|
 |
||
|
Response to The Buzz Column, June 9 Thank you for mentioning the May 2005 one-time, unique method public input meeting offered by that Community Services Commission. The commissioners agreed to a one-time, no-speaker-time-limit meeting that followed a town hall opinion/question format. There were 32 public attendees, and 22 citizens took 2 hours and 10 minutes to speak. The only constraints were that they must stay within the subject at hand, the joint-use gymnasium. Having no time clock, one person, I believe a teacher, explained the needs and potential benefits for P.E. classes especially in wet weather conditions spoke for a 20-minute duration. All project questions were answered by the city staff. As the moderator of this unique speaking opportunity, I sensed that the public appreciated this relaxed opportunity to speak without any time constraints. (Question: Do you find it interesting that this meeting allowed twice the time recently allowed for last month’s Council Town Hall meeting?) The meeting tape records show that speaker queue waiting times were sometimes paced by previous speaker lengthly questions and answers. At the conclusion of the last request to speak form and a call for last opportunity to speak, five additional citizens came forward and spoke turning in their request form afterward. And you were correct I did speak after each and every speaker as the city staff wanted to get an accurate opinion count of for vs. against, requested that I as chairperson question each speaker if this was their first and only time speaking and had they emailed their same opinion. Afterward, several commissioners expressed concerns that maybe allowing so much time was not the best way to proceed in the future. I can understand where this could become a concern for certain formal hearings. However, this being a public input information wants and needs assessment meeting I feel strongly that in order to serve the people when there is no previously available needs assessment data, I would again be willing to propose to a governing body that they allow additional speaker time. Especially if quality of life issues and non-approved budgeted expenditures are involved. I also realize that all community leaders have one vote and I being a “harmony and ethical team player” would naturally yield to the due process of the democracy voting rules. On this matter there was no vote required by the commission as this was a public input meeting focused on determining Bill Barker |
||