Actually this has been around for a couple of weeks now. Just now getting the time to address the matter.
If you need to really make a point which will survive the length of a Commissioners’ meeting in Susquehanna County, you need to get on the agenda. Otherwise, it is the understanding of this writer that there will be no writtten record kept of the public comments. Although this may be legal, it certainly is a slap in the face of the public who takes the time to attend the 9am meetings on the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of the month. Are the commissioners attempting to save money by not having to keep a record of the public comment? Or are they attempting to add a(nother) layer of opacity to their workings? Let’s not forget they were hired by the voters of this county to represent the entire county. Doesn’t representing the citizenry of this county include keeping a COMPLETE and ACCURATE record of their PUBLIC meetings? Although probably not legally required, it certainly fits the idea of using common sense.
Why the sudden change? Why now? Is this some bush league attempt to effectively silence the attendees of commissioners’ meetings?
Don’t be afraid to ask your employees (the ELECTED commissioners of our Fair County) what their purpose was by this ridiculous action, and what their perception of gain for the County at large is and will be by not keeping a complete record of their public meetings.
Your thoughts?
Ask them - but only if you can get on the agenda! Must be those in power think they’ve hit the Vegas jackpot. And you know what they say about Vegas and now Susq Co - What happens at the commissioners’ meeting - stays at the commissioners’ meeting….
Let’s see, the original intent of the new commissioners was to have meetings at 8:30, in the small room in the Courthouse. It was obvious ahead of time to all concerned that the room would not be big enough. And, how do we get the children on the school bus, and get to the meeting in time?
As the Republican commissioner said at a meeting regarding public comments, the Wednesday meetings are the “business meeting of the commissioners”. The insinuation was that we, the public, were not needed. We are a nuisance to the current set of commissioners. The ruling party, under their breath, does not like all this public comment and opinions of the people.
Along the same line, why are copies of the minutes of the Economic and Development Board so hard to obtain? It was mentioned at the last meeting that they could be put on a website – that was shot down by a commissioner. Then it was suggested that the minutes could be easily available on a counter in the Courthouse – that was put down by the same commissioner. Then the commissioner said if anyone wanted minutes of the meeting, see the commissioner. Make it as hard as possible to find out what is going on.
We, the people, the citizens seem to be a hindrance to the commissioners, except when they want to elected, or give flowery speeches, or when they want to get their picture in the paper. I propse a moratorium on all photos of commissioners in the local papers. We need substance, not constant exposure.
Public comment is necessary in a democracy. I don’t agree with everything that is said by the public at meetings, but it is necessary that our voices be heard, and duly recorded.
Public interest and participation in government should be encouraged, not discouraged. When government creates rules and mechanisms meant to limit (or eliminate) public participation, this threatens the very integrity of democractic institutions. In a representative democracy, the representatives should know our concerns, views, and opinions. This does not mean that they must follow the lead of the howling masses over a cliff, but it is plain arrogance to believe that the general public never has anything productive to offer. In never hurts to listen.
On the other hand, the Commissioners should not be required to sit for several hours listening to citizen after citizen standing up to air their latest beef. A Commissioners’ Meeting should not turn into a roast. There must be some procedural mechanism that strikes a balance between the two — the right of the public to provide input and comment versus the need to provide some structure and certainty into the meeting process. After all, none of us would expect that we could walk in the United States Senate and demand to be heard on a particular point. The same should apply on the smaller scale.
For those who have attended Commissioners’ Meetings, there are times when the “public comment” plainly detracts from the meeting itself. Some people have told me that they have stopped going to Commissioners meetings because of their disgust with the “public comment.”
There needs to be a balance between the two — and it seems that the new Commissioners are attempting to strike that balance.
Well put Richard. I too believe that better organization of public input is needed at these meetings and an attempt is being made to do just that. I especially appreciated your Senate comparison.I hope those folks that you speak of about not coming to meetings relay that to the Commissioners and encourage them to continue to hold fast onto the attempt to keep the meetings on point of conducting public business.
“the ‘public comment’ plainly detracts from the meeting” and
“the attempt to keep the meetings on point of conducting public business.”
What specifically don’t you like that is happening at these meetings? Thanks.
In response to rotaryconnection, as to my “plainly detracts” comment, I may have worded that poorly. There seem to be occasions during the previous administration when the “comment” period seemed to become too personal in the context of personality conflicts between a particular member of the public and a commissioner. There is nothing constructive about this type of exchange at a public business meeting. There have also been occasions when the public comment period wants to address matters far afield so that the business meeting quickly becomes something akin to a press conference or a town hall meeting where everything is a free for all.
This is not to say that public comment should not be allowed or accepted. But it also seems reasonable to place some type of parameters as to the scope and breadth of such comments. The Commissioners need to hear from the public — and the public need to know that they are listening. The Commissioners also should articulate their position clearly in response to public concerns. The question is simply whether a business meeting should become a debate club exercise. I think that we all agree that there needs to be some reasonable ground rules in place for every meeting.
Finally, as I noted, it is important that the Commissioners listen to us, the residents. I believe the Commissioners should schedule “town hall” style gatherings every so often to allow for the public to speak — and these gathering could occur occasionally in the evenings to allow for greater participation.
Every public official should welcome conversations with his or her constituents — the question is simply where those conversations are best conducted.
This town hall idea is a good one.An opportunity to create a “conversation” and at times more convienent for the public rather then the well paid public servent.If after one of these “conversations” a citizen feels that his/her position has not been properly heard or accepted, that would be the time to “officially register” to speak at the regular meeting. This would insure that the position was recorded in the minutes even if not adopoted by the people elected to make the decision.This would give a person who has position a clear channel to express and record it without constantly appearing to oppose for the sake of opposing.By the way, doesn’t a current Commissioner have these “town hall” opportunities?