Here’s the story so far: Corrupt politicians ignore the Constitution while making decisions without input from citizens. Plotting from the shadows, they decide that anyone who complains will be punished. Sinister laughter fills smoke-filled air as they decide whom next to silence at their meetings.

Here’s another version: Whiners and complainers who are dissatisfied with the decisions made by their elected representatives try to find any way possible to undermine those decisions. When they are blocked from insulting these leaders at meetings and interfering with decision-making, they hire lawyers and file suit.

Which version of the story do we prefer? Which do we really believe? Which is closer to the truth? What exactly are the real issues?

The county commission’s Rule 19 seems to be causing quite a bit of controversy. Some people think it’s unconstitutional, a way of enforcing a silence at county commission meetings that is forbidden by the basic laws of our nation. Others think it’s a way of providing a balance between the right of citizens to speak in public and the need for public officials to actually make some decisions.

Lurking in the shadows is the strange figure of Roger Bok, who is not a plaintiff in the MCLU suit, but whose abrasive and abusive speech is one of the main reasons for Rule 19.

Bok is present at most public meetings in this community, including those of the city council and school board, as well as the county commission. He has been described as a civic-minded citizen, who is only trying to make a difference in the community. However, he’s also been banned from speaking at meetings of all three institutions, at one time or another. His problem is his temper. He flips quickly from ordinary conversation to red-faced shouting and foul language. Nobody should be forced to listen to the things he says when he’s angry; punishing citizens who talk like that at public meetings by withdrawing their right to speak is appropriate.

However, the rule designed to deal with Bok has affected others who want to speak at county commission meetings. They contacted the MCLU. Outsiders like the MCLU often have to intervene when basic rights and freedoms are being endangered, but I wonder if they have the whole picture (or just the part that the plaintiffs want them to see).

If an individual has demonstrated on many occasions that he is prone to inappropriate personal comments and temper tantrums, then why should any institution have to wait until he crosses the line before denying him a public microphone? If a speaker’s sole intent is to continue to question decisions that have already been implemented in order to show their contempt for an institution, then how is limiting the amount of time they speak inappropriate? Rule 19 is actually far more generous to citizens than the rules that govern public speech at the legislature, where you have to be invited to speak by a member. Even with this rule in place, at county commission meetings most citizens only have to show up in order to qualify.

We also need to remember that public meetings are not the only forums for complaints and concerns. People are able to write letters to newspapers in the county, and post criticisms of all sorts in Web forums maintained by the Tribune and other organizations.

On the other hand, I don’t see the point of barring people from speaking about legitimate, ongoing concerns more than twice in one year. If the commissioners continue to ignore an issue, like animal control or feedlot concentration, no matter how many people complain, I think it’s only fair for citizens (a.k.a. their constituents) to be able to keep bringing the issue up at public meetings until something is done. Justice and fairness often require persistence.

The final status of the story of Rule 19 probably will be written in a federal courtroom miles away from here, but I hope that final judgment includes a balance between the need for citizens to speak and for commissioners to take care of their responsibilities. Yes, Rule 19 needs some fine-tuning; it goes too far. Unfortunately, something like it is necessary as long as some people don’t know how to manage their anger.

(David Rask Behling is a rural Albert Lea resident. His column appears Tuesdays.)