Agenda Item: Oral Comments from the Public
At the last City council meeting those watching on TV did not hear my
closing remarks. At the time, the Mayor had indicated I only had one
minute left, then after a bit I noticed a movement and thought to
myself, “Is the mic still on?” But I continued because I
had worked long and hard to gather the information and then try to
condense it down into 3 minutes. Also, I could have just
misinterpreted what I saw. By the end of the meeting, after several
gracious acts by the Mayor allowing others to speak out of order, I
felt that probably I was mistaken about what I saw.
When I was told that in fact the mike was off at the end of my comments, I
laughed. So,the Mayor doesn’t appreciate my endeavors, he has
control of the switch, I was out of order; really just a minor
disappointment in my life right now.
But when I saw it on TV, it gave me a different perception. I no longer
saw it as a personal problem. The question became what do people
think when they watch this happen? Would they feel welcome to come
speak at Council meetings? Is public participation, especially by
those with a different perspective, welcomed?
When someone is ruled out of order, it is government regulation of speech.
It is at times necessary to insure that you can get done what needs
to get done, but the regulation needs to be applied evenly. And I
would not want such tight regulation that the praise of Mr. Rodriquez
would have been ruled out of order before it had a chance to be given
or that the question at the end of the meeting could not have gotten
a response.
We have a governing principal. It says, “We May Disagree, But We
Will Be Respectful of One Another, All Comments Will Be Directed to
the Issue at Hand, and Addressed to the City Council, Personal
Attacks are Unacceptable.”
I respectfully suggest that this be the guide for ruling people out of
order.
I would like to now restate what was not broadcast two weeks ago.
I hope this information provides you with a clearer historical
perspective as you continue planning for the use of our water rate
revenues.
My apologies for going overtime and thank you for your patience.
I personally thought it was uneccesary for the Mayor to "warn" you that you only had one minute left. I too did not hear your last comment but it appeared that you may have looked away from the microphone, I certainly hope you weren't cut off.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I also hoped and believed that I wasn't cut off. I'll get a copy of the program and we can watch it together. You will see why I believe the Mayor turned off the mic and I will see how it appeared that I may have looked away from the mic. Interested?
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I remember thinking about leaving and may have turned a bit. But then I decided to finish and apologize, so I think I would have turned back. But I'll take another look at it with you.
My hope is that everyone is treated with respect.
Why should you get more than the alloted time?
ReplyDeleteI watched the council meeting on tv a couple of weeks ago, and it was more of a courtesy for the mayor rather than a warning that you only had a minute left.
I believe you were cut off, and for good reason - you went past the alloted time.
Take a look at the council meetings in Eureka and Arcata - they all have a time limit on public comments, and I have seen the microphones turned off while watching council meetings there as well.
I really don't think that your mic was turned off because of what you were presenting; it's irrelevent as far as what happened - you went past the time limit and at that point, Janelle, you were out of order.
Wow,
ReplyDeleteI just had to take a look at this when a friend told me about your blogs!
Good job, Janele! I do think though that you are having a bit of a martyr complex.(i am not trying to insult you, we all get this way when we are so passionett about something) It sounds like you went over time and the sound was turned off. This really is quite common at meetings like these. In fact, I believe they just arrested a local gadfly at a county supes meeting a couple of weeks ago who went over time, and got really belligerent. (i am not suggesting you were belligerent, i liked waht you had to say!).
The sound gets turned off at arcasta counsel meetings all of the time when folks go over time.
You are doing good work here though! dont get discouraged! I thhink you should run for city counsel! Stay involved!!!
You go girlfriend!!!
Missy.
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFirst, a warning: This may take longer than 3 minutes to read. Second, please take no offense at the warning, it is intended as a bit of humor.
I also have watched Eureka, Arcata Council and Humboldt County Board meetings. Perhaps we watched different days (good chance, as in truth I don’t make a habit of it). I saw no statements being cut off. Each forum is different, but both Cities have time limits and we agree these can be helpful to maintain order and allow the work of government to get done. I did notice an automatic timer system that provided a courtesy chime notice for the speaker without requiring the Mayor to watch the clock and interrupt the speaker. And yes, I think at least one speaker spoke for a bit after the second chime without incident. At the county level I noticed no time limit, in fact I’ve heard it said that perhaps Jimmy Smith is a bit too lenient with speakers. Recently I also happened to catch a very interesting County Planning Commission meeting on the Housing Element where the chair suspended the rules and held a town hall style discussion on the issue, asking only that speakers remember to be thoughtful of others and limit the time they used for their comments. It went quite well.
