Her decision to limit the public comment period to fifteen minutes has drawn heavy criticism. Unfortunately, the rhetoric has been couched in grandiose terms such as freedom of speech and the Brown Act.
While freedom of speech is ostensibly government by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it has always effectively been subject to time and place restrictions. Public meetings could not function with complete freedom of speech which would allow anyone to talk at any time. The need for order is balanced against the right of the public to have access to their local government. Thus enters the Ralph M. Brown Act in California which governs access to local government bodies.
Section 54954.3 governs the right of the public speak. Subsection (a) reads:
“Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2.”
However even in this case, the right to speak is not an unlimited one.
Subsection (b) allows the legislative body to adopt:
“reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.”
Finally subsection (c) essentially protects the right to public criticism of policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, but not beyond the current protection offered by the law. In other words, the Brown Act does not protect individuals from slander and other prohibitions on speech, but it does in general prevent the agency from shutting down dissent.
In the debate that we are dealing with, subsection (b) is the one that is applicable. It is here that we find that the actions of the Mayor are in fact legal under the Brown Act. “Reasonable” is always a judgment call and it also appears that her body could probably overrule her on policy, but obviously given her majority status, that is not going to happen.
That said, as with so many other provisions for open government in California, I believe that the Brown Act provides the minimum standard under which an agency should operate, not the maximum standard.
An active and engaged public is vital to this community. By limiting public comment, we begin the limit the chances for the public to participate in their own government and this I think will likely produce unwanted and undesirable consequences.
As has been pointed out before by members of the public and members on the council alike, the number of times in the last two years that the public consumed more than 15 minutes at a council meeting one could count on one hand. And it always surrounded an issue of great controversy and therefore of great import. On those occasions, what is the harm of the body of representatives to the public to listen to public input?
There is nothing more frustrating, as we have seen in the past, for the public to come to a meeting, speak on an issue for a long period of time, only to watch as the councilmembers make their comments from prepared statements as though the public’s comments have no impact whatsoever on the council’s final decision. Nothing is more frustrating than that except perhaps the public not even being able to fully speak out on the issue.
At the July 22, 2008 city council meeting, a number of members of the public spoke out against the new policy.
Jean Jackson, a prominent member of the public was especially eloquent:
“Your new policy of only having fifteen minutes of public comment before the meeting starts–it’s not Democratic. It shuts down opposition. It shuts down good ideas, I get inspired by listening to public comment from people. It shows lack of flexibility and you are doing a great disservice to the citizens who want to participate in government and their sense of empowerment. You wonder why people don’t sign up to be on commissions, well when you give them fifteen minutes public comment for all the issues, it really shows that you are not interested in what people have to say. I really urge you to get the citizens involved and not belittle us by allowing only fifteen minutes of public comment.”
However in the Enterprise, members of the public such as Sheryl Patterson defended the policy. Ms. Patterson is correct that the council not violating the Brown Act (and likely not the American with Disabilities Act) with their policy. However, she also went too far in defending the policy.
She argued for instance:
“The purpose of a council meeting is to address items on the agenda.”
The Brown Act actually specifically provides for the public to address items that are not on the agenda provided that the council is proscribed from taking action on those items.
Her final statement, I think misses the point as well:
“Just get to the meeting early and sit by the podium if you need to speak first. It’s not that hard to be heard.”
Under normal conditions, that is correct, it is not difficult to speak as a member of the public. But if a large number of people have decided to speak on a given subject that could become a bit tricky. The concern is the point about cutting off debate after 15 minutes–something that most weeks is not going to be an issue. But on those weeks that it is, what does Ms. Patterson suggest for those meetings to those individuals who did not get a chance to be heard?
This weekend, Kevin Klein in a letter to the Davis Enterprise weighed in on the issue and argued that free speech does exist at meetings.
Mr. Klein actually straddles the fence on this issue suggesting:
“I would think a better solution would be for City Council to assess the length of each meeting, and if need be, spilt public comment to two parts (before and during agenda items); and then asking those waiting to give public comment if they could wait until later in the evening. “
However he also offers a note of caution for the council:
“The one caution I would give to the council, though, is to not set public comment at the end of their meeting (which is almost always after 11 p.m.). To do so would be an act of denying citizens reasonable access to public comment otherwise required by the Brown Act.”
That of course leads one to wonder exactly what the council would gain by splitting public comment. If the idea is to move the agenda forward more quickly, it seems to me that splitting the public comment section does not aid in that. It is better to allow the public to speak up front and then move on to scheduled council business.
This is an issue that is not likely to go away in the near future. The council has the authority under the Brown act to limit public comment in this manner. The question before all of us is really whether the council should in this manner and whether that really furthers our goals in the name of expediency.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
DPD, I do not necessarily agree with your legal assessment of the issue. If a disabled person cannot stay for the entire meeting, and cannot “run to the podium” within the 15 minute time limit, then they have been effectively denied the opportunity for public comment, which would be a violation of the Americans w Disabilities Act. This is why I noticed where to file a complaint in the Davis Enterprise, should a disabled person feel discriminated against.
Furthermore, Mayor Asmundson has made her priorities clear – to shorten meetings at the public’s expense. As she put it, “I’m trying to be more effective and efficient in out meeting so we can address our business.” The Davis Enterprise further noted her saying “Council members, too, would like to get home at a reasonable time.”
Mayor Asmundson has clearly shown she cares nothing for public comment, nor dissenting opinions from fellow Councilmembers such as Sue Greenwald, who was not allowed to fully question a consultant. I find this attitude extremely troubling. My assumption would be that Mayor Asmundson has already made up her mind on issues, so considers public comment or dissenting opinions more as something she must tolerate because of Brown Act requirements than anything else.
What the Mayor needs to realize is that sort of thinking is what has led to things such as the Measure X debacle (defeat of Covell Village) and the merger mess (attempt to eliminate the Senior Citizens Commission). When City Councilmembers, Commissioners and the Public are ignored, a Councilmember does so at their peril. Dislike and distrust are the byproducts, something which the Mayor and her cohorts would do well to avoid.
