It pays to stay until the end of meetings.
Monday's Common Council meeting was not broadcast on the educational access channel as usual because of audio problems.
This led Mayor Sebastian Giuliano to comment that he would like to end all broadcast and recording of Common Council and Planning and Zoning Commission meetings because of the cost of the broadcasts. However, underlying the cost issue was an indication that the mayor, and other Council members feel that the broadcasts lead to political grandstanding and long meetings.
"I want Council members to know," the Mayor explained. "That when we thought we were on the air, we had 28 speakers on the issues before us. After we learned we weren't on the air, we had only 19."
"If you're looking for bipartisan support," joked Councilman James Streeto. "You've found it."
An end to such broadcast flies in the face of recent Community Conversations which requested more information from local government, and additional transparency.
The meeting began with an unusual musical interlude as Middletown High School student Max Spurr seranaded the Council and observers with a classical clarinet solo to help promote the Middletown High Goes to the Symphony concert at Bushnell Auditorium on April 7.In regular Council business, the Council debated a few controversial issues, and quickly passed several regular business resolutions.
Lee Godburn, who has regularly voiced criticism about the city's contract with Frank Maratta at Harbor Park, addressed the Council with continuing concerns about the long term contract, and the lack of action by the city.
Councilman and mayoral candidate Ron Klattenberg echoed the concern."There is no clear direction where the city is going with Harbor Park," Klattenberg said, expressing a frustration he said he has heard from residents. "This started in 2006 or 2007? And we've seen no change."
City Attorney Tim Lynch explained that the long term lease is tied up in litigation, and the mayor emphasized that the winner-take-all nature of a judgement actually helps in negotiations with Maratta.
In other matters, Wesleyan Hills resident Arlene Cardoso objected to the absence of an important city document in city records when a Freedom of Information request for the document was pursued by Council member David Bauer.
The document was sought in conjunction with a complaint by Wesleyan Hills residents concerning a parking ban placed on Long Hill by Police Chief Lynn Baldoni. The public works department has offered a solutions - a crescent shaped parking area, off the street and travel lane - with a price tag fof $60,000.
Wesleyan Hills residents have not warmed to this solution, and are seeking a return to the street's previous status where on-street parking was allowed.
A motion by Council member David Bauer to create a Committe of the Whole on the Common Council was rejected along strict party lines.
The Committee of the Whole, supported by Mayor Sebastian Giuliano as a useful tool to explore many kinds of issues, was directed at reviewing the scope and compositions of the Councilmanic Commissions.
Also rejected along party lines was an attempt by Mayor Sebastian Giuliano to move his administrative assistant Geen Thazhampallath to the position of Deputy City Attorney. An alternate resolution by Klattenberg, which ultimately passed, required the mayor to hire a new Deputy City Attorney based on the guidelines normally used for classified positions. The mayor argued that hiring Thazhampallath would save the city money in outside attorney fees. The city now pays $1.15 million in those fees annually, according to the mayor.
In arguing against the transfer, Councilman Gerry Daley explained that he had nothing but praise for Thazhampallath, but that the administrative assistant position is a political appointee, and that moving a political appointee into a staff position was not the normal path. He cited Thazhampallath's legal opinions at the last Planning and Zoning meeting as an example of a political appointee voicing an opinion in what ultimately is a political struggle to replace the chair of the P&Z.
Emergency Management Director George Dunn appeared before the Council to explain the need to fund an emergency managment drill in the city the night of April 17. The drill, conducted in conjunction with Homeland Security, will be the first in the state to set up shelter for special needs residents and residents with pets. Dunn is recruiting residents to take part in the drill the night of April 17.All other matters on the agenda were passed unanimously, or near unanimously.
16 comments:
Oh no! I often watch at least part of the broadcast - and, personally, it would be easier for me to get up and comment if I knew it would not be broadcast.
The Mayor and the majority of the Common Council have been looking to take the Council, P&Z, and Inland Wetlands meetings off the air.
I fear not having the complete record of these meetings that we currently have. Ask Eleanor Kelsey about her experience with P&Z meetings before they were televised and recorded.
Although I am not certain I agree, I can understand the reasoning behind not broadcasting but I think the recording serves as a good resource to back up the written minutes. Would the sessions continue to have audio recording?
