 |
| I have developed what I feel may be a good compromise on the issue of speakers at our meetings sharing minutes. I will present it tomorrow and we will see if it garners support.... |
I relinquished the chairmanship of the Escambia Board of County Commissioners last month, and a lot has happened in the short period of time since I handed the gavel to my counterpart in District 3.
We brought in a new member to our board, Robert Bender from District 1.
We began a new policy--which I think is outstanding and I strongly support--where we will start doing one of our two monthly meetings during the day and combine it with what was previously an "agenda review" meeting held during the day.
This change will allow us to be more efficient, and will free-up staff to concentrate on doing their day-in, day-out jobs in the afternoons following this new, daytime meeting. (Under our previous format, we did two monthly review meetings where we reviewed the material prior to that night's regular meeting. Then, we would do a second meeting the same date, except at night, where the same topics would be covered. And our entire compliment of senior staff was expected, and were, present at both meetings. It was what we always did but it was inefficient. Kudos to Chairman May for making this very good change)
Under Chairman May's new initiative, the second meeting of the month will be during the day, and will be a combination of what was previously a day review and a night meeting.
And this is a great idea I strongly support.
But one thing has changed that I think still might need some minor tweaking.......
The Public Forum speaker's rules have also been changed abruptly...
We previously would allow speakers who did not wish to speak the opportunity to "cede" minutes to another speaker who wanted to speak on the same topic. And some speakers would get multiple citizens to "cede" minutes to them so that they could expound on a topic beyond the simple 3 minute time limit.
The newly imposed rule disallows this prior practice. Everyone can and will be heard, but nobody can "give" minutes to their fellow speakers. That's the new rule
While I believe this new protocol has it's attractive qualities---I do think there are some issues which require more time to describe.
I also think there are some folks who do not like to speak publicly. This policy effectively boxes them out.
So here is where I think a compromise may be appropriate--because there is nothing wrong with a person compromising, as long as that person is not compromising his/her integrity or going against a core value/belief.
I believe it is fair, and also efficient, to allow a LIMITED amount of sharing of minutes at public forum.
The CONs of the current Policy:
--If we tell folks they can no longer "share" minutes, this all but guarantees that more speakers will speak now, and they will more than likely read scripted speeches and take the maximum time.
--folks that are afraid of public speaking may stop attending out of frustration
--fewer will not simply "wave in support"--but rather speak for their full allocation of time to make a point about their anger over the new policy. This may make meetings go longer
A SUGGESTED COMPROMISE (Below is my suggested compromise that I will bring up tomorrow)
1. Allow for sharing of minutes on a limited basis
2. Speakers who want to speak receive the full 3 Minutes.
3. Speakers who want to cede time to another citizen can either speak for 3 Minutes themselves or if they so choose, they may cede a maximum of 1 minute.
4. No more than "5" speakers can cede time to any one person, and any person receiving minutes ceded from other citizens may only receive a total of 5 minutes of ceded time.
5. No individual speaker can speak for more than 8 minutes total
I believe if we can massage the current policy, we can still be efficient and simultaneously we can keep alive a long-running practice that encourages citizen input. In short, I think we can achieve a win-win compromise.
I'll suggest this as a compromise tomorrow, we shall see how it is received by my peers.
Awesome as always. I noticed Northescambia is gathering comments to present to Comm Barry about the CSX situation. I think we understand sometimes the public speaking can be enlightening, sometimes redundant. I think agenda review was an old practice designed where commissioners could discuss things and hope the public wasn't watching like a hawk, but actually that became the juiciest video.
ReplyDeleteI mean you could have saved us a lot of grief by saying to the save our beach crowd; "Ok we'll put it on the agenda and talk about it." Public Forum
How about this: limit ADD On's..get them on the agenda ahead of time? On time?
We are all in this together.
Rushing through the meeting really doesn't benefit any one but certainly compromises and changes can be beneficial for all considered.
Brings snacks and record the basketball game. Don't lean back in your chair, roll your eyes or get up and leave when the public is speaking (not you Comm Begosh or Barry) but the other..we see you. You could ask Barry to answer emails.