We have citizens deeply concerned about the cost of current and projected increases in sewer/water rate increases. A huge new senior housing complex on the proposed Covell Village site may not be what the community needs or wants, setting things up for another Measure J showdown. Does the Mayor really want to be seen as completely out of touch with what the community desires or requires? Or are the Mayor’s new rules nothing more than an attempt to stifle dissent? One has to wonder…
DPD, I do not necessarily agree with your legal assessment of the issue. If a disabled person cannot stay for the entire meeting, and cannot “run to the podium” within the 15 minute time limit, then they have been effectively denied the opportunity for public comment, which would be a violation of the Americans w Disabilities Act. This is why I noticed where to file a complaint in the Davis Enterprise, should a disabled person feel discriminated against.
Furthermore, Mayor Asmundson has made her priorities clear – to shorten meetings at the public’s expense. As she put it, “I’m trying to be more effective and efficient in out meeting so we can address our business.” The Davis Enterprise further noted her saying “Council members, too, would like to get home at a reasonable time.”
Mayor Asmundson has clearly shown she cares nothing for public comment, nor dissenting opinions from fellow Councilmembers such as Sue Greenwald, who was not allowed to fully question a consultant. I find this attitude extremely troubling. My assumption would be that Mayor Asmundson has already made up her mind on issues, so considers public comment or dissenting opinions more as something she must tolerate because of Brown Act requirements than anything else.
What the Mayor needs to realize is that sort of thinking is what has led to things such as the Measure X debacle (defeat of Covell Village) and the merger mess (attempt to eliminate the Senior Citizens Commission). When City Councilmembers, Commissioners and the Public are ignored, a Councilmember does so at their peril. Dislike and distrust are the byproducts, something which the Mayor and her cohorts would do well to avoid.
We have citizens deeply concerned about the cost of current and projected increases in sewer/water rate increases. A huge new senior housing complex on the proposed Covell Village site may not be what the community needs or wants, setting things up for another Measure J showdown. Does the Mayor really want to be seen as completely out of touch with what the community desires or requires? Or are the Mayor’s new rules nothing more than an attempt to stifle dissent? One has to wonder…
DPD, I do not necessarily agree with your legal assessment of the issue. If a disabled person cannot stay for the entire meeting, and cannot “run to the podium” within the 15 minute time limit, then they have been effectively denied the opportunity for public comment, which would be a violation of the Americans w Disabilities Act. This is why I noticed where to file a complaint in the Davis Enterprise, should a disabled person feel discriminated against.
Furthermore, Mayor Asmundson has made her priorities clear – to shorten meetings at the public’s expense. As she put it, “I’m trying to be more effective and efficient in out meeting so we can address our business.” The Davis Enterprise further noted her saying “Council members, too, would like to get home at a reasonable time.”
Mayor Asmundson has clearly shown she cares nothing for public comment, nor dissenting opinions from fellow Councilmembers such as Sue Greenwald, who was not allowed to fully question a consultant. I find this attitude extremely troubling. My assumption would be that Mayor Asmundson has already made up her mind on issues, so considers public comment or dissenting opinions more as something she must tolerate because of Brown Act requirements than anything else.
What the Mayor needs to realize is that sort of thinking is what has led to things such as the Measure X debacle (defeat of Covell Village) and the merger mess (attempt to eliminate the Senior Citizens Commission). When City Councilmembers, Commissioners and the Public are ignored, a Councilmember does so at their peril. Dislike and distrust are the byproducts, something which the Mayor and her cohorts would do well to avoid.
We have citizens deeply concerned about the cost of current and projected increases in sewer/water rate increases. A huge new senior housing complex on the proposed Covell Village site may not be what the community needs or wants, setting things up for another Measure J showdown. Does the Mayor really want to be seen as completely out of touch with what the community desires or requires? Or are the Mayor’s new rules nothing more than an attempt to stifle dissent? One has to wonder…
DPD, I do not necessarily agree with your legal assessment of the issue. If a disabled person cannot stay for the entire meeting, and cannot “run to the podium” within the 15 minute time limit, then they have been effectively denied the opportunity for public comment, which would be a violation of the Americans w Disabilities Act. This is why I noticed where to file a complaint in the Davis Enterprise, should a disabled person feel discriminated against.
Furthermore, Mayor Asmundson has made her priorities clear – to shorten meetings at the public’s expense. As she put it, “I’m trying to be more effective and efficient in out meeting so we can address our business.” The Davis Enterprise further noted her saying “Council members, too, would like to get home at a reasonable time.”
Mayor Asmundson has clearly shown she cares nothing for public comment, nor dissenting opinions from fellow Councilmembers such as Sue Greenwald, who was not allowed to fully question a consultant. I find this attitude extremely troubling. My assumption would be that Mayor Asmundson has already made up her mind on issues, so considers public comment or dissenting opinions more as something she must tolerate because of Brown Act requirements than anything else.
What the Mayor needs to realize is that sort of thinking is what has led to things such as the Measure X debacle (defeat of Covell Village) and the merger mess (attempt to eliminate the Senior Citizens Commission). When City Councilmembers, Commissioners and the Public are ignored, a Councilmember does so at their peril. Dislike and distrust are the byproducts, something which the Mayor and her cohorts would do well to avoid.
We have citizens deeply concerned about the cost of current and projected increases in sewer/water rate increases. A huge new senior housing complex on the proposed Covell Village site may not be what the community needs or wants, setting things up for another Measure J showdown. Does the Mayor really want to be seen as completely out of touch with what the community desires or requires? Or are the Mayor’s new rules nothing more than an attempt to stifle dissent? One has to wonder…
The First Amendment and its free expression rights, considered Natural Rights, are taught supposedly in civics classes across this land. These rights as taught are supposed to instill students with a democratic spirit. For the most part students do not take them very seriously. Adults on the other hand seem to quickly forget them, fear using them for economic reasons, or discard them when their value system is challenged by different ideas. Those adults who become government representatives at any level are most likely to ignore this special democratic safeguard.
In Davis the amount of time alloted to public comment seems to vary with the value system of the mayor and/or the council majority. When you consider how often public comment is considered a nuisance, discouraged and obviously not appreciated mainly because the council majority do not want opposition and want to go home, one can see the dilemma of preaching democratic process and implementing it. The excuse to be efficient is always used. Efficiency often means don’t bother me with the facts or I’ve already made up my mind. The actions taken by the current mayor prove that the system from top to bottom is busted. If change really begins at the grass roots perhaps Davis is the place to begin.
The First Amendment and its free expression rights, considered Natural Rights, are taught supposedly in civics classes across this land. These rights as taught are supposed to instill students with a democratic spirit. For the most part students do not take them very seriously. Adults on the other hand seem to quickly forget them, fear using them for economic reasons, or discard them when their value system is challenged by different ideas. Those adults who become government representatives at any level are most likely to ignore this special democratic safeguard.
