NEWTON COUNTY – In yet another lengthy meeting for the Newton County Board of Commissioners, the most controversial topic discussed was the potential removal of citizens' comments.

The pitch to remove citizens’ comments from the latter portion of the agenda was inspired by an influx of contentious comments made from citizens toward commissioners over the last few weeks.

However, several citizens took to the stand at the beginning of the meeting to express their unhappiness towards the agenda item.

Cynthia Butler of District 3 claimed that chairman Marcello Banes was unaware of the laws regarding citizens' comments.

“People have the right to freedom of speech in a public meeting,” Butler said. “It is embarrassing, unprofessional that the chairman of the board Marcello Banes allows an agenda item by refusing to have citizens to speak at a board meeting.”

Karen Brooks said that removing citizens' comments was an act of silencing the citizens.

“I cannot believe that on the agenda you actually have an item to remove citizen comments. We the people have already been censored on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, so I guess you’re trying to follow their example,” Brooks said. “Shame on whoever asked to put this on the agenda.”

Samantha Day agreed with Brooks’ sentiment.

“I am very disheartened that you all as elected officials would want to silence your constituents. In today’s society we are constantly teaching our kids and people to stand up for any injustices and their opinions to create an inclusive community,” Day said. “However, by even discussing the removal of citizen comments, you are silencing your constituents and not allowing them to have a voice.”

Annette Alston questioned how discussion of removing citizens’ comments  even made it to the agenda.

“It’s hard to believe that anyone would even consider not having citizens' comments,” Alston said. “It begs the question ‘how did this agenda item get oven there?’”

Later in the meeting, District 5 commissioner Ronnie Cowan said that he was one of the ones behind this idea after he and several commissioners were “slandered.”

“The reason for it was, the last two board meetings some of the commissioners up here have been accused of stealing money,” Cowan said. “I understand the First Amendment… but I know one thing, it does not support slander.”

Cowan said after hearing the citizens speak out, he was open to a change of stance.

“When the gentleman mentioned that the other day I was very angry… Now listening to the people tonight, I’m not as angry as I was,” Cowan said. “I do think, however, at this point when we set up how we were going to operate back in 2017, we’ve made rules for how the Board of Commissioners would handle meetings and stuff, we didn’t really address the decorum of the board or the citizens as they come in here.”

Cowan then made a motion to table discussion of this topic for a “short period of time” to draft rules of decorum, which was seconded by District 2 commissioner Demond Mason.

Banes opted to clarify how the agenda item was brought up in the first place.

“Anytime you get three commissioners that want to put  something on the agenda, our enabling legislation we put this on the agenda. Anytime you get three commissioners that want to put  something on the agenda, our enabling legislation we put this off the agenda,” Banes said. “We had three commissioners wanting this on the agenda, that’s why it’s on the agenda.”

One of the commissioners who supported the agenda item was District 1 commissioner Stan Edwards, who was visibly frustrated. He called the conduct in recent meetings “embarrassing.”

“What’s embarrassing is we get a gentleman in open citizen comments that decides he’s going to make disparaging comments about an entire race of people. That’s embarrassing,” Edwards said. “We’ve got a gentleman that came down here and stood here last week – on multiple occasions by the way – and names commissioners and basically calls them corrupt and on the payroll whoever we give ARPA funds to. Ridiculous. That’s embarrassing. We had another incident just last meeting where we had a gentlemen falsely question the sexual orientation of a sitting commissioner by name. That’s embarrassing. 

“You want to talk about embarrassing? That’s it. Turning our board of commissioner meeting into a Jerry Springer episode. I’m tired of that bull.”

A substitute motion was then made by Edwards to table discussion and, in lieu of removing citizens’ comments, draft rules of decorum to be voted on and implemented.

This was also seconded by Mason, who also supported this agenda item.

 “I also wanted this to be a topic of discussion because this has gotten completely out of hand when it comes to citizens' comments,” Mason said. “When I saw this on the agenda I did have a conversation with some of the District 2 residents on their thoughts and how they felt and they clearly stated to me, ‘Commissioner Mason, the Board of Commissioners meetings are now a circus for the past three years’” There is no decorum. There are individuals coming up here accusing individuals personally with no factual data but trying to bring about political things to try and make specific commissioners look bad because they’re not agreeing with a certain commissioner. And so, it has gone beyond where it needs to be.”

District 4 commissioner J.C. Henderson claimed decorum was absent when allegations were made against him of stealing years ago.

“Where was the decorum when I was accused for three years and a half of stealing some broccoli and three rolls of toilet tissue,” Henderson said.

Henderson also claimed those allegations were both through the citizens and his fellow colleagues.

“And not only was it my constituency or the constituency of the county, it was my own board members,” Henderson said. “Y’all knew I hadn't stole nothing. Yet you let that lie go on against me and you never said a word.”

District 3 representative Alana Sanders agreed with Henderson within the board regarding decorum, citing a denial to amendment to the agenda that happened earlier in the meeting regarding SPLOST discussion for District 3.“So we always want to come up here and talk about professionalism and decorum, but when you do it to others, there’s no professionalism or decorum,” Sanders said. “Y’all used to people not saying anything to y’all and now they’re saying and speaking up and speaking out, you got a problem with it. Now we want to stop people from speaking. Grow up.”

Mason then added that the environment of commissioner meetings had changed since coming into office and that there have been transitions within the board.

“I never had to worry about individuals making false claims on social media, doing Facebook lives that don’t have full and accurate data,” Mason said. “So yes, we have transitioned over the past three and a half years, we have begun to do things different. Things have been different and yes I agree, the citizens are full aware of what’s going on. Oh how well do they know what’s going on. They know.”

Sanders then emphatically opposed any removal of citizens’ comments, saying the citizens have the right to hold the commissioners accountable.

“As many times as people have come up here and attacked me, not once did you hear me say, ‘Let’s remove citizen comments,’” Sanders said.  “Not once have you heard me say, ‘Thank you so much. Remove citizen comments.’” 

The substitute motion made by Edwards to draft rules of decorum passed 3-2; with Sanders and Henderson opposing.

However, according to the Newton County Rules for the Conduct of Business pages 12 and 13, those rules already exist.

When relating back to rules of public comments, Section 1-110e1 of the Rules for Conduct of Business specifically outlines conduct.

“All meeting attendees must conduct themselves in a respectful manner. Personal attacks and derogatory or inappropriate remarks are not permitted,” reads the document. “There shall be no use of profanity during the meeting.”

With the tabling, discussion of this topic is set to resume on May 7 at 7 p.m.