The Bottom Line: The inconvenience of democracy, it seems, is the one disruption they couldn’t quite tolerate.

Well, well, well. Isn't that special?

The City of Fort Smith Board of Directors has once again demonstrated its deep, abiding respect for the people they are supposed to represewnt, gently ushering the Citizens Forum out of the actual decision-making meetings and back into the study sessions, where the real votes don’t happen.

Voted 6-1 on July 21 with the usual emergency clause so it could take effect immediately, of course. Because nothing says “thoughtful governance” like reversing a three-month-old policy with zero discussion after the public just spent 90+ minutes talking at you.

Recall the noble experiment of April: the Board moved public comment to the front of regular meetings so citizens could actually speak before the directors voted on things. Five minutes each, no hard limit on speakers. Democracy in action!

Then the meetings ran long--sometimes past three hours--and suddenly the same voices who once fretted about “frustration with our process” discovered that process was inconvenient when it involved listening.

Director Kevin Settle helpfully explained that citizens (and, one suspects, certain directors) just want the “business of the city” to start on time. The business, mind you, of governing people whose primary formal chance to address the full Board on anything under the sun has now been reassigned to the non-voting study sessions.

How much does this infringe on citizens’ rights? Legally, not much in the constitutional sense. Public comment periods are limited public forums; governments get to set reasonable time, place, and manner rules.

You still get your five minutes. You still can’t cuss, threaten, or personally attack anyone. You still must address the Board as a whole, not individual members or staff. Shouting remains frowned upon.

Refuse to leave, and the cops can still escort you out. The rules the city posts are the standard municipal “please don’t turn this into a circus” boilerplate.

Nothing new there.

Practically and politically? It’s a polite demotion. The open forum--where residents could raise any city-related issue right before the Board cast binding votes--is now timed for the sessions that don’t produce binding votes.

Agenda-item comments at regular meetings remain, sure. But the broader “here’s what’s on my mind about how you’re running the place” window has been moved off the main stage

. Convenient, that.

Especially when the same meetings had been featuring the same recurring speakers on the same recurring grievances. Efficiency for the Board; attenuated voice for the governed.

The hypocrisy is the real art form. In April, the Board was responding to citizen frustration by giving the public a more prominent seat. In July, after experiencing that prominence, it flipped the script because the meetings started late.

Flip-flopping on process while lecturing about running a “business meeting” is peak local-government performance art. One resident called it laughable. Another asked if the next move was the basement.

Fair questions

.

Study sessions are still public. The Board is still elected.

Citizens can still show up, still speak, still complain on social media, still vote the next time these seats come up.

But let’s not pretend this is a neutral scheduling tweak. It’s the governing body deciding that unfiltered public input is more tolerable when it doesn’t delay the part where they actually decide things.

The rules against disruption remain firmly in place.

The inconvenience of democracy, it seems, is the one disruption they couldn’t quite tolerate.