A resolution for new rules for the Common Council has been submitted for a vote at the next Council meeting.
These proposed rules contain some significant changes in the way the public will be able to address the Council.
The proposed rule changes will be voted on at the first meeting of the newly-elected Council on December 7.
According to the proposed new rules, the public will no longer be able to address the Common Council on topics "not on the agenda" at regular Common Council meetings. In its place the new rules propose a monthly meeting with Council members at sites around the city. Minutes of these meetings will not be transcribed, but instead taped. Proposed special rule II (1,2,3,4) states (all grammatical errors are part of the original document):
1. The Council will hold community-wide public meetings for any and all items previously considered non agenda items. The public hearings will be held at the following locations on a monthly and rotating basis: Westfield Fire Station, south Fire Station, City Hall, MacDonough School, Middletown High School and Snow School.
2. The community-wide public meeting is to be an oportunity for the public to raise issues of concern before the Council. The public will be able to raise or express any issue(s) of concern within the bounds of proper public discourse and decorum. The Mayor or his/her designee will chair the meeting. Robert's Rules of Order will apply for the conduct of the public meeting.
3. The recording of the public meeting will be by tape recorder and issues raised will be maintained by the Council Clerk. Items the Council feels can be handled through the appropriate committee, commission or department shall be forwarded to them for response or action. The item is to be handled in a timely manner with a report made to the Council under the appropriate agenda item at a regular Council meeting.
4. The public will be afforded ten (10) minutes per speaker to raise any issue before the body.
This change comes after a debate at the last Council meeting during which the topic of First Amendment rights and public comment were the subject of correspondence and public comment.
Another change strictly limits the amount of time the public will be able to speak on agenda topics during the "public hearing" section of the meeting. Members of the public will be held to a five minute limit, and the public hearing will be 30 minutes long, unless an extension is voted by a supermajority vote of the Council. Nine member votes are required for a supermajority.
No time limit has been placed on Council member debate or comments.
In other changes, the proposed rule changes include a realignment of the "Questions for Directors" section of the meeting to a regular workshop meeting to be held prior to regular Common Council meetings. The special meeting will run for one hour and will not be broadcast on the local cable access channel. It will be tape recorded and minutes will be recorded. Common Council members will not be required to attend this workshop as a quorum is not required. Directors will not be required to stay for the Council meeting, as previously required, unless specifically.
Interestingly, the rules contain some anachronisms which indicate that the Council rules do not recognize technological advances. Rule 5 indicates that "All appropriations shall be published in a newspaper with general circulation in the city of Middletown prior to the meeting." Considering the state of "newspapers," the rule seems quaint. The Hartford Courant essentially ignores the existence of Middletown, and the Middletown Press does not send reporters to public meetings. In addition, the Middletown Press which has a circulation of 7000, only a sixth of the population, makes one wonder if there isn't a better way to provide notice of meetings to the public - like an easy-to-use City of Middletown website.
In another anachronism, the rules mention "tape recordings" of meetings frequently. Considering digital audio recording has replaced "tape" recording in most settings, perhaps the generic term "audio recording" ought to replace the term "tape recording."
Finally, when it comes to broadcast of Council meetings, and for that matter, other municipal meetings, it's clear that video and audio of many meetings could be provided at very low cost, and reach a greater audience through webcast.
6 comments:
The rules that the Democratic Council members have proposed bring out the political cynic in me. The people of Middletown were pleading for greater transparency in government and all the politicians were promising transparency during the campaign. Well, the election is over, and look what you get. These rules are a combination of the Council trying to insulate itself from the public and save the process from their own “speechifying” tendencies.
It is obvious that the Democratic Council members looked at the State Legislature in Hartford and borrowed the worst elements of their process. They have imposed various time limits for the public’s input on issues that will be voted on the same meeting. The State Legislature allows additional written testimony, and they don’t vote on the issues the same day as the hearings. This at least gives the impression that they might read the material before voting. Thank goodness that the rules do not mandate a Sign-Up sheet that could be pre-loaded with all the Right Folks signed up to speak in the allotted 30 minutes. Still, I envision that there could be some rude jockeying before, and during the meetings, to be one of the “Lucky Six” that will get their five minutes before the Council.
I would have hoped that by 2009 we would have a more robust Official Web Site that could provide more timely information to the public. Michiel Wackers has single-handedly provided so much of the information from the Planning Department and the Committees they staff. Where are the rest of our City’s departments? City Hall has several copiers that can create a PDF file at the press of a button and get documents up on the Web in a matter of minutes – if they cared to. Instead, the intent is to continue making the supporting documents of the Council as difficult to review as it has always been.