In Davis the amount of time alloted to public comment seems to vary with the value system of the mayor and/or the council majority. When you consider how often public comment is considered a nuisance, discouraged and obviously not appreciated mainly because the council majority do not want opposition and want to go home, one can see the dilemma of preaching democratic process and implementing it. The excuse to be efficient is always used. Efficiency often means don’t bother me with the facts or I’ve already made up my mind. The actions taken by the current mayor prove that the system from top to bottom is busted. If change really begins at the grass roots perhaps Davis is the place to begin.
The First Amendment and its free expression rights, considered Natural Rights, are taught supposedly in civics classes across this land. These rights as taught are supposed to instill students with a democratic spirit. For the most part students do not take them very seriously. Adults on the other hand seem to quickly forget them, fear using them for economic reasons, or discard them when their value system is challenged by different ideas. Those adults who become government representatives at any level are most likely to ignore this special democratic safeguard.
In Davis the amount of time alloted to public comment seems to vary with the value system of the mayor and/or the council majority. When you consider how often public comment is considered a nuisance, discouraged and obviously not appreciated mainly because the council majority do not want opposition and want to go home, one can see the dilemma of preaching democratic process and implementing it. The excuse to be efficient is always used. Efficiency often means don’t bother me with the facts or I’ve already made up my mind. The actions taken by the current mayor prove that the system from top to bottom is busted. If change really begins at the grass roots perhaps Davis is the place to begin.
The First Amendment and its free expression rights, considered Natural Rights, are taught supposedly in civics classes across this land. These rights as taught are supposed to instill students with a democratic spirit. For the most part students do not take them very seriously. Adults on the other hand seem to quickly forget them, fear using them for economic reasons, or discard them when their value system is challenged by different ideas. Those adults who become government representatives at any level are most likely to ignore this special democratic safeguard.
In Davis the amount of time alloted to public comment seems to vary with the value system of the mayor and/or the council majority. When you consider how often public comment is considered a nuisance, discouraged and obviously not appreciated mainly because the council majority do not want opposition and want to go home, one can see the dilemma of preaching democratic process and implementing it. The excuse to be efficient is always used. Efficiency often means don’t bother me with the facts or I’ve already made up my mind. The actions taken by the current mayor prove that the system from top to bottom is busted. If change really begins at the grass roots perhaps Davis is the place to begin.
Has someone been cut off by the new rule?
Are you complaining about the shorter length of time because people may not have a chance to speak or are you complaining about the Council not heeding their remarks when they do?
If it is the later, then no amount of time will fix that.
Has someone been cut off by the new rule?
Are you complaining about the shorter length of time because people may not have a chance to speak or are you complaining about the Council not heeding their remarks when they do?
If it is the later, then no amount of time will fix that.
Has someone been cut off by the new rule?
Are you complaining about the shorter length of time because people may not have a chance to speak or are you complaining about the Council not heeding their remarks when they do?
If it is the later, then no amount of time will fix that.
Has someone been cut off by the new rule?
Are you complaining about the shorter length of time because people may not have a chance to speak or are you complaining about the Council not heeding their remarks when they do?
If it is the later, then no amount of time will fix that.
I would like to see the Davis City Council agenda and packet go back to including the “Written Comment” section, which was dropped a few years back. Reading it was a good way to find out what other folks were thinking about city issues. Does anyone know why “Written Comments” was dropped? (And, yes, I think Public Comments should NOT be limited to 15 minutes.)
I would like to see the Davis City Council agenda and packet go back to including the “Written Comment” section, which was dropped a few years back. Reading it was a good way to find out what other folks were thinking about city issues. Does anyone know why “Written Comments” was dropped? (And, yes, I think Public Comments should NOT be limited to 15 minutes.)
I would like to see the Davis City Council agenda and packet go back to including the “Written Comment” section, which was dropped a few years back. Reading it was a good way to find out what other folks were thinking about city issues. Does anyone know why “Written Comments” was dropped? (And, yes, I think Public Comments should NOT be limited to 15 minutes.)
I would like to see the Davis City Council agenda and packet go back to including the “Written Comment” section, which was dropped a few years back. Reading it was a good way to find out what other folks were thinking about city issues. Does anyone know why “Written Comments” was dropped? (And, yes, I think Public Comments should NOT be limited to 15 minutes.)
Good comments Elaine and Barbara. Ruth is clearly trying to stifle public comments, input, or any opposition to the costly proposals that she has put forth.
Sad to say, but the public got the type of government they voted in. How she won is beyond me.
Let’s hope that people begin to pay more attention.
Good comments Elaine and Barbara. Ruth is clearly trying to stifle public comments, input, or any opposition to the costly proposals that she has put forth.
Sad to say, but the public got the type of government they voted in. How she won is beyond me.
Let’s hope that people begin to pay more attention.
Good comments Elaine and Barbara. Ruth is clearly trying to stifle public comments, input, or any opposition to the costly proposals that she has put forth.
Sad to say, but the public got the type of government they voted in. How she won is beyond me.
Let’s hope that people begin to pay more attention.
Good comments Elaine and Barbara. Ruth is clearly trying to stifle public comments, input, or any opposition to the costly proposals that she has put forth.
Sad to say, but the public got the type of government they voted in. How she won is beyond me.
Let’s hope that people begin to pay more attention.
DPD, this is why outlets, such as your blog, have become important. I hear people saying all the time that we should attend more meetings and let our voice be heard. Let’s face it, they probably already have their mind made up before the people get their 15 minutes to speak. They do not have to respond to our comments and 2 minutes is not enough time to voice anything.
Media is the only way to put public pressure on elected officals. Going to the meetings is almost a waste of time.
On a blog we get as much space as we want to type away at our free speech. Hopefully, someone out there is listening….
DPD, this is why outlets, such as your blog, have become important. I hear people saying all the time that we should attend more meetings and let our voice be heard. Let’s face it, they probably already have their mind made up before the people get their 15 minutes to speak. They do not have to respond to our comments and 2 minutes is not enough time to voice anything.
Media is the only way to put public pressure on elected officals. Going to the meetings is almost a waste of time.
On a blog we get as much space as we want to type away at our free speech. Hopefully, someone out there is listening….