I believe that if we lose the broadcast, the audio is gone also. In this age of good, inexpensive MP3 recorders, one would hope that we would tie one into the system in the back room. Even with that capability, would we be able to discern "who said what" for posterity?
City Hall seems to have some trouble holding on to it's documents and records at times, critical times according to some.
I try to tune in to the broadcast of the P & Z meetings every time. There are times when due to work commitments I can't attend, but I'll have the broadcast on.
We need to retain the broadcasts...
Hmmm....
On balance, I favor eliminating the broadcasts, although I'm still somewhat on the fence.
David--I don't share your concerns about accuracy. As someone who deals with (purportedly accurate) printed records every day, I assure you recording doesn't necessarily solve the problem of an adequate record (what happened while the camera was off during recess? or before or after?).
Really, the only way to have a reliable record is to have a reliable person of integrity responsible for it. I can't speak to PZC--but Marie Norwood, the council clerk, is one of the best public servants I've ever encountered, and I trust her ability and integrity completely. She's a far better check on accuracy than any recording device. But having a tape recorder present wouldn't be difficult.
The point I would have THOUGHT you'd make David (cause I've heard you make it before, on this issue) is that many people follow city affairs through the broadcasts. And I'll admit its a point of some validity. I get this from people all the time--"I've seen you on TV!" Don't you?
We all benefit from an informed electorate--its why I've been reading your blog enthusiastically Ed (even when I didn't agree with it). Perhaps we could turn them off for a time as an experiment, and see how many people comment about missing them.
In addition to the costs, my concern is that frankly, I think the cameras tend to add heat to the meetings without adding light. I'm not sure if the costs outweighs the benefits--but I could be convinced I'm wrong on this one.
As an aside, recognize that the cameras help to ensure incumbency. Its an enormous advantage for incumbents to have their faces and voices in front of the public every month. The value of name recognition in municipal office is extraordinary. This also presents a consideration, I'd suggest, for anyone who feels that the community's elected officials have gotten too entrenched.
Jim Streeto
I acknowledge that there is some reason to be concerned about publicity-loving citizens monopolizing meetings. The Sid Libby phenomenon can be best be dealt with by the chair of the meeting insisting that rules be followed, instead of he or she just sitting there rolling the eyes and looking helpless. What about the ignorant, silly, and self-aggrandizing comments by the mayor and the council members at the meetings? Members of the public should be able to monitor the antics of their elected officials.
I think the broadcasts of the meetings should continue; I don't have the time to attend in person and this gives me a window into the thoughts and abilities of our elected officials. If transparency is a priority (which it should be), the broadcasts need to continue. The citizenry needs to be informed more, not less!!! Thanks to coverage of town meetings on this blog and the broadcasts on the public access channel, I feel that I am a better informed Middletown citizen. We need to hold our elected officials accountable--they are in office to represent our interests.
I am used to Councilman Streeto's use of the "Straw Man" argument. I did not impute Marie Norwood's ability to summarize the Council proceedings.
I offer two examples about why a complete record of our meetings are important:
We have a very special property tax deal for the private owners of the Superior Court building. Throughout the development process, the City was given the impression that this building would contribute significant Property Tax to the City. When a "special deal" was struck in Hartford, the City could not produce any evidence that the Superior Court building should be on the Grand List.
When I needed to refute the grossly incorrect assertions that Mr. Armetta and Mr. Corvo made to the Common Council in 2002, the official meeting minutes did not contain the details necessary to enumerate the claims made.
Simply stated, good meeting minutes are a summary of the meeting, not a transcript.
Why do court proceeding rely on transcripts? Wouldn't good minutes do?
For the blog, attached is a copy of my letter to the Middletown Press that explains my position on shutting down the t.v. broadcasts.
Dear Editor,
During the January city-wide Community Conversations city residents told us they expect more transparency,better communication and greater openness with their local government. They noted that an informed electorate can make better choices for their community. Mayor Giuliano’s new plan to stop broadcasting Common Council and Planning and Zoning Commission meetings on the city’s public access channel flies in the face of these expectations. Ironically, the mayor announced his plan at the March 2 Common Council meeting when the broadcast’s audio failed, and people viewing at home could not hear his intentions.