I don’t know if I am more troubled or amused by the quaint reference to “tape recording” in our rules. It is frightening how little the Council members understand the current technology that could both save the City money and improve that pesky “transparency in government” thing that they talk about.
The creepiest element of the new rules is a warning of “threatening people” (as defined by an unreferenced State Statute) that need to removed from the Council proceedings. It is so “1984” that a group of people that don’t even know what a modern copier does, get to play amateur psychiatrists between the public and their First Amendment rights.
Its a Brave New World, but the Common Council should be all right if these new rules pass.
David--
I'm not real clear on how we're "insulating ourselves from the public" by moving the public comment on nonagenda items to a different night, when it can take place earlier, and in locations which are potentially more convenient. Strikes me we're actually INCREASING prospects for public comment, and focusing our business meeting on the actual business.
5 minutes per speaker is actually contained within Robert's Rules of Order. Its just not a rule we've ever enforced. Interestingly, it applies to councilmen, as well as members of the public. And makes sense--people start to glaze over after a time and a number of speakers.
Time limits are not unusual--most communities work with them, as do most courts. I get 20 minutes in a court to persuade a 3 judge panel that my client, who's serving a life sentence, should receive a new trial. I'd suggest the stakes in such a case are considerably higher than in deciding whether we're going to repave a road.
I actually totally agree with you on the 30 minute allotment, however, and will vote to remove it if its still in the proposed rules. I think its unworkable, in part for the reasons you suggest.
David, you and I spent the last two years in meetings which were "tape recorded"--public works and water and sewer. I'll acknowledge better technology exists. Perhaps the IT committee can work to implement it? In the interim, its my suspicion that many meetings will continue to use an old fashioned tape recorder.
I'm not clear where your reference to "threatening people" comes from. That term does not appear in either the original or the new rules. There IS a reference to a SPECIFIC state statute, its not unamed. "Breach of the Peace" is a named offense in the general statutes. If you want to examine it, its CGS 53a-181. I'm surprised that neither Phil nor Joe pointed this out to you: as former high level police officers, both are I'm sure intimately familiar with both the statute and its application.
I didn't use specific language, since language (and numbered code sections) change from time to time. If the legislature renumbered its code, and we referenced that section, it would be meaningless. Further, there is a great body of appellate caselaw which exists and defines the line between free speech and "fighting words" (as that concept is articulated by the legislature in CGS 53a-181, among other statutes).
The latter are not protected, even if the speaker is standing on a street corner. And, quite frankly, I've heard speakers use this kind of language over the last 12 years, and it is profoundly disturbing, and unseemly. And I'd suggest that it actually discourages public debate--the shock value tends to turn people away from the microphone.
This isn't going to prevent anyone saying anything they want. It WILL prevent anyone using the podium from using language which would get them arrested if they used it on a public street. I'd suggest that's what we want for our community.
This is the Democrats hiding how mismanag3ed everything is, so we cannot hear from the Directors as it comes to budgets and policies, lets do that in the dark so no one knows how the city is run.
This is to prevent the disagreements between the Democrats from being seen, but, that already done because they hide in caucus meetings a make all their decisions anyway.
Thia way Mr. Daley can attacjk the polocie departmetn in secret.
Council meetings are certainly too long and too rambling. This could improve and shorten meeting so that more members of the public would want to attend. If this is tried, however, it should be passed with a sunset provision. After six months, the new regulations should be reevaluated to see whether the Council indeed improves its functioning and whether its constituents believe that they are having adequate input.
1. In a recession is is hard for the city to produce more funds to provide the IT department with necessary personnel to maintain a website on a daily basis. Where the money??
1a. Who would you like to give a raise to to ensure the task of department webmaster be done? The council has already cut over time- again must employees work for free??
1b. Has anyone stepped forward to write down the dialogue at the council meeting and publish it in a matter of 24 hours? If you are suggesting this maybe you would like to volunteer? If someone wants to go listen to the tape get your butt down to city hall bring a cassette player and have a go. Unless you are too lazy. No matter how convenient it is made people will still complain its not easy enough-
2. All i would want from the council is for them to stay for the whole meeting- after all they get a $6,00o stipend.
3. Council members should be penalized for absences. Doctors notes? We mandate our school students have them when they are absent and supposedly this is to prepare them for the real world.
During last January's Community Conversations the residents frequently asked for better access to the Council by having meetings around town rather than just at City Hall. With several Council members participating in the conversations, it is great to see that the community's request is being addressed. Thank you.
Post a Comment