DPD, this is why outlets, such as your blog, have become important. I hear people saying all the time that we should attend more meetings and let our voice be heard. Let’s face it, they probably already have their mind made up before the people get their 15 minutes to speak. They do not have to respond to our comments and 2 minutes is not enough time to voice anything.
Media is the only way to put public pressure on elected officals. Going to the meetings is almost a waste of time.
On a blog we get as much space as we want to type away at our free speech. Hopefully, someone out there is listening….
DPD, this is why outlets, such as your blog, have become important. I hear people saying all the time that we should attend more meetings and let our voice be heard. Let’s face it, they probably already have their mind made up before the people get their 15 minutes to speak. They do not have to respond to our comments and 2 minutes is not enough time to voice anything.
Media is the only way to put public pressure on elected officals. Going to the meetings is almost a waste of time.
On a blog we get as much space as we want to type away at our free speech. Hopefully, someone out there is listening….
“Media is the only way to put public pressure on elected officals. Going to the meetings is almost a waste of time.
On a blog we get as much space as we want to type away at our free speech. Hopefully, someone out there is listening….”
This is a good point. If curtailing public comment is the way our Mayor wants to take things, then that forces public comment onto the editorial pages of the Davis Enterprise and this blog – which may not be the exact result she was looking for. It will be interesting to see which way Saylor and Souza are going to go. Will they back the Mayor??? Or will she find herself all alone on this one? Public comment is a pretty sacred thing…
“Media is the only way to put public pressure on elected officals. Going to the meetings is almost a waste of time.
On a blog we get as much space as we want to type away at our free speech. Hopefully, someone out there is listening….”
This is a good point. If curtailing public comment is the way our Mayor wants to take things, then that forces public comment onto the editorial pages of the Davis Enterprise and this blog – which may not be the exact result she was looking for. It will be interesting to see which way Saylor and Souza are going to go. Will they back the Mayor??? Or will she find herself all alone on this one? Public comment is a pretty sacred thing…
“Media is the only way to put public pressure on elected officals. Going to the meetings is almost a waste of time.
On a blog we get as much space as we want to type away at our free speech. Hopefully, someone out there is listening….”
This is a good point. If curtailing public comment is the way our Mayor wants to take things, then that forces public comment onto the editorial pages of the Davis Enterprise and this blog – which may not be the exact result she was looking for. It will be interesting to see which way Saylor and Souza are going to go. Will they back the Mayor??? Or will she find herself all alone on this one? Public comment is a pretty sacred thing…
“Media is the only way to put public pressure on elected officals. Going to the meetings is almost a waste of time.
On a blog we get as much space as we want to type away at our free speech. Hopefully, someone out there is listening….”
This is a good point. If curtailing public comment is the way our Mayor wants to take things, then that forces public comment onto the editorial pages of the Davis Enterprise and this blog – which may not be the exact result she was looking for. It will be interesting to see which way Saylor and Souza are going to go. Will they back the Mayor??? Or will she find herself all alone on this one? Public comment is a pretty sacred thing…
David: great eplanation (and, as usual, fair-minded report)on the Brown Act, and great comments by Elaine and Barbara.But, let’s cut to the chase, folks. Anyone who has watched Ruth Asmundson’s “career” on the School Board and City Council cannot be surprised at her treatment of Sue Greenwald and members of the public who care enough about the community to try and address the Council during public comment.Ruth encourages public input only when it supports her own agenda or makes her look good. Can you imagine her using the gavel to shut down public comment from any of her big-money developer buddies (such as Whitcombe, Streng or the like)? No way! Debate is great, but let’s face the facts. Ruth has been elected to office repeatedly by posing as a kind, maternal figure who is always “for the kids,” and this image has served her well. And, whether we like it or not, she is going to hold the gavel as the lead elected official in our city for nearly two more years. (And, then, we get two years of Don Saylor!).So,if we can accept the reality of “four more years,” the question is what can we do to fix this mess? Seems to me that there are two ways: (1) keep chipping away at Ruth’s image by exposing how her agenda and “policies” are detrimental to Davis residents, and (2) defeat her causes at the ballot box. To that end, I will not vote in favor of any ballot measure that Ruth signs or endorses – period. Headstrong? Perhaps. But I do know the only way for citizens to reclaim control of this community is to strip arrogant elected officials of their power and sense of invincibility.And, before I forget, thanks to Sue for asking the “tough” questions about water/sewer rates. If Ruth cares so much about “the kids” and our community, why wasn’t SHE asking some tough questions instead of just selling us down the river?
David: great eplanation (and, as usual, fair-minded report)on the Brown Act, and great comments by Elaine and Barbara.But, let’s cut to the chase, folks. Anyone who has watched Ruth Asmundson’s “career” on the School Board and City Council cannot be surprised at her treatment of Sue Greenwald and members of the public who care enough about the community to try and address the Council during public comment.Ruth encourages public input only when it supports her own agenda or makes her look good. Can you imagine her using the gavel to shut down public comment from any of her big-money developer buddies (such as Whitcombe, Streng or the like)? No way! Debate is great, but let’s face the facts. Ruth has been elected to office repeatedly by posing as a kind, maternal figure who is always “for the kids,” and this image has served her well. And, whether we like it or not, she is going to hold the gavel as the lead elected official in our city for nearly two more years. (And, then, we get two years of Don Saylor!).So,if we can accept the reality of “four more years,” the question is what can we do to fix this mess? Seems to me that there are two ways: (1) keep chipping away at Ruth’s image by exposing how her agenda and “policies” are detrimental to Davis residents, and (2) defeat her causes at the ballot box. To that end, I will not vote in favor of any ballot measure that Ruth signs or endorses – period. Headstrong? Perhaps. But I do know the only way for citizens to reclaim control of this community is to strip arrogant elected officials of their power and sense of invincibility.And, before I forget, thanks to Sue for asking the “tough” questions about water/sewer rates. If Ruth cares so much about “the kids” and our community, why wasn’t SHE asking some tough questions instead of just selling us down the river?
