I had always ASSUMED that in as small a county as Polk County the Commissioners would be interested in public input. I expected that they would put out an agenda ahead of the meeting with sufficient detail to understand the issue. I expected that they would take public input before an agenda item, discuss it and vote on it with this new information and in the cases where there was significant public concern or controversy they would take additional time to seek input and vote at the NEXT meeting. These were all incorrect assumptions however.
What I HAVE seen is extremely vague agenda items (making it difficult to discern what is really being discussed), agenda items added the evening of the meeting (to apparently circumvent the rule requiring them to publish the agenda in the newspaper ahead of the meeting), agenda items that specifically say "vote to approve" next to them and public comment allowed AFTER agenda items had already been voted on. Really??
Since the current majority of Gage, Owens, Holbert and Pack began their majority in 2013 they have done away with a previously standing rule that ALL agenda items be disclosed at least 6 days before the meeting and must be clearly stated but DID allow public comment without a time limit. Frustrated with the process several members of the public began to misuse the fact there was no time limit on speaking and the attacks appeared to get more and more personal (both from the citizens and from the majority Commissioners). It was awful and unprofessional.
Eventually someone did call them on only allowing public comment AFTER an item was voted on. The majority responded the very next meeting by moving all comments to the front end of the meeting and limiting each person to 3 minutes (total for all agenda items they might have comment on).
It's good that there is now a time limit (though I think 5 minutes would be more appropriate). It's great that public comment now come BEFORE the item is voted on rather than after, but it would make more sense to take public comment before each item, discuss it in public and then vote.
The bottom line is not so much about procedure as much as what appears to be a real disdain for public opinion that does not fit their agenda and a willingness to use procedural tactics to squelch public concerns.
What do you think?
What I HAVE seen is extremely vague agenda items (making it difficult to discern what is really being discussed), agenda items added the evening of the meeting (to apparently circumvent the rule requiring them to publish the agenda in the newspaper ahead of the meeting), agenda items that specifically say "vote to approve" next to them and public comment allowed AFTER agenda items had already been voted on. Really??
Since the current majority of Gage, Owens, Holbert and Pack began their majority in 2013 they have done away with a previously standing rule that ALL agenda items be disclosed at least 6 days before the meeting and must be clearly stated but DID allow public comment without a time limit. Frustrated with the process several members of the public began to misuse the fact there was no time limit on speaking and the attacks appeared to get more and more personal (both from the citizens and from the majority Commissioners). It was awful and unprofessional.
Eventually someone did call them on only allowing public comment AFTER an item was voted on. The majority responded the very next meeting by moving all comments to the front end of the meeting and limiting each person to 3 minutes (total for all agenda items they might have comment on).
It's good that there is now a time limit (though I think 5 minutes would be more appropriate). It's great that public comment now come BEFORE the item is voted on rather than after, but it would make more sense to take public comment before each item, discuss it in public and then vote.
The bottom line is not so much about procedure as much as what appears to be a real disdain for public opinion that does not fit their agenda and a willingness to use procedural tactics to squelch public concerns.
What do you think?