Letter: In-Person Town Hall Meetings and Decorum 

by Dr. Marita Florini —

At one time, productive public discourse was common, and town halls were a chance for constituents to discuss their concerns with their legislators. Ideas were met with thought, consideration, and discussion. It was common for a person, politician, or public participant to consider a new idea or an identified problem as one of merit. Communication was structured to consider all sides of a problem. There was no foregone conclusion as to what the policies were and how they would be implemented. There was the ability for constituents to speak their minds and provide notes for the legislator to consider. 

Many congressional representatives refuse to have in-person town hall meetings, claiming people are disruptive or, worse, violent. At a recent town hall in Somers, New York, Representative Mike Lawler gave a woman the opportunity to ask a question. When the congressman did not address the issue asked, the woman repeatedly asked him to answer the question. This free speech response was met with New York State Police physically carrying her out of the hall. 

Town hall meetings are not private events. A town hall is conceptually meant to be a chance for people to explain how federal policy affects them in their homes and businesses. It is not meant to be an opportunity for legislators to give speeches that dictate policy and the implementation of policy without discussion. Authoritarian regimes give such speeches. Traditionally, American town halls are opportunities to exercise First Amendment rights. 

After President Barack Obama introduced the Affordable Care Act, members of Congress met with anger in 2009 from the Tea Party movement. Demonstrators shoved and booed Senator Arlen Specter out of a meeting. The Tea Party’s actions set the stage for disruptive commentary during future in-person town halls. Ironically, today’s Republican legislators blame disrupted events on Democratic billionaire donors, something Congressman Nicholas Langworthy claims repeatedly. 

The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute suggests ways to have in-person town hall meetings, noting they are an essential feature of our democracy. Meetings should be structured as listening and learning sessions. They should be well advertised and accessible, with a broad spectrum of participants. They should be moderated, preferably by a non-partisan group that establishes rules and how those rules will be enforced.

Legislators should give brief opening statements, keeping the majority of the allotted time for participants. Decorum should prevail. Strongly stated opinions are appropriate, but rudeness or badgering is not. Shouting, interruptions, or demands for one-word answers are not acceptable. 

Not mentioned by the Institute, questions should be written down. Answers should address each question even if the answer is “I don’t know.” Time limits should apply to both legislators and constituents, and each should have one opportunity to respond to the answer given to the original question. 

Legislators and participants must understand that the goal of an in-person town hall is to adjust policy in such a way that it strives to help the most people possible and not cause harm. A legislator who cannot understand this concept should unquestionably be voted out. An audience should attend town halls understanding the goal while assessing the legislator because, in America, our vote counts!

Sincerely,

Dr. Marita Florini 

Newark Valley, N.Y.