Thanks
Everybody can't make the public forum but just noticed one of your board members wrote on facebook basically if commissioners would not go to Singapore maybe we could get a bridge over the CSX train track. Hey like we didn't notice his travel expenses and aide expense exceeded yours. Not like we didn't see the fact he had thwarted the smart lights signalization. Can we limit him to three minutes. In a hole quit digging huh?
ReplyDeleteI don't know if this is a sunshine violation to show you what one of your board members says a public comment if so don't publish it but doesn't he know many people think he's a liar and a jerk? This was on Northescambia taking input for the CSX discussion as this comment was on facebook:
ReplyDelete“Douglas Underhill: People, please! Please understand the federal laws that built our rail system. Local governments are expressly powerless to demand diddly squat from the railroads. Wanna fix it? Tell the commissioners to pony up and build bridges instead of funding boondoggles to Singapore.”
Anonymous comment regarding that:
"He is the one who gets on facebook harping about infrastructure then it was proved just the last meeting that he is the one who gagged the smart lights to put $ in a special fund to buy Beach front property all the while not opening a parcel Escambia had already owned. Beach ACCESS #4. He gated it off for himself and buddies on Perdido.
He tries to preach against economic development like he is a champion but he just wants the money for himself. Don’t listen to him. He is trying to make his colleagues look bad so you think he knows what he is talking about. Don’t fall for it."
Not a sunshine violation unless I tell you exactly how I feel about that issue, and if it is an issue that will come before the board, and if you, acting as a conduit, go back to that commissioner and say "Jeff Bergosh said XXXX about CSX" Again, it would have to be about something that is coming before the board for a vote. So no, you telling this to me is not a sunshine issue in my opinion. And his comment about Singapore is ridiculous stupidity on display. Look at the facts, pull all the travel records. Look at which office spends the most, look at which office brings his aide to every out of town trip, (no other office spends money on bringing aides to out of town conferences). The amount of spending on out of town travel from the D2 office is the boondoggle. Check for yourself, I know Jacqueline Rogers asked, she has the records, but she isn't going to print them or discuss them because she is infatuated with the ground upon which #2 walks.......
ReplyDeleteTuned in late on ECTV for the COW, looks like chairman allowed speakers at the COW. It was a long meeting but looked like good discussions.
ReplyDeleteThanks to all and Merry Christmas!
D2 brings his aide on travel! What a waste of taxpayer money. Why? What a hypocrite to even bring up any travel issues when his aide goes with him. The aide has spent more Money on travel than elected commissioners? Wow! Well I hope they're sharing a room to save taxpayer money. Scratch that, that might be a sequel to Broke Back Mountain no taxpayer needs to endure. " I can't quit you."
ReplyDeleteI just watched the PEDC portion of the special meeting on video and some of the discussion about public speakers. YES you need speakers from the public. I have noted PEDC and economic development interests were a 4-1 too and also noted the echo chamber by design to support #2 ideas like he is special or something.
ReplyDeleteWhat a powerful speaker Mel Pino is! How refreshing! I have seen Mr. Luth get in front of the board and look like he had been publicly brow beat by #2. Of course we thank Lewis Bear for what he has done. Just to simply have one uncivil member of the Board discredit the professionals at these levels like has been done over the years is an outrage. I wish that this video clip was published on the news and that more people would speak out. #2 also spoke too highly of the current sheriff during the budget cycle but it is also difficult for the public to speak out against law enforcement. Of course we support public safety but that constitutional needs to manage his department better. They are very powerful.
I noticed someone tried to speak about the tree ordinance later in the meeting and on that other facebook page. #2 did some kind of public accusation so, no I'm not going to get into that toxin but BOCC you have a problem and I hope you just continue to keep that nuisance in check.
The tree ordinance please note, the diameter at breast height is NOT the circumference. Diameter is the circumference divided by pi. (3.14)
Do the Math... a 36 inch Diameter is HUGE..and if the lady is trying to stop a development..so what?
if the ordinance is 60 inches now..that's too big..
Do the math how big around is that tree?
Don't let #2 talk you out of strengthening the tree ordinance because he knows one the person that is bringing it up opposed him in the election and also another problem they had with him with rentals. He's vindictive we see it. He will ridicule her publicly.
Depending on the board.