When did 90 seconds become enough democracy?

Adobe Stock

As Election Day Approaches

To allow candidates the right to respond to criticisms about their candidacy before Election Day, the last day Independent Newsmedia will publish new election-related letters in our weekly print editions is Oct. 21, and the last day they will publish online is Oct. 27. Candidates may submit a 150-word reply addressing criticisms only and should email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org along with their name, address, contact number and the headline of the letter they’re addressing.

OPINION — At the September Dysart Unified School District Governing Board meeting, members of the public learned that the time allotted for public comment had been reduced from three minutes to just 90 seconds.

What made the change especially troubling was that, according to what was stated at the meeting, this was not the result of a public vote by the five-member governing board. It was a decision made by board President Stephen Skvara.

That should concern every Dysart taxpayer, parent and voter — regardless of political affiliation.

Dysart itself says public meetings are an important part of the district and that it respects the First Amendment rights of community members to share comments with the board.

At the October meeting, governing board candidate Lisa Everett addressed the issue, reminding the board that citizens have a right to petition their government and speak to their elected representatives. She asked board members to place the public comment policy on a future agenda so it could be discussed openly.

Board members Denise Destiche and Dawn Densmore subsequently requested that the issue be placed on an agenda.

Good. But where were the others?

This is bigger than whether someone gets 90 seconds or three minutes. It is about how government decisions are made. The Dysart Governing Board consists of five independently elected members. The district itself explains that board policies are adopted by the board.

If public participation is going to be substantially restricted, the public deserves an open discussion explaining why.

Elected officials should never fear hearing from the people they represent. Sometimes those comments will be uncomfortable. Sometimes they will be critical. That comes with public service.

We must hold our elected officials accountable.

And if a board president believes he can unilaterally restrict the public’s opportunity to address its government, voters are entitled to ask a much bigger question: recall?

Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.