Response to Parish Council Meeting 1/5/17
Letter Coutesy of B.C. Goodwin, Mandeville, LA:
I attended the January 5 meeting and witnessed the desperation of Mr Stefancik to adhere to administrative minituia at the expense of public participation and public perception. He sends signals “my way or the highway.” Mr Binder and Mr Smith were given rounds of applause for objecting to this abuse of power, lack of common sense, and lack of common courtesy.
Mr. Stefancik even chided Marty Dean in saying he would not tolerate abuses of the 2-minute rule. Vice Queen Blanchard condescendingly told Binder if he did not like the rules, he could try to change them. My, what insight, from a rookie bucking to be Chair.
And credit goes to Mr. Toledano for also agreeing that the council needs to look into better ways to handle these issues (rightly so since the speaker is in his district), while carefully pointing out he was not criticizing the Chair. The council knows it has a public perception problem. Worse, too few are doing too little to correct it. Here are some suggestions:
Much ire came from the recent rules that limit sign size, limit photographing the votes made on issues, limiting where people can sit to hold signs and take pictures, and not allowing input except on items on the agenda.
That said, I suggest the following:
1- During the meeting, allow x minutes for public input on items that are not on the agenda. Whether 4, 6, 8, minutes or whatever, allow SOME time for people to bring to the council’s attention matters that are important to them, but just have not made it to the agenda, and may never if some input is not allowed. Let’s face it, some folks prefer their physical presence to make their points, and be available to answer questions, rather than impersonal email or snail mail. Surely, a few minutes (which in some meetings that time would not even be used) could be spared for this small measure to accommodate the voters. Is this really too much to ask, or grant? Is the council’s purpose to represent the people, or limit them?
As an example, the Causeway Commission allows input at the beginning of each of their meetings, thus not requiring a person to wait hours till the end of a meeting. This is also stated in each of their agenda.
As another example, Jefferson Parish allows public comment on items not on the agenda. Here is an excerpt:
“PERSONS APPEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL ON SPECIAL SUBJECT MATTERS. All persons wishing to appear before the Council are required to register with the Parish Clerk. Please list your name, address, phone number and the reason you would like to speak. Only persons registered will be allowed to address the Council. You will have 5 minutes only.”
2- What’s the problem with taking pictures of votes on a public screen, since those votes are public information anyway? Or pictures of, say, council expressions on given issues. What expressions do they not want made public? I’ve never seen ONE person taking a picture that blocked anyone or anything (how long does it take to snap a picture), so, really, just how significant is this problem, or misperceived problem? Or is it just another way to annoy the folks you are supposed to represent?
3- Yes, signs should not block the cameras or views of others. Thus, just require that the signs be, say, held no higher than shoulder height, and no bigger than X times Y. Does that seem unreasonable?
4- There is a rule that if a person speaks, and a council person replies, that there is no ‘rebuttal’ from that speaker. Why? If that council person is incorrect, as recently was the case, why shouldn’t that be rebutted or corrected, rather than that misinformation to continue into perpetuity? What purpose does misinformation serve?
I provide the above suggestions via this impersonal email since there is no way to speak on items that are not on the agenda, and perhaps never will.
Sincerely, B.C. Goodwin, Mandeville
It’s riskier driving to get onto the Causeway than driving across the Causeway, so it’s already safe enough….
Email submissions to covweekly@gmail.com for consideration in Covington Weekly