David: great eplanation (and, as usual, fair-minded report)on the Brown Act, and great comments by Elaine and Barbara.But, let’s cut to the chase, folks. Anyone who has watched Ruth Asmundson’s “career” on the School Board and City Council cannot be surprised at her treatment of Sue Greenwald and members of the public who care enough about the community to try and address the Council during public comment.Ruth encourages public input only when it supports her own agenda or makes her look good. Can you imagine her using the gavel to shut down public comment from any of her big-money developer buddies (such as Whitcombe, Streng or the like)? No way! Debate is great, but let’s face the facts. Ruth has been elected to office repeatedly by posing as a kind, maternal figure who is always “for the kids,” and this image has served her well. And, whether we like it or not, she is going to hold the gavel as the lead elected official in our city for nearly two more years. (And, then, we get two years of Don Saylor!).So,if we can accept the reality of “four more years,” the question is what can we do to fix this mess? Seems to me that there are two ways: (1) keep chipping away at Ruth’s image by exposing how her agenda and “policies” are detrimental to Davis residents, and (2) defeat her causes at the ballot box. To that end, I will not vote in favor of any ballot measure that Ruth signs or endorses – period. Headstrong? Perhaps. But I do know the only way for citizens to reclaim control of this community is to strip arrogant elected officials of their power and sense of invincibility.And, before I forget, thanks to Sue for asking the “tough” questions about water/sewer rates. If Ruth cares so much about “the kids” and our community, why wasn’t SHE asking some tough questions instead of just selling us down the river?
David: great eplanation (and, as usual, fair-minded report)on the Brown Act, and great comments by Elaine and Barbara.But, let’s cut to the chase, folks. Anyone who has watched Ruth Asmundson’s “career” on the School Board and City Council cannot be surprised at her treatment of Sue Greenwald and members of the public who care enough about the community to try and address the Council during public comment.Ruth encourages public input only when it supports her own agenda or makes her look good. Can you imagine her using the gavel to shut down public comment from any of her big-money developer buddies (such as Whitcombe, Streng or the like)? No way! Debate is great, but let’s face the facts. Ruth has been elected to office repeatedly by posing as a kind, maternal figure who is always “for the kids,” and this image has served her well. And, whether we like it or not, she is going to hold the gavel as the lead elected official in our city for nearly two more years. (And, then, we get two years of Don Saylor!).So,if we can accept the reality of “four more years,” the question is what can we do to fix this mess? Seems to me that there are two ways: (1) keep chipping away at Ruth’s image by exposing how her agenda and “policies” are detrimental to Davis residents, and (2) defeat her causes at the ballot box. To that end, I will not vote in favor of any ballot measure that Ruth signs or endorses – period. Headstrong? Perhaps. But I do know the only way for citizens to reclaim control of this community is to strip arrogant elected officials of their power and sense of invincibility.And, before I forget, thanks to Sue for asking the “tough” questions about water/sewer rates. If Ruth cares so much about “the kids” and our community, why wasn’t SHE asking some tough questions instead of just selling us down the river?
Ruth Asmundson wants the meetings to run efficiently, except when she is babbling on endlessly and nonsensically, when Don Saylor is droning for hours on trivial issues, slowly and repeating points already made in the staff report, or when Steve Souza is bloviating.
Ruth Asmundson wants the meetings to run efficiently, except when she is babbling on endlessly and nonsensically, when Don Saylor is droning for hours on trivial issues, slowly and repeating points already made in the staff report, or when Steve Souza is bloviating.
Ruth Asmundson wants the meetings to run efficiently, except when she is babbling on endlessly and nonsensically, when Don Saylor is droning for hours on trivial issues, slowly and repeating points already made in the staff report, or when Steve Souza is bloviating.
Ruth Asmundson wants the meetings to run efficiently, except when she is babbling on endlessly and nonsensically, when Don Saylor is droning for hours on trivial issues, slowly and repeating points already made in the staff report, or when Steve Souza is bloviating.
If a disabled person cannot stay for the entire meeting, and cannot “run to the podium” within the 15 minute time limit, then they have been effectively denied the opportunity for public comment
Is there a situation where this has occurred?
Your statement seems to imply that it would take someone more than 15 minutes to get to that podium. Even for someone with trouble walking, the room is just not all that big.
If a disabled person cannot stay for the entire meeting, and cannot “run to the podium” within the 15 minute time limit, then they have been effectively denied the opportunity for public comment
Is there a situation where this has occurred?
Your statement seems to imply that it would take someone more than 15 minutes to get to that podium. Even for someone with trouble walking, the room is just not all that big.
If a disabled person cannot stay for the entire meeting, and cannot “run to the podium” within the 15 minute time limit, then they have been effectively denied the opportunity for public comment
Is there a situation where this has occurred?
Your statement seems to imply that it would take someone more than 15 minutes to get to that podium. Even for someone with trouble walking, the room is just not all that big.
If a disabled person cannot stay for the entire meeting, and cannot “run to the podium” within the 15 minute time limit, then they have been effectively denied the opportunity for public comment
Is there a situation where this has occurred?
Your statement seems to imply that it would take someone more than 15 minutes to get to that podium. Even for someone with trouble walking, the room is just not all that big.
“…Seems to me that there are two ways: “
Trickyricky
There’s a third way, although not ordinarily the Davis style which often seems to be to avoid confrontation at all costs. Suggestion: the next time there is an issue of importance that deserves maximum public exposure, a plan needs to be implimented to have a large crowd of public commentors in attendance. NO ONE should voluntarily end their presentation or not DEMAND to be heard beyond the 15 min. deadline. The Davis police should be required to publicly escort the “evil-dooers”, one by one out of the council chamber and those removed should not go “quietly”.
“…Seems to me that there are two ways: “
Trickyricky
There’s a third way, although not ordinarily the Davis style which often seems to be to avoid confrontation at all costs. Suggestion: the next time there is an issue of importance that deserves maximum public exposure, a plan needs to be implimented to have a large crowd of public commentors in attendance. NO ONE should voluntarily end their presentation or not DEMAND to be heard beyond the 15 min. deadline. The Davis police should be required to publicly escort the “evil-dooers”, one by one out of the council chamber and those removed should not go “quietly”.
“…Seems to me that there are two ways: “
Trickyricky
There’s a third way, although not ordinarily the Davis style which often seems to be to avoid confrontation at all costs. Suggestion: the next time there is an issue of importance that deserves maximum public exposure, a plan needs to be implimented to have a large crowd of public commentors in attendance. NO ONE should voluntarily end their presentation or not DEMAND to be heard beyond the 15 min. deadline. The Davis police should be required to publicly escort the “evil-dooers”, one by one out of the council chamber and those removed should not go “quietly”.
