BALLOT QUESTION #2: If you're a resident of Johnson City, TN, your August ballot will ask “Shall the Charter of the City of Johnson City be amended to allow adoption of city ordinances after two (2) separate readings, at least one (1) week apart and in open session, rather than three (3) readings, at least one (1) week apart and in open session, as currently required?”
Vote NO to Protect Accountable Decision-Making
This proposal to reduce ordinance readings from three to two and move the public hearing to the first reading weakens our city's legislative process and reduces public awareness, oversight, and participation.
If this referendum passes:
- The time from when an ordinance is first publicly posted on an agenda to the public hearing date will be cut from 16* days to just 48 hours.
- The time from when an ordinance is first publicly posted on an agenda to the commission’s final vote on it will be cut from 30* days to just 16.
The city says they need to do this to “increase efficiency and avoid delays in approvals.” We ask: At what cost? While rushing to pass legislation may seem appealing, hastily made decisions can have real consequences.
Vote NO on Ballot Question #2 if You Believe:
- Public participation is crucial for good laws.
- Working people need time to understand and weigh in on proposed laws.
- Well-considered decisions are better for the city than rushed ones.
Here Is a Breakdown of the Concerns About Ballot Question 2:
- Busy Citizens Will Have Even Less Opportunity to Understand What’s Going On
With barely more than two weeks from public notice to final vote, working people and busy families will have little opportunity to hear of, and to come to understand the implications of, important decisions our City Commission is planning to implement. - Fewer People Will Be Able to Participate in Public Hearings
With a mere 48 hours between required notice and the first reading of an ordinance, it will be very difficult for the average citizen to understand the impact of a proposed ordinance, discuss it within their community, and prepare informed feedback in time for the public hearing. - Lower Public Participation Makes for Weaker Legislation
Limiting the number of readings allows for less back-and-forth discussion and potential revisions of the ordinance. This can lead to a feeling that our city leaders are not thoroughly considering or invested in all perspectives. It also means less time for Commission members and the public to identify potential issues or unintended consequences before the ordinance has been voted into law. - Rushed Processes Are Less Accountable
Reduced opportunities for public scrutiny can make it harder to hold city leaders accountable for their decisions. This can weaken the public's sense of control over their government. A healthy municipality welcomes and encourages civic engagement.
A well-functioning democracy requires a balance between efficient lawmaking and robust public participation. Three readings with a second-reading public hearing strikes this balance better than a 2-reading process.
A Vision Forward
We are not fighting merely to maintain the status quo. We want the city to make it easier—not harder—for regular working-class people to participate in democratic processes. And, just as importantly, we would like to see city leadership lean more into creative and community-driven development strategies, such as co-operative ownership models for businesses and housing, land trusts, and greater public involvement in the city’s budget.
Addressing the Arguments
They Say: The Public Can Speak at Any Meeting
Commission members have stated that public comment is available at every meeting, and therefore people would be able to speak about an ordinance at any of its readings as well. While this is true on its face, it hides that there is a difference between a public hearing, which is a formal part of the legislative process expressly intended to obtain public input for the purpose of making legal decisions, and mere public comment. Additionally, Commissioner Hunter said, “How many times do we have people wanting to speak on a request and don’t understand why they can’t speak on the first reading?”1
This seems to be the very opposite of saying that people can provide public comment at any of the readings.
They Say: People Are Given Plenty of Notice
Another argument Commission members have made is that residents affected by proposed zoning changes are given plenty of notice, to include signs and a neighborhood meeting, in advance of the ordinance coming before the City Commission. We applaud the city working with residents on issues that directly affect their neighborhoods.
However, zoning is far from the only business the Commission conducts, and little to no prior intensive outreach to the public is conducted before those ordinances are brought to a first reading. With meeting agendas posted as little as 48 hours ahead of a meeting, the public often hears of these issues for the first time when the press reports on that first reading.
If Johnson City residents have just 48 hours to discover, research, and come to understand how proposed ordinances will affect them, it’s clear that far fewer working people will have time to prepare for and speak at public hearings going forward, should this ballot question pass. Perhaps that is the point of it.
They Say: Other Cities Do It
Assistant City Manager Steve Willis told WJHL1 that most cities in Tennessee require only two readings. And at the second reading of this particular ballot question, he added that “less than 10% of the cities across the state of TN require three readings for ordinances.”2
No reasoning has been provided as to why other cities have opted for the minimum state requirement. The argument is simply that the other kids are doing it.
They Say: We Need to Travel at the Speed of Business
Finally, Commissioner Brock is quoted as saying, “It’s dealing with developers and business opportunities and we’re not traveling at the speed of business for sure.”1 This highlights a real tension between the interests of developers and the interests of the public.
With this proposal, the city’s leaders are telling us who they really see themselves working for.
* The Commission meets the first and third Thursdays of every month. Four times a year, a month will have five weeks in it. When that happens, there will be three weeks between the second meeting of one month and the first meeting of the next. In those cases, the time from an ordinance’s introduction to its passing is currently 37 days and would be cut to 23 days. The time to formulate a response could be reduced from 23 days to 48 hours.
