But okay, I was hearing the griping that there was a packed audience waiting for one item and they heard that item, in order mind you, the discussion began around ten and ended just after midnight.
On the other hand the budget issue is pretty important in its own right, and had been bumped several times.
In a self-serving capacity, having to cover an issue like that is tough. I got home around 12:30. I finally got to bed about 1. And I was up the next day, which was only a few hours later, to write my articles for the day. I then slogged off to court, managed to stay awake until noon. And then spent the rest of an unproductive day playing with the baby.
Fortunately I had taken copious notes during the meeting, so I did not have to watch the recording of the meeting early in the morning, which would have taken even more time.
Nevertheless, I think there are things we could do better to avoid meetings going past ten.
First, I would install the rule of having only one major item a night. That is any item that will require lengthy discussion by the council or will produce a large quantity of public comments.
I understand why the Mayor would want to limit comments to two minutes, but I do not think that is the right way to go about business, particularly when he gives the applicant half an hour to forty minutes to give a presentation.
But this meeting actually broke down at several points far earlier. First, past meetings were too stacked and pushed, for a very important budget discussion. The council wanted to have that discussion while they were still fresh. I understand that need.
Second, they had some presentations. I think presentations are great, but we should have a dedicated night, once a month, for presentations. They can turn it into a big celebration, have local food, bring in the Enterprise to cover it and have fun on a night when there is not business to do.
Third, there was the informative but lengthy First 5 presentation. It is an important item, but not one the council would act on.
Finally, putting the budget and Cannery on the same agenda is asking for a late night.
This was not as extreme as other late meetings, but I remember watching the discussion of the Ombudsman’s report and the council just was not thinking clearly, they did not ask their usual sharp question, they failed to pick up on subtleties. It was a problem.
The ConAgra/Cannery discussion was not as late, but there was a lot going on. It is one reason I fleshed out so many different aspects of the issue. You had the Choices for Healthy Aging sideshow. You had the people arguing we needed more housing. The people arguing that we do not need housing now. And then the separate but related business park discussion. That is a lot to digest in two hours, let alone late into the night.
The meetings are now run much more civilly. We do not see huge lengths of time taken up with petty bickering. We do not see one councilmember filibustering.
However, what we do have is two to three meetings a month rather than every week. And we still see stacked agendas. I would like to see the council meeting every week and limiting the agenda to one major item. And have an 11 pm curfew.
Unless there is an urgent item, we do not need to have meetings that last past 11.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A well-prepared written analysis can eliminate any need for an oral presentation and visual aids. Protracted meetings have one and only one villain–repetition. Proponents of an issue feel the need to verbalize what every council member already knows. Previous published reports and news articles have summarized and analyzed every relevant issue.
Supporters and opponents nonetheless have this compelling need to rehash and embellish what has already been said before. After the first couple or three speakers, we go into the repetition phase, on the mistaken notion that frequency exceeds quality. All in the name of participative democracy. Quantity trumps quality, or so it seems.
There are solutions available, and they have been repetitively stated as well, to no avail. The Davis City Council will NEVER take the politically courageous stand to reduce lengthy meetings. Every time a council even flirts with bringing meetings towards a reasonable time-span, they are assailed for not allowing public input. And you don’t have to go any further than this forum for historical precedent.
The current process is a time-waster, inhibits true public input, and frustrates every facet of a council deliberation. But it will never change, so accept it. At least you’ll eliminate that time-wasting discussion.
Phil Coleman: “Supporters and opponents nonetheless have this compelling need to rehash and embellish what has already been said before. After the first couple or three speakers, we go into the repetition phase, on the mistaken notion that frequency exceeds quality.”
Are you suggesting limiting public comment? If you are, I strongly disagree. Often the City Council will assume the public feels a certain way about a project depending on how many come out in favor of or against. It would be very dangerous to limit public comment. I agree that limiting ConAgra’s presentation would have been appropriate. 40 minutes was far too much – but I’m okay w that if that is what ConAgra feels that is what they need.
IMHO, dmg makes excellent suggestions. If you want a truly collaborative process, in which all sides are heard, then you need to make time for lengthy comment – by both the initial proponent and by the public and by City Council members themselves.
In general, my only quibble with the meeting was the order in which items were taken. I agree w dmg, that placing one major item on a single agenda is the way to go if that is possible. But perhaps it wasn’t possible – don’t know. But having once a week City Council meetings should take care of that problem. Wouldn’t it be better for everyone if City Council meetings only lasted about two hours, and only had one or two items on the agenda?
