Monroeville officials hastily end meeting during public comments period
Monroeville Council hastily ended its meeting Tuesday night when a former municipal police lieutenant tried to talk to officials during the public comments portion of the meeting.
“I have the right to speak, mister, and you're going to listen to me,” Lou Smith shouted at Councilman Bernhard Erb after Erb had motioned to close the meeting while Smith was talking. “I hope the voters are listening, because I have a lot to say tonight, and this man denied my right to speak at this council meeting.”
Council members Lois Drumheller, Diane Allison and Clarence Ramsey voted to end the meeting. Councilmen Steve Duncan and Nick Gresock voted against. Councilman Jim Johns was not in attendance.
Smith, a Monroeville resident, said he thought he was cut off because he was about to disclose unfavorable information about political allies of the majority of council. However, Erb said he adjourned the meeting because Smith was rehashing issues that were discussed at the May 9 citizens night meeting.
“Citizens night is the night to beat on us or praise us, or do whatever they want to,” Erb said. “I didn't need to sit there and listen to it.”
Erb said state law requires council to allow the public to comment on agenda items during voting meetings but doesn't require it to open comment to non-agenda topics. However, in practice, Monroeville Council has allowed residents to speak on a variety of issues not related to agenda items.
Mayor Greg Erosenko begrudgingly asked for a vote from council to adjourn the meeting, following Erb's motion.
“Lou, they have a right to do it,” Erosenko said. “They're playing games.”
Kyle Lawson is a reporter for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8755, or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.