 |
 |
Marsha Vas Dupre
By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
At 12:19 a.m. last Wednesday, as a marathon Santa Rosa City Council meeting crawled toward its conclusion, a great deal of governmental ground had been covered.
The battle over kids handling SWAT guns was over. A dispute between two developers over fees was resolved. And the controversial Howarth Park parking fee was tabled.
Just one last item of business remained: public comments on non-agenda items.
This is the time set aside for members of the public to speak to the council about virtually anything they choose for three minutes each. It comes at the same time every meeting — dead last.
But Councilwoman Marsha Vas Dupre wants to change that. She says it is unfair and disrespectful to residents who take the time out to address their council but then must wait hours to do so.
“I think of this as the beginning of looking at how we treat the public and the way we do the public’s business,” Vas Dupre said.
For years public comments were held at the 4 p.m. start of every council meeting. They were shifted to 6:30 p.m. for a brief period, and six years ago were parked near the end of the meeting.
But last year, the public’s right to address elected officials suffered its latest setback when the comment period was pushed to the very end of meetings, and, to add insult to injury, the city’s television cameras were turned off before the public began speaking.
Critics cried censorship. City officials replied that while they were obliged to sit through everything from constructive criticism to deranged tirades, nothing required them to televise it all.
An advocate for open government, Vas Dupre says she’s seen a noticeable drop in public participation during this portion of City Council meetings in recent years. She feels that’s partly because of a policy that makes it impossible for people to know when they’ll be allowed to speak. The public portion of council meetings begins at 4 p.m. and can end by 6 p.m. or stretch past midnight.
By that early hour last week, only two members of the public rose to speak. One woman harangued the council about the health effects of PG&E smart meters, and another urged the council, as she often does, to denounce U.S. involvement in “illegal” foreign wars.
Vas Dupre wants the public comments period to be returned to a set time. She suggests 4p.m. before the meeting gets under way. She also believes those comments should be televised just like the rest of the open session.
One of the reasons the public comments were pushed back from the beginning of the meetings was because city staff, including well-paid managers, are often gathered for the start of the meetings. It was viewed as a waste of taxpayer money to have them sitting around listening to 9/11 conspiracy theories or poems about cactus farming.
For this reason Vas Dupre would limit remarks to half an hour, enough for 10 people to get three minutes each. Most wouldn’t use all three minutes, she said, if they knew it would push others to later in the meeting.
Susan Gorin, who was mayor last year when the last change was made, said she’s not against revisiting the issue. Putting comments early in the meeting with no time limit, however, could increase the amount of time residents have to wait to speak on matters that are on the agenda, she said.
“There are legitimate concerns I have to make sure the council meetings run smoothly and efficiently,” she said.
She noted that email gives residents an often more effective method of access to council members.
The city of Santa Cruz, which has no shortage of colorful commenters at its council meetings, has a system similar to what Vas Dupre proposes, but limits comments to two minutes each. After 30 minutes, the comment period is closed until the next meeting, said Rose Balsley, an administrative assistant who’s worked at City Hall for 16 years. All are televised.
Each week priority is given to speakers who didn’t speak the prior week, she said.
Vas Dupre said she understands the concerns about staff standing around. She also has sympathy for the argument made at the time that young people, such as Boy Scouts, who are often present at the beginning of council meeting for proclamations shouldn’t be subjected to unpredictable, sometimes inappropriate remarks. Another concern is about speakers extending their allotted time by paying others to read prepared remarks for them. That practice turns the public comments period into a “charade,” she said.
But if making it harder for those people to hold court also disenfranchises other residents from addressing their leaders about genuine local issues, that’s not a trade-off Vas Dupre is comfortable with.
“Ours is not to judge but to listen, that is why we are publicly elected,” she said.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
my opinion , for what it is worth, is that if the meeting is televised, the whole meeting is to be televised.
You might not know it, but the CC has also cut off comments, and stopped the TV in the middle of the meeting when the mayor did not like what was being said.
And there is no way to stop the mayor from doing that!
You may think it is OK for the mayor to censor the words, or views , of the public, but I don’t!
The council is getting more and more restrictive since the present mayor took office as the whole agenda was revised.
By the way, the staff who stay for presentations , are salaried staff, and do not collect overtime pay. they may get CTO but there is no additional cost to having the CM, CA, or heads of department there to explain things.