“…Seems to me that there are two ways: “
Trickyricky
There’s a third way, although not ordinarily the Davis style which often seems to be to avoid confrontation at all costs. Suggestion: the next time there is an issue of importance that deserves maximum public exposure, a plan needs to be implimented to have a large crowd of public commentors in attendance. NO ONE should voluntarily end their presentation or not DEMAND to be heard beyond the 15 min. deadline. The Davis police should be required to publicly escort the “evil-dooers”, one by one out of the council chamber and those removed should not go “quietly”.
“Is there a situation where this has occurred? Your statement seems to imply that it would take someone more than 15 minutes to get to that podium. Even for someone with trouble walking, the room is just not all that big.”
If there is a critical issue before the City Council, and many folks get up to speak during initial Public Comment, there will be a mad dash to be the first 7 or 8, because Ruth will cut off Public Comment after the first 15 minutes. A disabled person can easily get lost in such a shuffle. In fact it happened to me the first night Ruth instituted the new 15 minute rule – I did not make it up to the podium within the required 15 minutes bc there were too many speakers. So I chose to put my opinion on the editorial page of the Davis Enterprise.
“Is there a situation where this has occurred? Your statement seems to imply that it would take someone more than 15 minutes to get to that podium. Even for someone with trouble walking, the room is just not all that big.”
If there is a critical issue before the City Council, and many folks get up to speak during initial Public Comment, there will be a mad dash to be the first 7 or 8, because Ruth will cut off Public Comment after the first 15 minutes. A disabled person can easily get lost in such a shuffle. In fact it happened to me the first night Ruth instituted the new 15 minute rule – I did not make it up to the podium within the required 15 minutes bc there were too many speakers. So I chose to put my opinion on the editorial page of the Davis Enterprise.
“Is there a situation where this has occurred? Your statement seems to imply that it would take someone more than 15 minutes to get to that podium. Even for someone with trouble walking, the room is just not all that big.”
If there is a critical issue before the City Council, and many folks get up to speak during initial Public Comment, there will be a mad dash to be the first 7 or 8, because Ruth will cut off Public Comment after the first 15 minutes. A disabled person can easily get lost in such a shuffle. In fact it happened to me the first night Ruth instituted the new 15 minute rule – I did not make it up to the podium within the required 15 minutes bc there were too many speakers. So I chose to put my opinion on the editorial page of the Davis Enterprise.
“Is there a situation where this has occurred? Your statement seems to imply that it would take someone more than 15 minutes to get to that podium. Even for someone with trouble walking, the room is just not all that big.”
If there is a critical issue before the City Council, and many folks get up to speak during initial Public Comment, there will be a mad dash to be the first 7 or 8, because Ruth will cut off Public Comment after the first 15 minutes. A disabled person can easily get lost in such a shuffle. In fact it happened to me the first night Ruth instituted the new 15 minute rule – I did not make it up to the podium within the required 15 minutes bc there were too many speakers. So I chose to put my opinion on the editorial page of the Davis Enterprise.
“In fact it happened to me the first night Ruth instituted the new 15 minute rule – I did not make it up to the podium within the required 15 minutes bc there were too many speakers.”
This could have happened if the rule was 30 minutes or 45 minutes or an hour.
The answer shouldn’t be to extend the public comments for a lot longer than it needs to be, which delays every issue on the agenda from coming up. The answer, with regard to people with severe physical limitations, should be for the mayor to ask first if there is anyone in the audience who wants to speak in the non-agenda public comments period who is somehow disabled. Like getting on an airplane, those people should go first and everyone else (if there is anyone else) can follow them or speak later in the meeting.
I think what needs to be emphasized is that by allowing things to drag on early in the meeting, you are being disrespectful to people who came to hear or speak about an issue which should have come up at 9 pm but gets pushed back one or two hours.
That is not primarily the fault of the public speakers. I think it is mostly the fault of the members of the council, who feel like they must make comments during question time and then make long speeches during the comment period.
I was not completely on Ruth’s side when she cut off Ms. Greenwald a few weeks ago. But I think it would make sense for question period to be restricted to actual questions. (Greenwald was combining opinions and questions, which takes much longer.)
Each council member should have up to 5 minutes to ask a round of questions. Then if one or more members has more questions, he or she could get an additional 5 minutes.
When they debate the resolution at the end, each member should be encouraged to briefly summarize his or her views as quickly as possible.
The idea is not to limit debate or questions. The idea is to keep the meeting moving, so that other topics can be heard fully and at a reasonable hour.
“In fact it happened to me the first night Ruth instituted the new 15 minute rule – I did not make it up to the podium within the required 15 minutes bc there were too many speakers.”
This could have happened if the rule was 30 minutes or 45 minutes or an hour.
The answer shouldn’t be to extend the public comments for a lot longer than it needs to be, which delays every issue on the agenda from coming up. The answer, with regard to people with severe physical limitations, should be for the mayor to ask first if there is anyone in the audience who wants to speak in the non-agenda public comments period who is somehow disabled. Like getting on an airplane, those people should go first and everyone else (if there is anyone else) can follow them or speak later in the meeting.
I think what needs to be emphasized is that by allowing things to drag on early in the meeting, you are being disrespectful to people who came to hear or speak about an issue which should have come up at 9 pm but gets pushed back one or two hours.
That is not primarily the fault of the public speakers. I think it is mostly the fault of the members of the council, who feel like they must make comments during question time and then make long speeches during the comment period.
I was not completely on Ruth’s side when she cut off Ms. Greenwald a few weeks ago. But I think it would make sense for question period to be restricted to actual questions. (Greenwald was combining opinions and questions, which takes much longer.)
Each council member should have up to 5 minutes to ask a round of questions. Then if one or more members has more questions, he or she could get an additional 5 minutes.
When they debate the resolution at the end, each member should be encouraged to briefly summarize his or her views as quickly as possible.
The idea is not to limit debate or questions. The idea is to keep the meeting moving, so that other topics can be heard fully and at a reasonable hour.
“In fact it happened to me the first night Ruth instituted the new 15 minute rule – I did not make it up to the podium within the required 15 minutes bc there were too many speakers.”
This could have happened if the rule was 30 minutes or 45 minutes or an hour.
The answer shouldn’t be to extend the public comments for a lot longer than it needs to be, which delays every issue on the agenda from coming up. The answer, with regard to people with severe physical limitations, should be for the mayor to ask first if there is anyone in the audience who wants to speak in the non-agenda public comments period who is somehow disabled. Like getting on an airplane, those people should go first and everyone else (if there is anyone else) can follow them or speak later in the meeting.
