In today's Landmark:
3/20/2007 10:00:00 PM Email this article —ยข Print this article
Talk it out
THE LANDMARK VIEW
A couple of weeks ago, the Riverside village board proposed changing its meeting format to allow public comments at all of its regular business meetings. In addition, the proposal included a provision moving those comments to the beginning of the meeting, prior to any board vote.
On Monday night, trustees saw a preview of what that might look like. Although the board hadn't officially made the switch, public comment was moved to the beginning of the meeting. We're not sure just how well the board liked that-public comment lasted for about an hour-but the board ought to go ahead and stick with a format similar to that in the future.
Truthfully, Brookfield's solution to the public comment conundrum is preferable. Brookfield allows public comment at the beginning of each regular business meeting, but that comment is limited to issues on the meeting agenda. Brookfield offers a second round of public comment on any subject at the conclusion of its committee of the whole meeting.
Since Brookfield holds both meetings twice monthly, there is ample opportunity for residents to speak.
Riverside holds a committee of the whole session only once a month, so their solution can't mirror Brookfield's exactly. Still, if Riverside would like to move regular business meetings along, it may want to limit comment to items on the agenda and allow comment on any subject at the end of its single committee of the whole. Currently, Riverside allows no comment at its committee of the whole meeting.
The goal here should be to encourage and welcome members of the public to comment on issues before the board or raise new issues. Riverside should seek to offer as many opportunities for that to happen as possible.
While the proposal on the table would widen those opportunities, we're a little concerned that the board is also seeking to control public comment by limiting time allotted for it. While there are times and issues where comments can get repetitive and lengthy, if residents-whether taxpayers or not-feel strongly enough about something that they take time out of their lives to attend a public meeting, then the government ought to let them have their say.
The board is under no obligation to argue the points, but the board must at least give everyone who wants it a hearing. More often than not, public comment is brief. When issues get contentious, there is certain to be more input from residents. That's just part of the process.
No one necessarily wants to sit through three- or four-hour meetings. But sometimes those meetings are going to happen, and governments ought not to try to step in and actively attempt to limit that process.
Our solution would be to give opportunity for public comment on all agendas with few or no restrictions on time or subject. It may be ugly at times, but it's democracy.
REPEAT - Give opportunity for public comment on all agendas with few or no restrictions on time or subject - that's democracy.