We'll see.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Reconciliation and progress
(92 posts)-
Posted Friday Apr 17, 2009 15:37 #
-
RE: Hauser: When was the last meeting when it was legal for the Board Members to discuss these matters? When was this previously discussed in open meeting? Then when was the election? Has there been a legal meeting since the election. When were the proposed changes to the parkway discussed by the Board? When did they sit in open session to look at and consider the revised plan? When did the public have a chance to see this material so they could comment intelligently? How does the item then come onto the agenda for a vote next Monday?
Posted Friday Apr 17, 2009 15:53 # -
Good question. Reminds me of where was the Open Meeting in which calling off the TIF was decided and the press release composed.
They must be planning to discuss it Monday, or we must have missed it. Violating the Open Meetings Act is a crime, after all. Sigh, it's going to be a long night.
Posted Friday Apr 17, 2009 15:58 # -
Public comment at meetings -- bane or benefit?
My two cents in this thread have been deposited in favor of leveling imbalances in information to increase transparency and faith in the processes of the Village and the two school districts. These steps, I believe, move all of us toward reconciliation post-election and progress as the electees take office.
My working assumption is people will support decisions as justly arrived at, even if those decisions are not exactly what individuals wanted, if they know that basic principles of notice and involvement were adhered to -- that basic procedural steps were executed.
My first note was to create an ongoing public dialogue on major issues. Second, I suggested creating a virtual trusteeship (or school board membership) through making board packets available for all but executive session matters. The third idea, related to but distinct from the virtual trusteeship, is pushing out public agendas via RSS, etc.
If all of this is done on a timely basis, then we will not face the prospect referred to way back in this thread of missing a particular commission meeting, with the result being ugly concrete poured in front of a landmark building (such as Central School, the Library, etc.).
Nor will we face the prospect of "Surprise!" items being dealt with in the blink of an eye -- not that it happens, but just as prevention.
And I suggest that if these are accomplished we would be opening our (also from way back) New England-y / Rousseauian / Olmstedian home ("Olmstedia") to the highest ideals of democratic participation in a representative form of government.
NB: All structures can do is open a process, it takes committed residents to cross the threshold of involvement.
But what of the actual meetings?
The meetings are themselves a significant time conribution of our fellow citizens who serve. They almost always come at the expense of family time. Under Illinois open meetings act, they must be informative, deliberative, discursive and decisive.
That's a lot...
...and they can be significantly lengthened by public comment.
I support public comment and I do not suggest its abandonment. Not at all.
Rather, I suggest that as technology can help level the information balance between officials, staff and residents, it can also provide a compelling alternative to the mechanics of showing up at a meeting and sounding off.
For instance, why not develop into the curriculum for TV production at RBHS a capacity for residents to be recorded in public comment for any of the Boards mentioned, and their Brookfield, LaGrange Park and North Riverside analogs, and the recordings uploaded to a designated part of youtube?
This would help our high school students learn and experience meaningful public involvement by creating "produced" comment -- with light graphics or photo drop-ins -- as a freshening of the process and as in starting a platform for the entire community to access on demand.
Of course, if people prefer addressing a board face-to-face, as I have on occasion, then nothing would prevent them. But, those who are more comfortable alone in a studio with a camera than in a board room with many people and a camera (in the cases of Riverside and District 208 ) would have a new alternative.
This approach would also provide a new possibility for those for whom meeting attendance is simply inconvenient (those who work in the evening, single parents, others), who are today offered either letter- or email-writing as their alternative.
The trustees or board members could receive a list of posted public comments before the meeting and could regularly update themselves by checking in with youtube.
Board members in turn would better locate comments with respect to their particular agenda item, clicking back and forth bewteen their electronic board packet and the individual comment, for instance. Currently, comment comes at fixed times in the various board meetings. It is almost necessarily separated from its agenda item subject matter.
This approach also would increase options for the board members, who could view comments at their own pace before a meeting and even perhaps re-view them after initial discussion but before voting.
The shareable nature of youtube video increases another element of our comment structure: representative comment. Viral distribution can build support, expressed via emails, rankings, reviews, etc., so that officials may learn by meeting time, or voting, of the actual resonance of a comment in their community of constituents.
Technology's ability to break down time/space boundaries seems perfectly targeted to increase, equalize, emphasize and fereshen the exchange of Olmstedia's public bodies with resident. This thread only begins to discuss ideas to speed reconcilation and hasten progress after our elections left winners, losers and their respective supporters elated or disappointed. I appreciate all of the ideas expressed herein, and hope more will pop up. I sense great interest in "getting on with it," and great interest in the changes implied by us electing only one incumbent in eleven electees. Technology can play a very positive role in all of this for everyone.
It is indeed a moment for everyone to consider new ways of doing things -- for our benefit and that of our representatives. Public involvement should not end with voting.
But as it happens my next post will leave technology, at least briefly. My next two cents will be drawn not from the latest Silicon Valley offering, but from a concept developed in the 1930s -- agency capture in administrative law. Perhaps obscure, but I think it is another key to propelling the topics of this thread, reconciliation and progress.
Thank you for reading.
Posted Friday Apr 17, 2009 16:49 # -
You need to go to meetings and ask questions and sometimes not settle for stock brush-off answers, and see how discussion goes. You can't do all this by remote control. When you see people doing things it is different than reading about them, or watching a movie. Like listening to music - live music - is different than any type of recording. The more I have seen of the previous group's resistance to the RCA's calls for auditing the functions of our government and evaluating what we get for what we spend, and the spitefulness of some who were on the losing side, the more I think it is necessary for having face-to-face confrontations in order to sort things out before they are cast in concrete. One has to wonder what there is to discover when the VM decides to take her parachute and leave just because there is a new Board coming in.
Posted Friday Apr 17, 2009 17:19 # -
I have a question regarding the open meetings requirement. If the RCA party met together outside of the board meetings or any executive session and discussed any policy is this a violation? Is policy considered any village business? Also, how would a citizen be able to know if this would be happening?
Posted Saturday Apr 18, 2009 21:39 # -
The open meetings requirement applies to the members of the Board. Obviously, the RCA candidates are not yet on the Board, so they can meet and discuss anything as much as they want to. nce they are on the Board they can't have meetings of so many members of the Board - I think it is more than three, or maybe three or more. One member of the Board of any party can speak to another, in person or onthe phone, email, etc., and that member can speak to another, etc. That's my understanding of it.
Posted Saturday Apr 18, 2009 22:05 # -
Thanks, that explains some of it, but does not answer the policy question or the transparency issue. If anyone has legal clarity around it or suggestions regarding transparency, chime in.
Posted Sunday Apr 19, 2009 09:00 # -
Attorney General website
Explanation of "Open Meetings Act"
http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/government/open_meetings.htmlPosted Sunday Apr 19, 2009 11:40 # -
thanks, I looked over the 50 pages on the website. It is helpful.
Posted Sunday Apr 19, 2009 15:11 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.