Because I am annoyingly curious, I did take a look at an agenda for each of the bodies. Again, each is different. Arcata’s agenda states that speakers may be limited to 3 minutes, with a maximum of 5 minutes, and that a time limit on the overall length of oral communications may be imposed. The Eureka agenda says council policy is to limit each speaker to three minutes. On the Board agenda 15 minutes are reserved at a specific time for “Public Appearances”. Speakers are requested to sign a sheet at the front door five minutes before, perhaps to allow the Chair to allocate the time between speakers as there is no individual time limit stated.
Besides time issues I also notice other differences between the agendas. In Arcata, instead of stating what the council may not do (deliberate nor take action), the agenda states that the Council may respond to statements and that any request that requires Council action will be set by the Council for a future agenda or referred to staff. The Eureka agenda has “rules of civil debate” almost identical to Fortuna’s statement that tops its agenda. Each states, “We may disagree, but we will be respectful of one another”, “All comments will be directed to the issue at hand”, and “Personal attacks are unacceptable.” The difference between the two seems to be application of the rules. In Fortuna all comments will be “addressed to the City Council” implying that the rules are directed at everyone else, whereas in Eureka “All persons in attendance at public meetings are requested to observe the following rules.” Persons at Eureka meetings are also advised that they will be allowed to speak on any agenda item following the staff presentation.
But truthfully, and back to the issue, I am most familiar with Fortuna Council Meetings. So if it is a fact that cutting people off is a common occurrence in Humboldt County, it is a fact I am ignorant of. In Fortuna, I watched many a meeting where the former mayor, John Campbell, ignored the 3-minute rule, or perhaps he just wasn’t a clock-watcher, or perhaps he felt it more important to be respectful. I was as ignorant of his motivation as I am of the motivations of Mayor Whitchurch. I have observed a difference in actions between the two.
You asked why should I be allotted more time? The answer is common courtesy. I have spoken a few times and have managed to stay within the time limit. I have asked for extra time and been denied. I have asked for and been granted time, and then was told privately by a council member that I spent more time asking than I used going over. I have considered asking others to help present information to save coming back to another meeting, but have so far resisted the temptation to bend the rules in this way. I was not belligerent, I was not repeating previous comments I had made, I was hurrying in an attempt to not take more time than needed. What purpose was served by turning off the mike? It did not save one second of the Council’s time; I think everyone there heard my comments, only those watching the meeting at home could not hear.
You said that what I was presenting was irrelevant because I was out of order. I was not the only one out of order that evening. Two other people were allowed to speak out of order. When there is inconsistent application of the rules of order it begs the question why one and not the others? In fact,
I have been told that perhaps another public comment speaker that evening went past the time limit. If this is true then the same rule was applied inconsistently, why? This information could be incorrect; shall we watch the meeting again and find out?
It is not my intent nor desire to see the rules tightened so that more are ruled out of order. I think this is often the case when people become concerned about fairness. I am content with the knowledge that the information was presented to the Council. That was my goal, despite any rumors of martyr complex to the contrary. In going back to the Council my goal was to remind Mayor Whitchurch of values I think we share, the importance of mutual respect and the dangers of over regulation.
Dear Missy, Could you please come up with something mean to say to help feed my psychological need for suffering and persecution? Seriously, thanks ever so much for all the words of encouragement.
Janelle, You are right about them picking and choosing who gets to go over the time limit. It has always been this way. Unfortunately, there are always the "favorites" in all walks of life. Personally, I have noticed that they will give the wing nuts and wack jobs lots of time but cut the intelligent ones off.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I have hesitated to respond because, of course, you are right; except it can't be true in the City Council Chambers, we should each be treated with respect.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that the Mayor has to be consistent, other than that, the running of the meeting is totally within his discretion. Unfortunately, in ruling me out of order again last night the Mayor has put one foot on the path of tightly regulated freedom of speech during Council Meetings.
I am disappointed, but that is his choice to make. I was thankful to hear the support and disappointed that I didn't persist in speaking. I just didn't have the energy.
Had I been allowed to speak I would have said, "Police records may have different rules, but the California Public Record Act limits fees on public records. You might check that, if you haven't" Luckily I was able to give the information to Chief Kitna, I'm sure he will bring it back if they need to change the fee they passed last night. So life goes on.
janelle