I think what needs to be emphasized is that by allowing things to drag on early in the meeting, you are being disrespectful to people who came to hear or speak about an issue which should have come up at 9 pm but gets pushed back one or two hours.
That is not primarily the fault of the public speakers. I think it is mostly the fault of the members of the council, who feel like they must make comments during question time and then make long speeches during the comment period.
I was not completely on Ruth’s side when she cut off Ms. Greenwald a few weeks ago. But I think it would make sense for question period to be restricted to actual questions. (Greenwald was combining opinions and questions, which takes much longer.)
Each council member should have up to 5 minutes to ask a round of questions. Then if one or more members has more questions, he or she could get an additional 5 minutes.
When they debate the resolution at the end, each member should be encouraged to briefly summarize his or her views as quickly as possible.
The idea is not to limit debate or questions. The idea is to keep the meeting moving, so that other topics can be heard fully and at a reasonable hour.
“In fact it happened to me the first night Ruth instituted the new 15 minute rule – I did not make it up to the podium within the required 15 minutes bc there were too many speakers.”
This could have happened if the rule was 30 minutes or 45 minutes or an hour.
The answer shouldn’t be to extend the public comments for a lot longer than it needs to be, which delays every issue on the agenda from coming up. The answer, with regard to people with severe physical limitations, should be for the mayor to ask first if there is anyone in the audience who wants to speak in the non-agenda public comments period who is somehow disabled. Like getting on an airplane, those people should go first and everyone else (if there is anyone else) can follow them or speak later in the meeting.
I think what needs to be emphasized is that by allowing things to drag on early in the meeting, you are being disrespectful to people who came to hear or speak about an issue which should have come up at 9 pm but gets pushed back one or two hours.
That is not primarily the fault of the public speakers. I think it is mostly the fault of the members of the council, who feel like they must make comments during question time and then make long speeches during the comment period.
I was not completely on Ruth’s side when she cut off Ms. Greenwald a few weeks ago. But I think it would make sense for question period to be restricted to actual questions. (Greenwald was combining opinions and questions, which takes much longer.)
Each council member should have up to 5 minutes to ask a round of questions. Then if one or more members has more questions, he or she could get an additional 5 minutes.
When they debate the resolution at the end, each member should be encouraged to briefly summarize his or her views as quickly as possible.
The idea is not to limit debate or questions. The idea is to keep the meeting moving, so that other topics can be heard fully and at a reasonable hour.
In the past written comments included all written materials and emails address to the city council or cc to the council. This was a very positive thing for all concerned.
In the past written comments included all written materials and emails address to the city council or cc to the council. This was a very positive thing for all concerned.
In the past written comments included all written materials and emails address to the city council or cc to the council. This was a very positive thing for all concerned.
In the past written comments included all written materials and emails address to the city council or cc to the council. This was a very positive thing for all concerned.
There have been 5 meeting since Ruth has been Mayor and these are the times of public comment:
July 1st (swearing in)–8 min. 10 sec.
July 15th–4 min 3 sec.
July 22–(workshop)16 min. 12 sec during workshop and 12 min. 19 sec. during public comment which was about 15 min. after workshop
July 29th–14 min. 14 sec.
August 1st (morning meeting) 3 min.
There have been 5 meeting since Ruth has been Mayor and these are the times of public comment:
July 1st (swearing in)–8 min. 10 sec.
July 15th–4 min 3 sec.
July 22–(workshop)16 min. 12 sec during workshop and 12 min. 19 sec. during public comment which was about 15 min. after workshop
July 29th–14 min. 14 sec.
August 1st (morning meeting) 3 min.
There have been 5 meeting since Ruth has been Mayor and these are the times of public comment:
July 1st (swearing in)–8 min. 10 sec.
July 15th–4 min 3 sec.
July 22–(workshop)16 min. 12 sec during workshop and 12 min. 19 sec. during public comment which was about 15 min. after workshop
July 29th–14 min. 14 sec.
August 1st (morning meeting) 3 min.
There have been 5 meeting since Ruth has been Mayor and these are the times of public comment:
July 1st (swearing in)–8 min. 10 sec.
July 15th–4 min 3 sec.
July 22–(workshop)16 min. 12 sec during workshop and 12 min. 19 sec. during public comment which was about 15 min. after workshop
July 29th–14 min. 14 sec.
August 1st (morning meeting) 3 min.
Ruth Asmundson’s new unilateral policy of limiting public comment has nothing to do with running efficient meetings as many comments have testified to in today’s Vanguard. It is clearly to shut down any opposition to whatever agenda Asmundson has on any issue at Council.
During a City Council meeting on the Covell Village project there were many citizens who came to speak in opposition. Asmundson limited them to 1-3 minutes. She then had the audacity to tell Mike Corbett (of the Covell Village Partners developers team) when he got the podium that he could have as much time as he wanted. Most people who attended this meeting were shocked and remember how unfair and insulting this action was to them. Her lack of fairness at Council meetings has been witnessed by citizens many times before and since that incident.
Davis has a history that goes back decades where the citizens have been welcomed to bring their concerns to the Council Chambers, until now.
Hearing the concerns of the citizens is a major responsibility of the Council. Instead, Asmundson claims that the meetings are for the Council’s benefit to do the business of the city. She has never understood that the concerns of the citizens is a priority for every Council member and a major reason why we have public City Council meetings. Her new policy to suppress or effectively try to eliminate public comment, is unfair and undemocratic.
Ruth Asmundson’s new unilateral policy of limiting public comment has nothing to do with running efficient meetings as many comments have testified to in today’s Vanguard. It is clearly to shut down any opposition to whatever agenda Asmundson has on any issue at Council.
During a City Council meeting on the Covell Village project there were many citizens who came to speak in opposition. Asmundson limited them to 1-3 minutes. She then had the audacity to tell Mike Corbett (of the Covell Village Partners developers team) when he got the podium that he could have as much time as he wanted. Most people who attended this meeting were shocked and remember how unfair and insulting this action was to them. Her lack of fairness at Council meetings has been witnessed by citizens many times before and since that incident.
Davis has a history that goes back decades where the citizens have been welcomed to bring their concerns to the Council Chambers, until now.
