Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Problematic changes proposed for Davis City Council meeting comments

Brett_LeeThe City Council is considering some changes to its meeting format, according to the Davis Enterprise:

One suggestion was to limit general public comment at the beginning of the meeting — requiring that it end at a specific time — and continuing it for those who still wish to speak after all other agenda items have been dealt with.

The reason for the possible change?

“The idea is that as we start with a new council in July, that we find a way to make the meetings more accessible for the public and make them function more smoothly,” [Brett] Lee said.

So, meetings will be more accessible for the public if we force some members of the public to wait until the very end of the meeting to make general comments?  No. That would make meetings less accessible.

Let’s recall what general public comment is for: 1) it’s for members of the community who want to speak to items on the agenda, but can’t stay late, and 2) it’s for members of the community to speak to items that are not on the agenda.  Obviously, those in the first group won’t be served by having to wait until the end of the meeting.  The second group won’t be served either; we would be putting an extra burden on those who are trying to bring important issues to the City’s attention.  Potentially some important issues will fail to be raised at all.  Recent issues that were repeatedly mentioned during general public comment include police oversight and UCD housing.  Arguably, Davis is better off for having those views aired.

There are better solutions for making meetings shorter.

As I wrote about in a letter to the editor to the Enterprise, there are times when developers or others who are doing business with the City are allowed to present for an unlimited amount of time.  Instead of limiting the amount of time that citizens get to speak, shouldn’t commercial entities have their time limited?  After all, they have already submitted their materials to the Council.  Why should they get unlimited presentation time in addition?  The presentation should be a brief summary of what the Council already has in its packet – a packet that is made publicly available anyway.

Similarly, presentations by City Staff are often very lengthy and also repeat material that is already in the Council packet and thus reviewable by everyone.  These too could be greatly shortened so that they just summarize main points. 

These two suggestions would yield shorter meetings while better preserving the democratic process, allowing for the input of all citizens to be heard.  I call on incoming Mayor Brett Lee to implement these policies rather than forcing citizens to stay up late in order to have their voices heard.

Posted by

Roberta Millstein

on

in

Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

5 responses to “Problematic changes proposed for Davis City Council meeting comments”

  1. John Troidl

    Constrained public input is a real problem for Davis…. it is really contrary to our culture of civic participation or as I like to call it “Active Democracy”!!
    This, “you can speak last” rule will not go over well and will start off the new Council season on a bad note that will set a negative tone going forward.
    I think it would be MUCH healthier for all if the new Council season started with a strong show of encouragement for community engagement and respect for the public.
    Otherwise…. I fear it is going to be a rocky two years…… (Read: Not fun at all).

    Reply
  2. Eileen Samitz

    Thanks for bringing attention to this issue which is an important one for the public to be aware of. We are in a time when it is difficult enough for citizens to find time to come down to the meeting give input to the City Council, Commissions, and City Staff, input should be encouraged and not discouraged particularly with so many important planning issues coming up including the General Plan update. More often than not, community members have to dedicate quite a bit of time, hours sometimes to have a chance to speak for up to 3-minutes on issues very important to them and the community.
    The format which has been used in the recent past has worked well in terms of the 1, 2, or 3 minute allowances of time when there is a large number of people. for instance when many students where showing up on the mega-dorm project Council meetings.
    The point of having the City Council and Commission meetings is not just for processing issues but for input that is best heard just before the issue is to be discussed so all the input from the Staff, applicant or issue, and the public is heard so the Council can make an informed decision.
    So, I urge the Council to maintain the public comment format that has been working because the Council meetings are meant to give the community adequate input time and opportunity, not just a meeting to be witnessed.

    Reply
  3. sarah tetcher

    There are people who take advantage of the open public comment section to hijack the meetings for their own pet ideas, at every meeting. These people often refuse to adhere to the time allowed, and make the meeting frustrating for those there to engage in the matters at hand. Most of us don’t want to listen to the same three people go over again what they are angry about at each and every meeting, and would rather those were saved for the end, so that we could leave and not have our time wasted.

    Reply
  4. Roberta L. Millstein

    I’m sure that any of us who has spent any amount of time at Council meetings has found ourselves frustrated with a commenter or two, although we might disagree about which commenters those are. And therein lies the problem. Who decides which commenters go at the end and for which topics? It could become a way for those who are considered inconvenient, or whose topics are considered inconvenient, to be shunted toward the end. What looks like a “pet issue” to one person could be crucially important to another. Democracy is messy.
    As for adhering to the time allowed, I agree that speakers should do this.

    Reply
  5. Eileen Samitz

    I had some additional thoughts which I posted the author’s follow-up Davisite article on June 24th on this important subject that I wanted to add here as well. Note: The link to the follow-up Davisite article is: http://www.davisite.org/2018/06/democracy-and-general-public-comment-a-reply-to-jon-li.html)
    My appreciation again to Roberta bringing this bringing this very important issue to the community’s attention of the City Council now considering reducing the public comment time opportunity for the community in the beginning of the Council meeting creating a cut off time for all public comment, which would force the remaining public commenters who had not yet spoken to need come back late at night at the end of the Council meeting. This, predictably, would not work for the community, and basically amounts to being a deterrent for public input at the Council meetings.
    I agree with this thoughtful article in defense of retaining adequate time for public comment. The entire point of building the Community Chambers was to allow a forum for the public to bring their concerns to the Council directly. Since the Council has reduced their number of meeting from weekly to now only twice a month, that alone already has cut the opportunity for public comment by 50%. So, to try to reduce the public comment time allocation by even more is not only unfair, but not in the best interest of Davis residents.
    The real problem that exists now at the Council meetings is that too much is being crammed into half the number of meetings, since Council meetings historically were weekly meetings. Therefore, the real solution is for the Council to restore the weekly City Council meetings. Then there would more ample time to cover the many issues before the Council and would allow the time needed that community should have for the opportunity to give their input.
    The suggestion for less total public comment time to be allowed could not be made at a worse time given that the City is dealing with so many important and controversial issues, including major planning for the future of our City, including any updates to our General Plan.
    It is imperative that the City not restrict public comment in any way, and if anything, the City Council needs to consider going back to weekly meetings to allow ample time to review and discuss the important issues before them, while also allowing critical input from the Davis community.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Roberta L. Millstein Cancel reply