The “Water Cooler” is a feature on Claycord.com where we ask you a question or provide a topic, and you talk about it.
The “Water Cooler” will be up Monday-Friday at noon.
Today’s question:
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, public meetings such as the school board, city council, board of supervisors, etc. have all been held online, mostly via zoom.
Holding the meeting online already takes away a lot of interaction with members of the public, and now, some districts are only allowing people to leave a voicemail message for public comment, which will be played during the meeting.
Others make you go through several confusing steps in order to leave a public comment, and some even put a time limit on the public comment period, leaving many with concerns that weren’t heard.
QUESTION(S):
1. Do you think elected officials are purposely making it as difficult as possible for people to voice their concerns during a live, online meeting?
2. Do you think elected officials have an obligation to provide a clear, easy path for the public to comment during a live online meeting?
Talk about it….
Yes they make it hard to be heard. And yes they need to provide a easy path for discussion from the public since it is us they represent and not there party or own interest. It seems these days they do not have are care about what we want
Of course they are! Not just limiting time or # of comments, but limiting public commentary altogether. See also Facebook/Twitter etc for examples of similar actions.
Yes to both questions.
However, time limits have been part of the public comment segment of any public meeting in the past. It used to be 3 minutes, but if there were a lot of people wanting to comment, it could be cut to 2 minutes. You had to fill out a comment card, or you could not comment. The only way to speak longer than 3 minutes was to just ignore the rule (which gets obnoxious quickly) or to coordinate a group of people where all participants yield their time to one speaker.
Three minutes does not seem like a lot, but if you prepare your statement ahead of time, so all you have to do is read of a script, you can get your message across despite the time limit.
I THINK that the answer to both questions is a resounding “Yes”.
Concerning the Oakley School Board, I KNOW that the answers are “Absolutely”, considering their latest bombshell meeting.
Around here if your opinion isn’t some leftist dream it means nothing anyway.
Yes and Yes!
Claycord: Mayor, I have been to a few public, in person, meetings and there has usually not only a time limit on the public speaker but also one on how long the open public can speak. Sometime it is depended on the the topic that brought the public in just to add their voice in person.
Posed…asked…and affirmatively answered all within the framing of the question.
Only allowing voice mail comments should be challenged in court. It doesn’t fit the spirit of the Brown Act. What if something goes wrong with the messaging system, or what if a call doesn’t go through clearly and the speaker doesn’t know? If the answering machine is collecting phone numbers, it could further violate the Brown Act because the act bars government bodies from requiring speakers to give personal identifying information to the government in order to make a comment.
Every government body could easily set up a microphone outside a meeting hall, and allow people comment during a meeting. Or there could be a mic inside a meeting hall, and speakers could enter a few at a time to maintain Covid distance guidelines. There is no reason to limit comment to telephony or online services like zoom.
The total comment period for agendized items cannot be limited. Every person who wants to speak must be heard, even if it takes hours. Per person, time can be limited to one minute for each speaker. It’s up to a government body to take into consideration that if an item is likely to draw a lot of comment, that item should be be scheduled for a meeting dedicated to that item, so meetings don’t go to midnight or later.
For agendized items that don’t have a lot of commenters, 3 minutes per speaker is typical.
Non-agenda comments at the beginning of a meeting are 3 minutes long, and the total comment period can be limited to 15 minutes. However, any remaining non-agenda comments must be allowed to be presented at the end of the meeting, no matter how long it takes to get through them all.
I read somewhere that Newsom had suspended the Brown Act due to the pandemic, and for the duration.
@Natalie
With this one post, you have redeemed yourself. Please stay in this place as much as possible. This has been going on in all levels of government since COVID started. THIS is why I have called it a political hoax for over a year.
.
In general, no. I don’t think public comment is being limited.
.
But certain jurisdictions seem to be limiting public comment and dissent.
.
Yes, We just saw a micro- version of this with the Oakley School Board Hot Mic.
Political organizations of every scale are free to abuse their power because there is no accountability.
Yes, and I think it’s the same reason you see comment sections disappearing from other news outlets, they don’t want to allow for opposing view points.
Yes to both. I know mine certainly is because I oppose tge progressive, politically correct pablum we are being fed. I think, too, it is the nature of the format, Zoom (or whatever) meetings, that lends itself to a perpetual irritability and impatience. I get annoyed just watching them. But, I think public officials, elected public officials, have taken the opportunity of the pandemic to pretty much ram through a bunch of stuff that would never have gotten through with public input.
