Public comment has long been a staple of local government meetings. But in North Dakota and other parts of the country, this engagement tool faces a future that's a little less certain.

This month, the Fargo City Commission has come under scrutiny over possible plans to revamp the public comment portion of its meetings.

Some commissioners have proposed breaking up when residents can talk about certain issues.

Another idea being floated is to remove public comment from regular meetings and possibly shift that option to quarterly forums.

Cody Schuler, advocacy manager with the American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota, said he feels local leaders are beginning to walk down a dangerous path.

"We are a government by, for, and of the people," said Schuler, "and our elected representatives are an extension doing the work of the citizens - and citizens have every right to fully speak."

Fargo leaders in favor of exploring a format change say they want more productive dialogue and to give residents meaningful answers on the spot.

However, not all city commissioners are on board with kicking around these ideas, echoing concerns raised by free-speech advocates. Similar debates have surfaced in cities such as Spokane, Washington.

In Fargo, Schueler said leaders need to realize that public participation has become a valuable way for BIPOC residents and younger adults to share their concerns with the city.

"We need to make sure that those who are not in power," said Schuler, "those who may be marginalized, those who might be of lower socio-economic status, have a voice."

He added that while this City Commission is pretty accessible, it can't be guaranteed for future elections.

He said fully maintaining public comment can mitigate any future panels that might not be viewed as fully engaged with constituents.




get more stories like this via email

Recent Supreme Court rulings on air pollution are affecting Virginia and the nation.

Climate advocates said the court overstepped its bounds in ruling the Environmental Protection Agency's Good Neighbor Rule was improperly enacted and repealing the so-called "Chevron deference." Without it, judges have to rule on ambiguous regulatory laws with no agency expertise.

Craig Segall, vice president of the advocacy group Evergreen Action, said the court is diminishing the capacity of Virginia's federal climate partners like the EPA.

"By creating room to attack, for instance, carbon standards for power plants federally, that Virginia might want to implement," Segall outlined. "Or by making it harder for U.S. EPA to move us toward electric vehicles that would create jobs in Virginia and that would, you know, clean up the air, especially in Northern Virginia where it's so congested."

He added it creates an opportunity for states to lead on climate action. But partisan opinions on climate change vary across the country. In Virginia, it means mixed efforts from utility companies and lawmakers. Dominion Energy is developing offshore wind, but it is also pressing on with a natural gas plant residents vehemently oppose.

The rulings, coupled with decisions on presidential immunity and what constitutes bribery have eroded the Supreme Court's perception of impartiality. Polls show most Americans across party lines feel the Court puts political ideology first.

Quentin Scott, federal policy director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said it opens the floodgates to government corruption.

"We can't have this blatant, open corruption or it will diminish our effectiveness of government and enforcement of some very important rules related to pollution," Scott asserted.

He stressed climate action will be a top ballot priority along with preserving democracy. Some of his group's top issues for the next presidency will be improving grid interconnection of clean energy projects and approving certain reforms for the Supreme Court.

Vice President Kamala Harris, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, delivered a powerful message in Indianapolis.

Speaking at a Zeta Phi Beta Sorority event, just days after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed her candidacy, Harris emphasized her dedication to affordable healthcare, student debt relief, and gun control measures, including universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.

She also hammered home that, if she is elected president, she would restore a woman's right to choose an abortion.

"When I am President of the United States and when Congress passes a law to restore those freedoms, I will sign it into law," Harris said. "We are not playing around."

Harris expressed her belief that the current administration has made progress toward a better future by implementing such initiatives as capping insulin prices for more affordable healthcare, passing the Child Tax Credit, and forgiving student loan debt for millions of Americans.

GOP Vice-Presidential nominee J.D. Vance was also in Indiana Wednesday. He spoke at a private event in Ft. Wayne.

Criticizing Project 2025, a conservative plan drafted by the Heritage Foundation, Harris warned it would take the country backward in the areas of medical freedom and education.

"This represents an outright attack on our children, our family, and our future. These extremists want to take us back, but we are not going back. We are not going back," she said.

Harris called for unity in defending freedom and stated there are two different visions for the country. Her vision, she said, looks to the future; the other, she said, looks to the past. Harris urged the community to mobilize and vote, stressing the significance of this moment in shaping the nation's future.


get more stories like this via email

A sweeping conservative plan to shape a possible second Donald Trump presidency is making headlines, even as the GOP candidate claims to know little about it.

"Project 2025" from the conservative Heritage Foundation includes standard conservative ideas, such as slashing regulations, but also firing thousands of civil servants, dismantling the Department of Education and giving more power to the states.

David Nevins, co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder of the Bridge Alliance, a network of organizations working to promote healthy self-governance, has enlisted experts to share their thoughts on each of Project 2025's 30 sections.

"The cross-partisan approach that we believe in is, in some cases, the federal government can do certain things more effectively - in some cases not as effectively - and that's the discussion we need to have as a nation," Nevins said.

Alarming to New Mexico conservationists, Project 2025 proposes slashing federal money for research and investment in renewable energy, and replacing carbon-reduction goals with efforts to increase energy production and energy security.

Nevins believes many on the far right want to "turn back the clock" and erase societal changes that have occurred in the last 20 to 30 years. He said people can be afraid of change - especially when things are moving fast - but thinks Project 2025 represents a lack of open-mindedness rather than seeking common ground to take democracy to its next level.

"The reality of America is that we are a diverse country, in terms of racial, ethnic, sexual preferences, religion - that is the reality. And if we're going to live into the pluralistic dream of our founding fathers and mothers, we have to learn to make that work," he explained.

While Trump has denied knowing much about Project 2025, nearly two-thirds of the authors behind the plan served in his former administration.


get more stories like this via email