What does this even mean?
In the comments, LK takes Elna Hensley to task for her remarks in the paper about the 5 minute rule. Wolfpack thinks she did a good job. For the record, Ms. Hensley said:
Montana's public meeting laws are very clear — the business of the public must be conducted in public. However, a distinction needs to be made between a public meeting and a meeting held in public. Unlike a public meeting, the meetings of the City Commission are for the purpose of conducting the business of the city and are held in public. The commission members must consider comments on matters they will be making decisions about, but at some point they need to be able to move on and make the decisions that the voters have entrusted them to make. Setting reasonable limits on the time for public comments is not inappropriate. I do think that commissioners need to make themselves very available to the public in other settings, such as neighborhood council meetings or other public meetings convened to discuss specific issues, to hear the comments of members of the community.
Excuse me?
While she may have "made her point very well," what she said is gobbledeegook. There is no distinction between a "public meeting" and a "meeting held in public."
A meeting is "the convening of a quorum of the constituent membership of a public agency or association described in 2-3-203, whether corporal or by means of electronic equipment, to hear, discuss, or act upon a matter over which the agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. " Unless dictated by the needs of individual privacy or private litigation, meetings need to be opened.
According to Ms. Hensley's statement, City Commission meetings, "unlike a public meeting, are for the purpose of conducting the business of the city and are held in public." In other words, City Commission meetings are meetings for the Commission to "hear, discuss, or act upon" matters "over which the [Commission] has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power." Sounds like a public meeting to me.
Ms. Hensley can be excused, maybe, for ignorance of the finer points of the open meeting law. But I cannot excuse a mindset that would suggest that when the City Commission conducts the business of the City, it merely happens to hold those meetings in public, apparently at the leisure of the Commission, and there is really no requirement for public input.
While Ms. Hensley seems like a very affable and reasonable person, her comments bespeak a real misconception about the fundamental nature of the democratic process. This almost sounds like something a staff member might try to make up to justify exclusion of the public.
Unless she retracts her statement, I don't know how anyone could vote for someone who does not recognize the public's role in its own government.
22 comments:
RE: comments bespeak a real misconception about the fundamental nature of the democratic process.
Yes, that is why you are the Maha GeeGuy.
So you believe the public controls the meeting? I don't see how you pulled out of her comments that she implied "there is really no requirement for public input.".
She said that comments must be considered (which implies that they are allowed) but at some point limits must be set for the long winded and that it is the responsibility of the commission to maintain order. Unless one is looking for a reason to be technicality outraged, Hensley clearly believes that the public should be “afforded reasonable opportunity to participate” but not unrestricted opportunity. That belief seems well within the spirit of our state constitution.
Did I say the "public controls the meeting?"
No, what I said is that there is an inference that can be drawn from her answer. For her to draw a distinction (artificial and non-existent, I might add) between a "public meeting" and meetings "held in public" for "conducting the business of the city," implies that she thinks there is a distinction between a public meeting and City Commission meetings.
If a City Commission meeting is not a public meeting, doesn't that imply, therefore, that legal open meeting requirements do not apply? To me, then, the suggestion that "unlike a public meeting," a City Commission meeting is something else entirely implies that the public's right to be involved can be obviated as well (or else why draw the distinction at all?). From that, I will infer that she believes that when the Commission is "conducting the city's business," it really doesn't need to consider the public.
What she says later means less to me than what she said first. It sounds like she thinks that conducting business takes precedence and, if the public gets in the way, well...
I agree she could have made her point a little more precisely but parsing for the negatives and tossing all the positives does not accurately portray anyone. I have little experience with her other than your debate but I found her level of civility attractive against the backdrop of rabid ankle biters. I certainly did not get the opinion that she felt herself above the rest of us. If you can not give her the benefit of fully developing her ideas then maybe only language exacting lawyers with one sentence answers should run for office ;)
More precisely? What, then, was her point?
Perhaps Ms. Balzarini wrote her response?
The 2006 City Directory has Ms. Hensley and Colleen sharing a phone. This sounds like the person who tries to distinguish between a draft and a finished product.
Maybe the public could just watch from one side of those two way mirrors, they seem to be a lawless bunch I think it would be safer for them too. As they enter we will be reminded of the similarity to a "perp walk".