So, it is evident part of the reason for changes are bogus
I’m with Dave;
Since this is, has been, and will forever be, a world governed by the aggressive use of force, I strongly favor its use by the U.S.
Far better that we are the aggressors rather than the Red Chinese, the Islamic jihadis, or the folks that want to cram the SMART train down our throats.
In the real world, aggression is more than a theory debated in college classrooms.
It is the key to survival.
“… aggression… it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
” “aggression” … a wrongdoer in international law – formulated by the United Nations in General Assembly Resolution 3314″
I miss the good old days of listening to Miguel Garcia go on and on about peace without armed agression.
At another Council meeting, he ended his public appearance by barking like a dog.
For the record, I support peace thru armed agression!!! :)
I’m happy to see this topic be given some attention. I have spoken at RP’s city council meeting and it feels as if I’m speaking to a brick wall. No interest, no response – on items included in their agenda. Yes, there were some rude comments from our ‘leaders’ like ‘take a political science course’, and eye rolling.
The council members were very disrespectful to me and others (unless one is there to talk about something they are interested in), and I took my time out to involve myself in the Democratic process.
I had to listen to them ramble and pat themselves on the back over and over. I chose to watch from afar now, or not participate at all, due to the uselessness of it all.
Disenchanted.
Just reading the comments proves the point that people cannot be left to their own ramblings without some sort of control.
There is a difference between commenting on city business and items that effect city concerns, but why should an non resident be allow to speak? You wouldn’t allow someone from Eastern Mongolia to take up 3 minutes of time? Oh , yes I guess you wackos would…..
Poems, Songs, Ramblings about space ships have no business in the meeting. Neither is televising the freak show.
I rest my case.
By law, the city council has to allow public comments on non agenda items. So it doesn’t matter what people think about the relevancy of the subject matter. They have the right to oppose US wars if that is important to them. I’m strongly opposed to the wars and support those who speak out against it.
If people are so offended by off-topic remarks they can cover their ears or turn off the TV, well not anymore, the TV has been shut off for them. It’s been more than a year since they shut off the public comments. Marsha’s recent concern is not impressive. Is she not running for re-election?
In fact , the council’s decision has resulted in having less people make public comments because there were usually very few people who would be able to hear their remarks. At the end of meetings most people have already left the chambers leaving only the uninterested eye-rolling council members.
Attending meetings and making public comments are hard work. I have been doing it for years. It’s what being an American is all about, making our voices heard in a free country. If we tolerate having our elected officials diminish our right to speak publicly then when this country falls into a less free state, you’ll know who’s fault it is. It will be the fault of those who criticize those who have done their civic duty is accordance with the Constitution of the United States.
I implore you criticizers to go down there and offer your comments so that the public debate is enhanced, not diminished.
//Why should they let us talk. We might fix traffic, stop the the gangs, get people back to work….//
Look at who we elect! Have they accomplished any of the above? Then why would one think the people themselves would do better than those they choose to solve these problems?
Generally people who make public comments would like to get some response from the council, but by law the council can’t discuss issues that are not on the agenda. We should try to build a format for people to bring up issues to the larger community and get a response from their public officials. Why not have a separate meeting several times a year with a limited number of council members devoted to public comments? This would not be an official meeting and would give the council members more flexibility to respond. And it would be in addition to whatever public comments are at the regular meetings.
Well, having sat through a number of council meetings which were hi-jacked by whack-jobs who use the public comment section as a TV studio to broadcast their neurosis, I am sympathetic to the council’s decision to move the comments to the end of the meeting. There is a legitimate public comment section for actual agenda items. Leave it like it is.
Why should they let us talk. We might fix traffic, stop the the gangs, get people back to work….
Oh, they would lose their pensions and the pay raises……………
I truly appreciate those who’ve made time to respond to this important issue. I’ve served for years and want to encourage others to run for political office, so, this is not a campaign platform. Thank YOU!
Kay Tokerud, just want to mention that Councilmember Vas Dupre has mentioned several times over the last few months her desire for the council to reconsider the current policy regarding public comment. I’ve been in the chamber to hear those comments.
Also, while “we all have a right to free speech,” if someone is speaking at a city council meeting, it seems very reasonable to expect them to speak about matters the council can actually influence, or at least about matters that refer to the city in particular. There are more appropriate forums for issues beyond those. I support limiting general public comments at the beginning of the meeting; if someone wants to speak about national or international subject matter, that should be relegated to the end of the meeting, in my view. A city council meeting isn’t the place for hot-dogging or incoherent rants. Let’s encourage more participation at public comment that is thoughtful and offers new, innovative and substantive perspectives for the very real problems we face here.
