The Apopka Chief and WESH 2 News organized a mayoral debate on Feb. 3, when all three candidates addressed their visions for the city. The 90-minute format did not allow for question on every key issue, so each week leading up to the March 10 election, the Chief will run a Q&A addressing an issue that was not included at the Feb. 3 event.  

To watch the full mayoral debate, click here.

This week’s question is as follows: Question 8 on the ballot addresses public comment. This charter amendment establishes that there shall be a public comment period before “decision” items on a meeting agenda are considered by the City Council. Do you support or oppose this measure, and how would you govern meetings to make sure the public has an opportunity to speak on matters of community importance? 

Answers are presented in alphabetical order. 

Christine Moore, Orange County District 2 commissioner: 

I, of course, support public comments at meetings. I believe in representative democracy, and public comments are essential in maintaining our freedoms. I think the bigger question is how to better engage our residents.  

I was the first mayoral candidate to suggest introducing additional citizen sounding boards. These committees could include public infrastructure, parks & recreation, senior services, and historical preservation. We should also annually offer classes to acquaint residents in the roles and responsibilities of city government. 

Unfortunately, this town has a civility problem on full display at meetings and on social media. The incivility is hindering the ability to recruit the finest commercial and entertainment businesses. The incivility also limits prospective applicants for city employment.  

Residents should feel empowered to send emails, make appointments with staff and elected officials, and speak at council meetings. Comments with regard to policy and vetting of issues are extremely beneficial.   

Comments should be germane to the meeting or general in nature, and prospective speakers required to refrain from personal or political attacks. I have had the experience of being “cussed” after trying to civilly “say hello” at a meeting. I worry citizens will refrain from participating if this untoward behavior is not checked. 

Public comment is necessary for democracy and civil for effectiveness. I support it. 

Bryan Nelson, incumbent mayor:

As the mayor of Apopka, I have always protected the right of anyone to speak before the City Council. I moved it to the end of the meeting because the public comments were not about issues that we the council could address, but rather political comments about members that sit on the dais.  

We have lost quality businesses and staff members who did their due diligence and watched several council meetings before deciding to take their capital and talents elsewhere. Look no further than the last council meeting — watch the look on 30+ nursing students from UCF’s faces as they watched the political grandstanding begin.  

With that being said, we moved the comments back to the beginning of the meeting. I ask anyone to watch public comment and ask yourself: If you were looking to relocate to Apopka, would these derogatory comments help you with your decision to move to Apopka? We encourage public comment but wish the issues were policy-driven and not for political gain.  

For the most part, it is the same four or five individuals who obviously don’t like and waste city staff and other visitors’ time with political nonsense. Nick Nesta could eliminate it but refuses to tell them to stop. Look back on YouTube for the last eight years and find any of my supporters who calls out a commissioner about politics and not policy.

Nick Nesta, city commissioner: 

The eight city of Apopka charter amendments that are on the ballot on March 10 came to fruition through many community meetings, public input, and resident conversations. Although all have been placed on the ballot due to resident requests, No. 8 is there solely because the current mayor unilaterally and spitefully moved public comment to the end of the City Council meetings and stopped the livestreaming of the meetings. 

This one-sided and malicious move made residents wait to be heard for hours, often not until after 11:00 p.m. During these long months of working to silence the residents, the current mayor continued to prioritize developers and their wants over our residents expressing their needs for almost eight months. While the mayor worked to silence the residents, I ensured their voices were heard by livestreaming public comments via Facebook during every meeting until they were properly restored through my advocacy to the front of the City Council meeting and livestreamed. 

Countless times throughout those months I motioned to move public comment back to its rightful spot in the beginning of the meeting and to have it livestreamed with the current mayor, Commissioner Alexander Smith and Commissioner Nadia Anderson voting to deny the residents the opportunity to speak until the very end of the meeting and not have it livestreamed. 

Just like many of the other questions on this ballot, this question is the result of a mayor putting residents’ needs last, creating fear that our city will go back to the dark days of the current mayor’s lack of leadership.