Wolfpack, civility does not excuse ignorance. Great Falls Commission Meetings are not Public Meetings? Come on, how can you defend that.
As for fully developing her ideas, she submitted this statement to the Tribune. She was certainly given the opportunity to develop it, and that is what she settled on. I saw her at the debate too. I didn't get the feel she is some one who would take a stand to defend the rights of the people.
And rabid ankle biters? At least there are a few people, right or wrong, who are still passionate about what they believe in. Better than doormats anyday.
Dona often drones at the meeting comment period: any more questions from our public?.......any more questions?.....any more questions from our public?
Not that she really wants questions, she does realize it is required to let the public speak at commission meetings, as long as it is per her own rules.
Answers are optional if ever.
How can the mayor be proud of '22 minute' meetings of the commission? Why even bother convening them if it's such an 'inconvenience', especially when commissioners and the mayor are compensated?
No 'doublespeak', 'grilling' or even questions authorized...just stay home, huh?
Once again Wolfpack needs to pull his head out of his ass. It is Elna, not Geeguy, who is parsing words and engaging in crazy double talk. Her comments were about as ridiculous as your defense of them.
Geeguy- I think her purpose was to say that a balance between the publics right to participate and the necessity of the city getting its business done must be struck. There is no filibuster right for the public in commission meetings.
Firefly- There are plenty of substantial reasons to be upset with the incumbents but some chose to be upset with everything the city has done. This reminds me of a yappy little dog that barks at everything including leaves blowing in the wind. This 100% negativity erodes credibility with me and if baseless passion is the most important trait for prospective commissioners LK would be my man.
If I didn't know that you are just a naturally argumentative, devil's advocate type, I'd start to call you an apologist.
But I do. So I won't.
Hmmm, I wonder if Wolfpack ever gets up to the "Docket Box" at the Commission meetings and speaks on the issues dear to his heart? Do you sir?
Interesting that that is what you chose to respond to, in light of the content of the reply.
But, while I often disagree with you, I understand your point, and agree with at least part of your response to my comment.
I do not agree that Elna should get any slack on this, or that I have any duty to justify or interpret the meaning of the words she wrote for publication in the newspaper.
I deleted a comment because I am a prude.
At least you admit it now.
Geeguy- You think I'm argumentative? Are you getting back channel info from my wife?
Yes, anon I've been at the "Docket Box" and my wife hates that too.
WHAT IF the current commissioners let some one speak for 10 minutes on a subject?
What if the commissioners took copious notes as though that person had a clue?
What if the commissioners set up another public meeting to allow that person and a person of the city's choice engage in open debate on a subject?
Would it create more or less public involvement in the governmental process?
Why is public involvement in the governmental process considered bad and disruptive?
GeeGuy is correct in noting comments bespeak a real misconception about the fundamental nature of the democratic process..
"People and nations are forged in the fires of adversity" - John Adams
OK, allow me to try again! The big bad woofy makes all KINDS of baseless accusations with NO evidence of any kind! THAT is what I would call 100 percent negativity against people who want change. And that negativity erodes his credility. Now, big bad woofy, if you AREN'T the ankle biter here, please give a couple of examples of my "baseless passion". You seem to be kinda like mr. steele, who appeared to not know what the word "mitigate" meant. You seem to not know what the word "filibuster" means. For example, just WHO attempted to "filibuster" at a city council meeting? And how WOULD one filibuster with a five minute rule? And WHAT advantage WOULD a filibuster provide? You seem to be mr. steele's intellectual equal! You say that it the commission's duty to "maintain order". Well, please provide an example when the meeting was OUT of order! And you further state that you found ms. hensley's "level of civility" refreshing against the "backdrop of the rabid ankle biters". Did the OTHER candidates not ALSO impress you as being civil? If not, why? Please specifically cite examples of just WHAT it was that you found uncivil about the other candidates. Now, if they were NOT uncivil, did you not find them to be "refreshing" too? You make no sense what-so-ever. But you ARE appropriately named. For you see, your incessant, baseless howling does INDEED seem wolflike. And if we should need a howler on the commission, you'd be the man! And why can't you identify yourself? You see, anonymous potshots are NOT the hallmark of people with enough courage and integrity to be authentic participants in democracy. Anonymous little people must be content with the government they get, like it or not. And that's really kinda sad. I think that real democracy demands better.
LK
Well said LK.......
Post a Comment