It was truly a slap in the face to the people who often waited for hours to speak to cut their comments from the televised portion of the City Council meetings. This added insult to injury as they had also previously put public comments at the very end of meetings. They also went to ‘action’ minutes so a person’s comments were not adequately recorded.
We’ve written to the council to restore these things but received no response from any of them. Until now. Our new non-profit group, the Post Sustainibility Institute just wrote an article about this problem in our newsletter. Who knows why they are doing this now? Is it because Vas Dupre will be up for re-election soon? If Vas Dupre was so concerned about this why didn’t she say anything at the time?
Voters need to remember who was mayor when this was done. It was Susan Gorin and Wysocky was vice-mayor. The progressives had the majority but lost it at the last election.
No one has the right to decide who’s comments are worth being heard. We all have the right to free speech. I’ve heard a lot of people say that the public comments were their favorite part of council meetings, poems, songs and all.
Listening to the council members drone on is incredibly boring most of the time and I for one want to hear what other people think about things. Before you judge people and what they say, try going to the council meetings and waiting several hours before you have an opportunity to speak about something not on the agenda. Most things are never on the agenda so you can only address these issues under public comments. Most people never go to a City Council meeting, do you? You should contribute something before you judge others.
I beleive Wayne Goldberg changed the City’s policy regarding public comments,
during his tenure as interim mayor.
Look, our FREEDOM isn’t about the Council Member’s inconveinience.
It isn’t about a lack of tolerance.
It isn’t about a lack of patience.
It isn’t about fostering more of the conspicuous disconnect that is the ‘relationship’ between the citizens
and our local government.
It is about the FIRST AMENDMENT.
When citizens listen to the proceedings at City Council they are often enduring a faux process to confirn a fascist favor already decided in a back room.
Or patting themselves on the back for acheiving some oppressive ICLEI carbon reduction goal.
I don’t beleive their job description should include picking winners and losers in the business landscape.
Or choosing which citizens are worthy of listening to.
In the same spirit a fire dept. helps an elderly citizen with a cat in a tree,
they are required to be public servants. SOMETIMES a citizen has an
important perspective that deserves to be heard and respected.
Sometimes the public needs to see BOTH sides to understand the issue and see how responsive(or unresponsive) the council is to the public’s input.
Interaction, engagement, communication.
However if you were a rogue government(Which by definition an ICLEI charter is)
you would not want to create a forum in which you could be confronted on it.
Taking directive from an NGO who’s dark Agenda shapes almost all policy, land use and the ENTIRE GENERAL PLAN is unconstitutional (Article 1), would NEVER pass a vote of the people,
and isn’t nice.
Unlike many on our City Council,
I beleive Marsha Vas Dupre is a nice lady that goes along to get along.
(kudos to her for bringing this to light)
The Santa Rosa Neighborhood Coalition has been objecting to this change in policy to deaf ears for some time.
LET THE PUBLIC SPEAK and BE HEARD!
I’ve been to council meeting in various city’s and S.R. is the only city that has their “Citizen’s Comments” at the end, (that I know of) To me it seems they (S.R. Council) are counting on the citizens to get impatient and leave before voicing their opinions on “City Business” and/or on the council-members themselves. As far as i can see, there are no violations, just a lack of respect for the citizens of S.R.
If Council really cared about what the citizens had to say, they would open a second “citizen’s business” for rebuttal purposes….that would be too dangerous for council though!
I agree with Kirstin and Taxpayer!!
It is sad that we have so many as I will call them looney toons that waist public comment time. I know exactly why it was moved to the end and cameras turned off, because those people ruined it for the rest of us with valid concerns to bring up to the council. Items such as can we say the pledge of allegiance before each meeting and can we fix the roads in SR and pull the weeds. Or things such as at last weeks meeting I was un happy with the vote on item # x, y, or z for xxx reason etc.
Good idea suggested put it back towards the beginning maybe after proclamations give priority to those who did not speak last week, and keep it to items pertaining to Santa Rosa. Oh and don’t let payed speakers speak. If you can’t speak your own words in 3 min then you need to re consider your speech. Then also give time at the end for people who can’t make it early, but still following the rule if you spoke last week you are off this week.
Attending a council meeting subjects us to too many rambling from the council members themselves. Having the public rant is an insult to the process and needs to be censored and stopped.