Hearing the concerns of the citizens is a major responsibility of the Council. Instead, Asmundson claims that the meetings are for the Council’s benefit to do the business of the city. She has never understood that the concerns of the citizens is a priority for every Council member and a major reason why we have public City Council meetings. Her new policy to suppress or effectively try to eliminate public comment, is unfair and undemocratic.
Ruth Asmundson’s new unilateral policy of limiting public comment has nothing to do with running efficient meetings as many comments have testified to in today’s Vanguard. It is clearly to shut down any opposition to whatever agenda Asmundson has on any issue at Council.
During a City Council meeting on the Covell Village project there were many citizens who came to speak in opposition. Asmundson limited them to 1-3 minutes. She then had the audacity to tell Mike Corbett (of the Covell Village Partners developers team) when he got the podium that he could have as much time as he wanted. Most people who attended this meeting were shocked and remember how unfair and insulting this action was to them. Her lack of fairness at Council meetings has been witnessed by citizens many times before and since that incident.
Davis has a history that goes back decades where the citizens have been welcomed to bring their concerns to the Council Chambers, until now.
Hearing the concerns of the citizens is a major responsibility of the Council. Instead, Asmundson claims that the meetings are for the Council’s benefit to do the business of the city. She has never understood that the concerns of the citizens is a priority for every Council member and a major reason why we have public City Council meetings. Her new policy to suppress or effectively try to eliminate public comment, is unfair and undemocratic.
Ruth Asmundson’s new unilateral policy of limiting public comment has nothing to do with running efficient meetings as many comments have testified to in today’s Vanguard. It is clearly to shut down any opposition to whatever agenda Asmundson has on any issue at Council.
During a City Council meeting on the Covell Village project there were many citizens who came to speak in opposition. Asmundson limited them to 1-3 minutes. She then had the audacity to tell Mike Corbett (of the Covell Village Partners developers team) when he got the podium that he could have as much time as he wanted. Most people who attended this meeting were shocked and remember how unfair and insulting this action was to them. Her lack of fairness at Council meetings has been witnessed by citizens many times before and since that incident.
Davis has a history that goes back decades where the citizens have been welcomed to bring their concerns to the Council Chambers, until now.
Hearing the concerns of the citizens is a major responsibility of the Council. Instead, Asmundson claims that the meetings are for the Council’s benefit to do the business of the city. She has never understood that the concerns of the citizens is a priority for every Council member and a major reason why we have public City Council meetings. Her new policy to suppress or effectively try to eliminate public comment, is unfair and undemocratic.
“The answer, with regard to people with severe physical limitations, should be for the mayor to ask first if there is anyone in the audience who wants to speak in the non-agenda public comments period who is somehow disabled.”
It is against the law to ask a person if they are disabled, or somehow single them out for disparate treatment. As has been pointed out previously, the length of the initial comment period is not the cause of the lengthy City Council meetings. It is the City Council members themselves who take up the lion’s share of time during City Council sessions.
If the Mayor wants to run a more efficient meeting and get to bed earlier, she should be looking at shortening times of individual City Council members speeches. But I don’t see that happening. So Councilmembers are still free to talk about trips abroad or allowed to electioneer from the dais, while the public gets short shrift. The only interpretation I can put on such conduct is an unwillingness to listen to what the public has to say because one already has one’s mind made up.
To have such a stubborn mindset is to invite more disasters like the Covell Village defeat and merger mess, which does nothing but create unnecessary dissension. I would much prefer a kinder, gentler type of governance – in other words more democratic in nature!
“The answer, with regard to people with severe physical limitations, should be for the mayor to ask first if there is anyone in the audience who wants to speak in the non-agenda public comments period who is somehow disabled.”
It is against the law to ask a person if they are disabled, or somehow single them out for disparate treatment. As has been pointed out previously, the length of the initial comment period is not the cause of the lengthy City Council meetings. It is the City Council members themselves who take up the lion’s share of time during City Council sessions.
If the Mayor wants to run a more efficient meeting and get to bed earlier, she should be looking at shortening times of individual City Council members speeches. But I don’t see that happening. So Councilmembers are still free to talk about trips abroad or allowed to electioneer from the dais, while the public gets short shrift. The only interpretation I can put on such conduct is an unwillingness to listen to what the public has to say because one already has one’s mind made up.
To have such a stubborn mindset is to invite more disasters like the Covell Village defeat and merger mess, which does nothing but create unnecessary dissension. I would much prefer a kinder, gentler type of governance – in other words more democratic in nature!
“The answer, with regard to people with severe physical limitations, should be for the mayor to ask first if there is anyone in the audience who wants to speak in the non-agenda public comments period who is somehow disabled.”
It is against the law to ask a person if they are disabled, or somehow single them out for disparate treatment. As has been pointed out previously, the length of the initial comment period is not the cause of the lengthy City Council meetings. It is the City Council members themselves who take up the lion’s share of time during City Council sessions.
If the Mayor wants to run a more efficient meeting and get to bed earlier, she should be looking at shortening times of individual City Council members speeches. But I don’t see that happening. So Councilmembers are still free to talk about trips abroad or allowed to electioneer from the dais, while the public gets short shrift. The only interpretation I can put on such conduct is an unwillingness to listen to what the public has to say because one already has one’s mind made up.
To have such a stubborn mindset is to invite more disasters like the Covell Village defeat and merger mess, which does nothing but create unnecessary dissension. I would much prefer a kinder, gentler type of governance – in other words more democratic in nature!
“The answer, with regard to people with severe physical limitations, should be for the mayor to ask first if there is anyone in the audience who wants to speak in the non-agenda public comments period who is somehow disabled.”
It is against the law to ask a person if they are disabled, or somehow single them out for disparate treatment. As has been pointed out previously, the length of the initial comment period is not the cause of the lengthy City Council meetings. It is the City Council members themselves who take up the lion’s share of time during City Council sessions.
If the Mayor wants to run a more efficient meeting and get to bed earlier, she should be looking at shortening times of individual City Council members speeches. But I don’t see that happening. So Councilmembers are still free to talk about trips abroad or allowed to electioneer from the dais, while the public gets short shrift. The only interpretation I can put on such conduct is an unwillingness to listen to what the public has to say because one already has one’s mind made up.
To have such a stubborn mindset is to invite more disasters like the Covell Village defeat and merger mess, which does nothing but create unnecessary dissension. I would much prefer a kinder, gentler type of governance – in other words more democratic in nature!