.

I'm fairly sure we'll see some legal footing-in-mouth as a result of last night's debacle.

Did everybody else notice how the Times-Herald spun the story on its online front page? Angry Zoning Meeting w/ a photo of Reno1. That's fair & balanced reporting if we've ever seen it. Yet Reporter Smith's account meekly made no mention of "anger" being displayed w/ reference to the man police prevented from exercising his pertinent First Amendment rights that millions have given their lives to preserve. When the law of the land has been flouted by the Illegal Employer & his publicly-paid enablers for years on end, it's unsurprising that the mere First Amendment also gets tossed by the wayside.

By what (moral) authority will we teach our children the story of the Bill of Rights?

Actually, after searching on Google, I found that it is not at all uncommon for Zoning boards to require anyone wishing to speak be sworn in under oath. That does not make it less ridiculous, but it does happen. I have provided a link for those who are skeptical.

Google Search

My concern is not allowing a citizen their right to speak at a public meeting.

Thanks for you quick answer to some doubting Thomas' opinions. Love seeing Jethor's doubts proven wrong with a couple clicks on the computer. He does take great care to keep his verbs active and not let his participle dangle though!

Indiana Law applies in this matter, & Indiana Law does not override First Amendment protections. The lone comparable Indiana Zoning Appeals Board instance I've found -- http://www.ci.carmel.in.us/services/DOCS/docspdffiles20...4-1013%20special.pdf -- demonstrates on Page Five (of nine) that a single witness in Carmel, Indiana, in 2004 indeed was sworn in before that locality's Zoning Board, but that all other witnesses were not. In the Carmel precedent the witness whose sworn testimony the Zoning Board required represented the company requesting the variance.

The Carmel example also yielded the following chilling passage: Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the appeal; no one appeared.

The following Rules of Procedure for the Board of Zoning Appeals in Marion County, Indiana -- http://www.indygov.org/NR/rdonlyres/B9AE38B4-8A25-4B67-.../adoptedhovrules.pdf -- are instructive:


*** A Commercial/Industrial Variance of Use filing fee of $950.00 plus $95.00 for each variance of development standards requested must be paid at time of filing. Did/does Washington charge a similar fee?


*** All regular or special meetings & hearings of the Hearing Officer shall be open to the public & petitioner(s), remonstrator(s) & other persons desiring to be heard shall have the right to give testimony in accordance w/ the (Marion County) rules. Did Citizen Reno1's right to give testimony receive due process?


*** Any party may appear in person, by agent, or by attorney. An attorney or other representative of any party, petitioner, or remonstrator may testify as to facts of which said agent has particular knowledge relating to the issues of the petition, but in so testifying the attorney or representative shall be sworn & subject to cross-examination, as are the petitioner's or remonstrator's other witnesses.


*** Petitioners & remonstrators, respectively, shall be permitted a total of ten (10) minutes each for presentation of evidence, statements, & arguments at the public hearing of every petition before the Hearing Officer, as follows:

(a) Petitioners & persons appearing in support of the petition for variance shall first have eight (8) minutes to speak. A reasonable amount of time shall be allowed by the Hearing Officer for cross-examination & redirect examination of petitioner's witnesses.

(b) Remonstrators & persons appearing in opposition to the petition shall then have eight (8) minutes to speak. A reasonable additional time shall then be allowed by the Hearing Officer for cross-examination & redirect examination of remonstrator's witnesses.

(c) Any member of the Council shall be allowed a reasonable additional time to provide testimony.

The Petitioner shall receive two minutes for rebuttal/closing statement, & the Remonstrator plus other persons appearing in opposition shall also receive two minutes collectively for rebuttal/closing statement.

The language emphasizes that Attorneys or Representatives of the Petitioner or Remonstrator are to be sworn in, but not ordinary citizens in attendance who wish to speak. Did a Remonstrator exist in the West Walnut case before us? Were ordinary neighbors who aren't Attorneys nor Representatives of either side permitted to speak w/out being forced to take an oath?

Forced oath-taking upon citizens is a poor practice in a County filled w/ Amish & Mennonites. If it is found that last night's oath-requirement was imposed arbitrarily w/out recognition of custom, precedent, or common community concern, the requirement may be invalid. We can't impose oaths willy-nilly on persons w/ whom we don't agree for the thinly-veiled design of shutting them up & ignoring proper neighborhood interests.

What's happened to good citizen Mr. Burns who constantly reminded dummies that quotation marks are our friends?

Quoting the language from and out of county ordinance. Interesting. I thought only local facts and opinions mattered. By the by Marion County is vastly different from the City of Washington.

I believe, but do not know as a fact, that the City Ordinances can be reviewed by any individual by requesting access from the Mayor's office.

As I read through this silliness I note that the Supreme Court rulings on free speech include ideas that govt. officials can control the "time, place and manner" of speech at public meetings. Otherwise there would be chaos and nothing could get done at any public meeting. Should I be allowed to go to the zoning meeting and express my opinion (based on constitutional study and introspection) that the idea of zoning is in itself, unconsitutional. Now we get to the meat of the matter. If we truly believe in the Constitution and the idea that, under the fifth amendment, the government cannot control life, liberty or PROPERTY without due process of law, where does the constitutional basis lie for zoning. How can a group of citizens interfere with anyone's right to control and use property as they wish, no matter where they are. If I want to start a pig farm in downtown Washington, why can't I? What's that you say, the stink would be a burden to others. Then we must create rules of conduct for other people to tell me how to use my property???????
Zoning is another form of communism. All animals are equal, just some are more equal than others.
How do you think that would play at a zoning meeting?

quote:

Originally posted by HazenWilliams:
Quoting the language from and out of county ordinance.

Rather, I paraphrased the purple prose & provided the link for your further edification.

quote:

I thought only local facts and opinions mattered. By the by Marion County is vastly different from the City of Washington.

Right on, Hazen. The localler the better. You got a comparative case to present in, say, Monroe or Martin County?

quote:

Zoning is another form of communism.

Yeah, we don't need no rules.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HazenWilliams:
Quoting the language from and out of county ordinance. Interesting.

Fear not Hazen that Jethor quotes exactly. He is noted for his editing and paraphrasing in order to make a quote fit his purposes. Cheap trick; cheap shot, but I've personally experienced it.

quote:

Originally posted by Santiago:
Fear not Hazen that Jethor quotes exactly. He is noted for his editing and paraphrasing in order to make a quote fit his purposes. Cheap trick; cheap shot, but I've personally experienced it.

Probably cause he has nothing better to do all day.