[quote]It would be very dangerous to limit public comment.[/quote]How so? Anyone can write a letter to the council… it is then included in the agenda as Public Communication, and it is available to all CC members, staff, and the public. This too is “public comment”. By write, I include e-mail. Often public comment at CC meetings is “playing to the camera”. Egos, rather than issues often seem to be the focus. Given the many ways of providing for comments from the public, I don’t see anything particularly dangerous of limiting the verbal (& video) comments at the meeting, except on issues that have emerged subsequent to the preparation of staff reports or agendas… perhaps your issue could be resolved by having having staff reports/recommendations available a month before the actual meeting, where everyone could have plenty of time to write/e-mail the Council & staff, write their letters to the editor, etc.
To hpierce: You want to leave up to the whim of a mayor who will be heard and for how long during public comment? I don’t. As for submitting comments in writing, my experience has been that anyone taking the trouble to come to public comment is often paid more attention to than someone who writes a private letter. What is said in public cannot be set aside, thrown in the trash, covered up. Do you honestly think we would have a commission to represent seniors today, if I had just written a letter to City Council members, and not taken the trouble to rake certain Council members over the coals IN PUBLIC during public comment? I think not. The public comment period is essential to full transparency and honest governance…
Hpierce: I haven’t seen a Public Communications section of the agenda or letters in the packet for years, and that is not good for public participation.
Barbara King: “Hpierce: I haven’t seen a Public Communications section of the agenda or letters in the packet for years, and that is not good for public participation.”
Excellent point
From direct personal experience I can confirm that public policy makers are much more influenced by written communication than a long line of the same old wind-bags who say the same thing over and over again.
Public comments do have very limited value. Public speakers attain a greater feeling of self-esteem and a false sense of accomplishment making their comments in front of an audience, with all the accompanying physical and emotional release. On rare occasion, a speaker will make a fresh argument.
A former co-worker, and veteran city council observer, would make vote predictions to me and others for each council member on contentious policy issues days before the hearing took place. That person guessed correctly a remarkable percentage of instances, well over 80 percent. Of all the public policy measures I introduced over a 7-year time frame, I recall only two instances where public comment influenced a predicted council meeting sentiment.
It may seem to be a cynical outlook, but call it pragmatic. Public comment at city council meetings from either side of the podium has value to the persons speaking. Public policy decisions are molded in advance of a public forum in the vast majority of instances. Fortunate to the democratic process, the policy maker’s judgment is influence by individual and collective input prior to the Council meeting. Consequently, when the matter is heard formally, most council members have already decided.
If Barbara’s remark on Public Communications packets is correct, that is a tragic omission and should be immediately reinstated. I found Public Communications the most interesting part of an otherwise monotonous accumulation of paper.
Finally, I have a perfect solution in the name of time efficiency for another dimension of endless council meetings. Whatever time constriction is imposed by the mayor on public comment (e.g., two minutes) shall apply with equal force to each member of the city council during their public comment.
Phil:
I both agree and somewhat disagree with you. I have seen situations where the council is influenced by people in the audience. It tends to occur under two conditions: (A) when the council does not have a strong position either way or (B) when the public is bringing to the council’s attention issues or problems that they were not aware of previously.
I also think that the totality of the communications matter, when councilmembers get emails and see the public that does matter.
Phil,
If you are correct in your interpretation of how decisions are made,then two points would warrant consideration:
1) If it is true that decisions are made prior to obtaining formal verbal public input, then the order of operations needs to be revised. I see it as a little duplicitous to invite public comment after having reached a conclusion.
2) “I can confirm that public policy makers are much more influenced by written communication …”
This attitude, combined with a statement by Rochelle Swanson at the last CCM in which she indicated that her email was running heavily in favor of a certain proposal, would seem to indicate an unintended bias in favor of the more tech savvy members of our community. It takes considerably less effort to sit down and send an email than it does to send or take in a letter. But only if you have a computer and are fairly conversant with its use. This would not apply equally to many of our seniors and lower income folks who may not have computer access or may be more comfortable with direct communication.
Phil Coleman: “From direct personal experience I can confirm that public policy makers are much more influenced by written communication than a long line of the same old wind-bags who say the same thing over and over again.”
I would beg to differ. Take a look at the following, which is how the Davis Senior Citizens Commission managed to survive:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mh5aO-gVRw[/url]
All forms of public communication to the City Council are important. The democratic process may be messy, irritating, boring, etc. But it is vital that ample opportunity be given citizens to give their input. And it is THE LAW. If you don’t like it, don’t listen. Second, very rarely is public comment overly long, to the point it takes up more than about a half hour of City Council’s time. A half hour at most, except on rare occasions. Most of the time it is far less than half an hour for nay particular item. Big deal. In fact, for the Cannery project, the public took up about a half hour, while the proponent of the project took about 45 minutes, even tho the proponent had already given essentially the same presentation to the City Council and public some weeks ago. It is not the public comment that is taking up the time, it is the lengthy presentations that take up the lion’s share of the time. However, the presentations are made to ensure the public understands what is going on, and that is extremely important too.
I definitely favor dmg’s idea of having weekly City Council meetings, w only one major agenda item scheduled for an evening. It makes perfect sense…