For many residents, these broadcasts are their only available link to decisions being made by local elected officials. The nominal cost of these broadcasts (approx $13,000) is insignificant when compared to the direct access to government decision-making residents receive by this coverage. I will oppose the mayor as he attempts to limit the public's right to observe government's process and hold their elected officials accountable.
Sincerely,
Ronald P. Klattenberg, Councilman
222 Round Hill Road
Middletown, CT 06457
Sadly, being able to refute grossly inaccurate assertions can be a time-consuming exercise in futility here in Middletown. Commonly decisions often appear to have already been made "behind closed doors" in advance of Public Hearings. However, this lack of transparency is much more likely to be exposed when surveillance cameras are in use. In stead of decreasing broadcasting, I believe the Mayor's Office and the entire Planning Department should be bugged!
If every person in Middletown would dedicate themselves to just a small act against the "futility" of City Hall, our fair City would be a very different place.
Check my post on Ron Klattenberg's posted letter.
If the Mayor carries through with his plan to eliminate broadcasts of Common Council, Inland Wetlands and P & Z meetings he would certainly lose my vote. The cost of broadcasting the meetings is a small price to pay for open government. One of the reasons we still have Comcast Cable at my house rather than Satellite is because of the broadcasts.
If Congress and the State Legislature have broadcast coverage of their proceedings, then the government closest to the people should certainly have its meetings broadcast. Because of other obligations, it is not easy for many of us to attend Council meetings in person.
The voters could exercise some control over the length of Council meetings by voting out of office the two Councilmen (Lofreddo and Roberts) who waste so much time asking rambling and often pointless questions or making rambling and pointless statments.
Gee Whiz, David, I'm enjoying the commentary, but if you're going to give away all my secrets I'm going to have to stop. How am I supposed to baffle my opposition and dazzle the judges if you tell everybody my tricks? ;)
I actually wasn't trying to suggest you were besmirching Marie. I WAS indicating that no technological device is as reliable a check on accuracy of records as one human with integrity. Your citation to court cases is actually a good case in point. You may not be aware that not all court proceedings ARE recorded (although the majority of them are). Its my understanding that Judicial has considered and (at least at present) rejected videotaping of witnesses, which they do do in some states. And even in the most important cases, there are frequent occasions where something is summarized on the record which happened outside the court room. This happened in one case I'm handling right now, and that was a death penalty case.
In the end, a verbatim recording of every aspect of city business is not possible. Minutes must be policed by the persons involved--we did this in Water and Sewer just a day or two ago.
I don't remember the Corvo-Armetta incident you're referencing, and would need the details. But as for the courthouse--the deal was always going to be that the State would pay the taxes (despite not being the owner). After it was built, the state unilaterally reneged on the deal, and decided to pay us (and several other municipalities, if memory serves) at a lower rate. Nothing back room about it--it all happened in Hartford, right in the open. We challenged this in court, and lost. We appealed, and lost that too.
I'm still torn, however, between the utility of public notice (as opposed to transparency, which I think is a non-issue here) of what the city is doing, and the effect this has on meetings. I've got an alternative in a separate post.
I don't think its fair to single two councilpeople out. Both of them are sincere and honest people blessed with common sense, who really want to do what's best for the community.
And, frankly, all of us are guilty of the same sins--long, pointless questions, questions which are really speeches, and asking for information we already possess. The mayor in the last meeting compared the amount of time spent on questions to directors to the amount spent on debate--I wonder how much time could have been winnowed out if we eliminated the questions altogether.
How about this: we keep the broadcasts, and eliminate "questions to directors." We replace it by requiring the directors to submit written factual summaries ahead of time (so that people can call if they need further information). And we instruct the directors not to attend the meeting at all.
That way, the "debate" will happen only once, when it should, when the issue is being discussed. And, since the meetings will be shorter (most of the cost is hourly labor for the tech people), the costs will be reduced. And we can advise our directors to do something useful with their time.
How about allowing broadcasts to continue and have commercials from local places to pay for them? Just a thought- could perhaps work.
madamnirvana
Post a Comment