Loading...
Opinion: Open Letter To Panama City Mayor Branch On Public Comment Restrictions
Photo from City of Panama City YouTube page
Mayor Branch,
You stated in a recent social media post that you have received hundreds of emails on various topics but only a couple regarding your move to eliminate the ability to speak on non-agenda items at a regular meeting. I think that by now you see that there are numerous citizens who are not happy with this change, and I am one of them. As a gesture of the greater transparency that you promised, and considering that said emails are or should be in the public domain anyway, I would like to request that you publicly post all of the emails that you have received thus far, as well as all that you receive going forward during your term, so that we the citizens can see for ourselves what our fellow citizens have to say to our mayor. What say you?
Despite your assertions to the contrary, only being able to speak publicly once every two months can hardly be characterized as expanding public commentary. It is clearly a tactic to minimize public criticism of the PC commission. During your TV interview following the meeting where you announced this change you stated that you wanted this change because prior meetings were "combative" and you wanted to eliminate such an atmosphere. Are you referring to the meetings where attentive and concerned citizens were expressing their displeasure with such decisions as purchasing contaminated property and paying in excess of the appraised value? Giving tens of millions of dollars in future property tax revenues to a multi-billion dollar developer? Tearing down the civic center when it could have been rebuilt for less than the cost to renovate the Martin Theatre? Destroying Beach Drive? I could list another dozen examples but I think that these will suffice. At this point the issue is not how these matters were ultimately decided, but rather that they were contentious topics which caused uncomfortable moments for the commissioners when informed citizens put them on the spot. But that is just too bad - that is how the process should unfold. Your proposed change is clearly designed to eliminate such uncomfortable moments for the electeds. This is not an action that will enhance transparency, efficiency, nor trust in local government. It is especially troublesome in that this policy is being put forth right out of the chute.
One final item regarding your efforts to shorten the meetings by eliminating this area of public comment: In the News-Herald article of June 22, 2025 they quoted you as saying that the city often has a dozen staff members present at a cost of approximately $2,000 per hour. Wow! That works out to an average of $166.66 per hour for each of those city staffers! I'm not sure why there is a need for a dozen city staffers at a meeting? I have seldom seen city staff called on - occasionally, but rarely. $166.66 per hour per person…
You stated in a recent social media post that you have received hundreds of emails on various topics but only a couple regarding your move to eliminate the ability to speak on non-agenda items at a regular meeting. I think that by now you see that there are numerous citizens who are not happy with this change, and I am one of them. As a gesture of the greater transparency that you promised, and considering that said emails are or should be in the public domain anyway, I would like to request that you publicly post all of the emails that you have received thus far, as well as all that you receive going forward during your term, so that we the citizens can see for ourselves what our fellow citizens have to say to our mayor. What say you?
Despite your assertions to the contrary, only being able to speak publicly once every two months can hardly be characterized as expanding public commentary. It is clearly a tactic to minimize public criticism of the PC commission. During your TV interview following the meeting where you announced this change you stated that you wanted this change because prior meetings were "combative" and you wanted to eliminate such an atmosphere. Are you referring to the meetings where attentive and concerned citizens were expressing their displeasure with such decisions as purchasing contaminated property and paying in excess of the appraised value? Giving tens of millions of dollars in future property tax revenues to a multi-billion dollar developer? Tearing down the civic center when it could have been rebuilt for less than the cost to renovate the Martin Theatre? Destroying Beach Drive? I could list another dozen examples but I think that these will suffice. At this point the issue is not how these matters were ultimately decided, but rather that they were contentious topics which caused uncomfortable moments for the commissioners when informed citizens put them on the spot. But that is just too bad - that is how the process should unfold. Your proposed change is clearly designed to eliminate such uncomfortable moments for the electeds. This is not an action that will enhance transparency, efficiency, nor trust in local government. It is especially troublesome in that this policy is being put forth right out of the chute.
One final item regarding your efforts to shorten the meetings by eliminating this area of public comment: In the News-Herald article of June 22, 2025 they quoted you as saying that the city often has a dozen staff members present at a cost of approximately $2,000 per hour. Wow! That works out to an average of $166.66 per hour for each of those city staffers! I'm not sure why there is a need for a dozen city staffers at a meeting? I have seldom seen city staff called on - occasionally, but rarely. $166.66 per hour per person…
----
The opinions expressed in the Bay County Coastal are solely those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Bay County Coastal, its owners, or its contractors. We strive to provide a platform for diverse perspectives and encourage respectful and thoughtful discourse among our readers.
The opinions expressed in the Bay County Coastal are solely those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Bay County Coastal, its owners, or its contractors. We strive to provide a platform for diverse perspectives and encourage respectful and thoughtful discourse among our readers.
A healthy Bay County requires great community news.
Please support The Bay County Coastal LLC by subscribing today!
Please support The Bay County Coastal LLC by subscribing today!
%> %> %> "%> "%> %> %> %> %>
