If elected Mayor, I will propose five changes to Assembly procedures intended to make it easier and more comfortable for the public to participate in government.
Some Assembly procedures I will recommend for review are codified (Order of Business: HBC 2.10.020; Agenda preparation: HBC 2.10.030), and some are not: 3-minute speaking rule, prior sign-ups for testifying at Public Hearings, single issue Assembly committee meetings.
I would like the Assembly to consider changing the order of business of the agenda so that public comment precedes approval of the agenda. This change would enable Assembly members to amend the agenda to include discussion of good ideas or issues presented by the public. I believe that the public needs more indication from its Assembly that it has been heard. Putting an idea or point on the night's agenda brought up in the evening's initial public comment period would send just such a signal.
Preparation of the agenda, by my reading of the code (HBC 2.10.030) is a clerical, not a political, task. The code simply gives a delivery date for all "reports, communications, ordinances, resolutions, contract documents, or other matters..." after which "the mayor, with the assistance of the clerk, "arrange(s) a list of such matters according to the order of business.... ." Nothing should prevent an issue or topic from finding a place on the agenda except a missed deadline. In fact, in doing research on how other municipalities proceed to appoint vacancies, I stumbled onto the fact that the City of Ketchikan agenda is exclusively prepared by the Clerk and the Manager. The Assembly meeting is first and foremost a business meeting, and business comes to the Borough through the Clerk's office, not the Mayor's office. However, in times past, here in Haines, it has been the perception, if not the practice, that the Mayor is "in charge" of the agenda. That is simply not true. The Mayor is in charge of the conduct of the meeting, not the content.
I am uncomfortable with a strict 3-minute limit for public comments. This is a rule the Assembly has adopted. It is not in code. I would like to retire this limit, except in situations where there are clearly more eager speakers than time in the evening. Public speaking is nerve wracking for most people. To have your thought abruptly terminated by "time," ads humiliation to the list of barriers that keep people from sharing their thoughts in a community setting. Instead, I leave it up to the mayor to politely interrupt the speaker and ask for a wrap up. The evening needs to proceed with a profound sense of respect for the thoughts and views of our neighbors. It is the mayor's job to ensure that that is the case.
Signing up to testify before the public hearing seems innocuous. When testimony is given, the speaker announces his or her name anyway, so why sign up in advance? I want to review this procedure because I fear it is a possible barrier to thorough public participation. What if I am sitting in the audience and the information I hear from a neighbor helps me solidify my views and suddenly I do have something to say, but I didn't sign up? Adherence to advance sign up procedures can actually keep the community for learning from and knowing one another. I will recommend that we eliminate signing up in advance to testify at a public hearing.
Assembly meetings are business meetings. They are where decisions are debated and made; not so much where decisions are formed. Decisions can be more collaboratively and effectively formed in committee meetings open to the public where there can be extended give and take between members of the Assembly and the public and between members of the Assembly themselves. I will expect that a topic taken up by a committee of the Assembly return to the Assembly with a recommendation for action from that committee.
If you are having difficulty posting comments on the blog, you can email comments to me at sscott@aptalaska.net. Thanks. Stephanie
ReplyDeleteI support placing Public Comment on the agenda prior to Approval of the Agenda. This allows the Clerk or Mayor to move the topic to New Business where the Assembly can then discuss or assign to the appropriate committee (preferable.)
ReplyDeleteThere is a distinct difference in purpose when one address the Assembly as a participant in Public Comment and a citizen testifying at a Public Hearing. I would like to see limitations on the amount of time that a person may speak...Public Comment (usually a new idea proposed for business)could be five minutes. Testimony for a Public Hearing could be less (to encourage organized testimony). I would like to see a light that is controlled by a timer, and when the speaker begins, the light comes on, and when there is 30 seconds remaining, the light blinks so the speaker knows to wrap up, and when the light goes out, the speaker stops. This is self-monitoring, and it is more respectful.
Assuming that the new government utilizes the committee structure as you suggest, the degree of participation at Assembly meetings should decline. I have no problem with people signing up in advance, but I do not believe it should be required to sign up. What any business meeting needs to avoid is long-winded comment from people who have not participated in the discussion/debate during the development phase, i.e., committee meetings.