There is some guy on the Clayton City Council that has taken over as Mayor and runs things in town now with Julie “make it ugly” Pierce’s two endorsed and elected sock puppets. I’ve never seen this new Mayor before, his name wasn’t on any ballot I’ve ever voted. Wonder how and when he got elected to the Clayton City Council when I’ve never heard of him.
Here is another odd thing. I went to Clayton City Offices during normal hours at about 1:30 PM a couple of days ago to drop off old medication. It was closed! I had been to the Police Department a month or so ago and the building was open. Now, however, it was locked up with “Closed” signs on the door. How is the City functioning according to the laws if no one is there to serve the public?
You call a city, county, or state office, or a larger business, and get someone working at home with their kids screaming in the background, or their dog barking, talking to you on a cellphone with a horrific connection and it is beyond crazy-making.
@Gittyup~This topic was just on Tuesdays Agenda and brought up by Jeff Wan but got defeated by the ‘sock puppets.’ Here’s the summary that Councilmember Wan graciously provides to his constituents:
“I had requested that public comment on non-agenda items be moved up from item 6 to item 3 in the standing agenda. Often times there is 40 minutes or more before we get to public comment and my hope was that we could increase public participation by making the public comment period earlier and at a more set time. When we are back to in person meetings especially, I know it can be difficult for some, especially those with young kids, to be able to dedicate the time to wait just to raise an issue at Council. This was done in hopes of making public participation easier and more accessible. I made a motion that was rejected on a vote of 3-2 with just myself and Councilmember Diaz voting yes.”
I saw no downside to moving public comment earlier…this was deliberately squashed to keep the status quo and meeting shorter. I guess our Jeff Wan is the exception, not the norm…
Wan’s suggestion to move the public comment time up seems like a good idea to me. It looks like the sock puppets, and Mayor I’ve never heard of, are going to dominate the City’s policy, at least until the next election. Hopefully by then, the citizens of Clayton will realize these three care nothing about input from those who elected them.
Wan should be Clayton’s Mayor right now, by the way. It was his turn. So much for Clayton’s fake dedication to inclusion and diversity.
@Gittyup—you are correct, Jeff Wan was cheated out of mayorship by the newly elected through a political vendetta…hypocrisy as they tout inclusivity! He would’ve been our first Asian American mayor,,,what a loss for those of us that truly want transparency and leadership!
This is slightly off-topic, but I noticed something strange on Amazon today. I tried to read the reviews for a controversial book: “COVID-19 A Physician’s Take on the Exaggerated Fear of the Coronavirus.”
Amazon only showed comments for the 1 star, negative reviews. 69% are 5 star ratings but these comments are blocked. Ratings with 2-4 stars are also blocked.
It seems bizarre. Here’s the link: https://amzn.to/2NzVvPc
You are right . I guess amazon was told to follow the narrative the government told them . I’m afraid for our kids future . It could be a simple mistake , lets hope so .
? # 1.) Yes
? # 2.) Yes
Look at the # of media outlets that are removing the comments section. CIVID is the greatest gift those who are both silencing a different opinion or agenda.
I have no experience with #1 (online), in any fashion, so no reply. For live meetings I have been to, public comment time appeared quite ample, but very little attendance, and nothing contentious.
#2, they should. They are elected to represent those they campaigned to, and should provide as much opportunity as necessary to allow public comment.. Leaving voicemails should be but one avenue for public comment; a live phone line, text messaging, etc., should all comprise methods of public comment.
1) No, I believe most officials want a sense of the public’s thoughts.
2) Yes, the onus is on them to provide a clear, easy path for the public to comment during a live online meeting. Incompetence should not be an excuse. They need to test the methods in advance.
They need to quit hiding behind the COVID HOAX and let the public comment in person like normal. They are all scared to face the public. Scared to have their little feelings hurt by having to hear how crappy a job the public thinks they are doing. Tough, they all work for us. They think we don’t know that. They hate having to be reminded.
Yes. Comment sections will continue to be stomped out. Every year there are fewer and fewer, because organizations don’t want the community fact-checking their lies just a few scrolls down the page. Obviously politicians and officials enjoy having the same lack of a public forum for discussions regarding the politicians’ failures.
Yes
I’m still trying to figure out the tiny url.
Yes & yes
yes – of course – they don’t want to hear from the public how horrible of job they’re doing
A number of parents in MDUSD that had vocal against the district in Facebook groups Brian Lawerence also took part in saw themselves “accidentally” booted from the queue to speak at board meetings.