What some hippy in Graton says has no influence on the price of grapes in China. End our suffering now!
To the City Council: Please limit citizen comments to those made by residents of Santa Rosa, about issues concerning Santa Rosa. As a taxpayer, I resent the time that the Council must listen to the Sebastopol resident who attends every meeting to scold the Council about the cost of overseas wars, or the Graton resident who hires people to rant about crazy government conspiracy theories. There are more pressing, local issues facing the Council.
Since you’ve obviously never been to a council meeting, the public is given opportunity to speak on any item at every meeting. The public comments being discussed are for items not on the agenda. The law you quoted is not applicable to this situation.
When the public comments were toward the beginning of the City Council meeting there were so many crazy people talking about conspiracy theories, reciting ridiculous poems, sharing each other’s three minutes, etc. Having them pushed back to the end of the meeting keeps the comments legitimate since the crazy folks go home before then. The comments are for the council, not the public, so there is no need to air the crazy people seeking publicity on television. KEEP THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THE END UNTELEVISED. THEY WERE SET THIS WAY FOR GOOD REASON.
Yes, let’s stop the use of taxpayer dollars–the staff sitting before the council does not come cheap–to pay to broadcast the views of people who wish to rant on all manner of things having nothing to do with the city’s business.
The purpose of a city council meeting is to conduct the business of the city. Having an open forum for people to bring up non-agenda items makes sense only if they fall within the purview of the council.
Is it reasonable to expect council, staff, or the public, to sit through the endless rants of conspiracy theorists who are there only because it’s free time on TV? No.
Gresham’s Law applies to more than just money. Don’t let the crackpots take over council meetings.
Councilwoman Vas Dupre: Thank you for bringing this important issue up for discussion.
John Hudson, just to clear up any misunderstanding, the council DOES provide time for public comment on specific agenda items before the council votes, so there is no violation of that Section of the Code. The public comment that is being debated here only concerns subjects brought up by the public and not on the official agenda.
As others have suggested, the ideal situation would be to provide time early in the meeting and then again, if necessary at the end when those who could not come at 4 p.m. could speak.
Section 54954.3 (subd. (a)) of the Government Code provides in relevant part: “Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public BEFORE OR DURING THE LEGISLATIVE BODY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE ITEM…” (emphasis added)
Making the public wait until the end of the meeting, after everything on the agenda has been “considered” clearly violates the law. The city council MUST allow the public to speak BEFORE the council finishes consideration of the item of interest to the member(s) of the public who wish to speak.
I think not televising the public comments portion is a good idea, public comments should be a time for the public to address the council, putting it on TV just brings more of the crazies out. But a set half hour of public comments at the beginning of the meeting is a great idea, perhaps they should also have a public comments period at the end for those who can’t make the 4:00 time like myself. We clearly do not want to have to pay city employees to sit through the public comments period.
Thank you, Councilmember Vas Dupre, for championing this issue. The public comments should be heard at the beginning of the meeting.
However, those who speak ought to avoid just using the time to air their pet complaints over and over or to grandstand simply to get attention. Having attended meetings and heard a very few repeat speakers who rove off onto all kinds of topics over which the council has no authority, I understand why some on the council are reluctant to grant those people a platform week after week.
Still, it is, as Councilmember Vas Dupre has noted in different words, preferable to put up with such inconsiderate off-topic ranters than to defer (and thus possibly deprive) everyone of the abiity to speak on camera and toward the beginning of the meeting. And those who watch the council meetings on TV should be allowed to hear what their fellow residents have to say. Finally, no one should have to wait until the end of the meeting for this portion of the public agenda.
Thank you Council Member Vas Dupre.
Public comments certainly ought be televised, they are part of the council meeting. The cameras may be off but the council is still in session.
Two minuets per speaker seems ok but thirty minutes total per meeting is insufficient in my opinion. Public comments could be split between early and late in the meeting.
Putting presentations and staff reports ahead of public comments seems ok.
Banning paid readers seems ok, council could allow exceptions.
I applaud Councilmember Vas Dupre for taking up this issue. It is absolutely disrespectful to not provide members of the public with a regular time at which they can expect to make comments at each meeting — preferably the beginning of the meeting. How can people plan if Public Comment is at the end of the meeting — WHENEVER that might be? Set a time limit of 15-30 minutes and divide the time up between those who wish to speak. It’s easy and fair.