Cambridge brings in citizen code of conduct

Aims to head off unruly behaviour and intimidation

CAMBRIDGE — Jan Liggett was ready to vote “no” on Tuesday night. The city councillor for Galt was going to reject a new code of conduct for citizens attending public meetings in the city.

“Halfway through, I was going to vote against it,” Liggett said on Wednesday.

Then, she was swayed by what Mike Mann, a councillor for Preston, had to say.

Mann, a retired police officer, was saddened and disappointed to hear members of the public come into council chambers and feel threatened, bullied and disrespected.

Raucous meetings on the city’s proposed sports multiplex came to mind. But Mann was also bothered that city staff had been feeling the same way, too. So, she switched.

“It was about supporting our city staff,” said Liggett, who voted yes as the so-called “inclusivity standards” were approved by a vote of 6-2.

“When Coun. Mann was talking about the city staff, all I could feel was them sitting around me in the room. I realized I had to stand up for them as well — not just for me, not just for the people in the audience.”

Liggett, who agrees politicians must take their “lumps” as public decisionmakers, says she has never felt intimidated or threatened.

However, she is troubled by what’s been going on around her.

In September, an envelope containing feces arrived at city hall for the mayor. On Christmas Eve, a bag of coal arrived at the home of city manager Gary Dyke. A note meant to intimidate came with it.

Police were called to investigate both anonymous incidents, the city said.

“These people are coming to work every single day and I need to make sure the staff feel insulated against some of the anger,” Liggett said of her “last minute” decision to support a clear, emphatic policy

calling for respect for all citizens at meetings and a safe environment for all.

“They have to do their job. They get paid good money to defend their positions. But we also have people who are everybody’s husbands, wives, fathers and mothers going to work. We need to make sure when they go home that they’re emotionally healthy. I don’t think the atmosphere right now is emotionally healthy for people.”

The two incidents, the feces and the coal, have had a rattling effect.

“Those are not physical threats,” Liggett said. “They’re more of an emotional type of threat and I don’t think they’re appropriate. That’s a politician and that’s a city staff person.”

And the incidents have played a role in bringing about the city’s new inclusiveness standards, aimed at removing the venom from citizen interactions with staff and council.

“At the end of the day, it speaks to the rationale,” city spokesperson Andrea Montgomery said.

“Those are some examples — those are extreme examples, obviously — examples as to where this kind of stuff has been happening from members of the public and why we were trying to curtail it as much as possible.”

If intimidation behaviours are being seen at city meetings — through hollering, booing or cheering — then Mann believes it’s up to council to apply the new conduct code.

“We’re responsible for controlling the council meeting,” said Mann, who doesn’t want anyone feeling bullied.

“And if enough people are coming into our council meetings and feeling that way then I’m responsible, as is everybody else, to make sure that doesn’t happen. The Golden Rule needs to apply, that we treat people the way we want to be treated ourselves.”

Bill Kirby, a citizen who spoke on the matter on Tuesday, says he feels no different as an individual under the new code of conduct. But he worries its approval is a step in the wrong “autocratic” direction. He wishes council would have taken a longer look in the mirror to assess what council was doing to bring out disrespectful behaviour from citizens at public meetings.

“Making a rule will not change your feeling of safety,” Kirby said on Wednesday. “The person is still going to do what they were going to do. It’s just now, they’re a little more hidden.”