August 5, 2008Give Hizzoner propsRoanoke Mayor David Bowers is rethinking some of his proposed changes for the way City Council treats visitors. After his election, Bowers recommended some changes to give Council a more "friendly face to our citizens." But now he's stepping back, saying he realizes some of the current procedures do work. In his comments, Bowers wasn't specific which of his proposals he's backing away from. But I suspect it probably has something to do with increasing the length of time for speakers. After sitting in on a recent meeting, we can only hope. |
About this blog In her signature plainspoken style, Michigan native Shanna Flowers peels away the layers and gets to the heart of the issues. No pretense. Just straightforward perspective. Shanna writes about local people whose circumstances reflect decisions made as near as City Hall or as far away as the halls of Congress. Other times, she weighs in on a topic because it is incredibly ridiculous. Or heartening. Or fascinating. Read Shanna's column three days a week, Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, at roanoke.com
.....Advertisement.....
|
...Advertisement...
...Advertisement...
Comments
[August 5, 2008 1:49 PM]
StevenWhy are you opposed to to granting Citizens more time to speak on issues?Do you think an issue can really be discussed in the 3-5 minutes now allowed(depending on number of speakers)for Citizens at Council meetings?..How dare you encourage limitations a my right to speak up..if your bored Shanna...just stay home..
[August 5, 2008 2:03 PM]
AlWhy yes, of course! Keep the public out of this thing called open democtatic government. What they have to say at these meeting hardly matters as we all know council, at least past ones, made these decisions well before the time for public comments. And lets face it, we really do not want this public rif-raf showing up for council meetings as it just makes it too late when we elected ones get to go home!
[August 5, 2008 4:44 PM]
Percy KutionDavid Bowers WILL do the RIGHT thing for the PEOPLE. The citizens WILL get a chance to speak with him as mayor. And it's just a matter of time until he gets rid of Ding-a-Ling Burp'em and Jumpin' Joe Gaspers too, which will also be a good thing for the people.
[August 5, 2008 11:26 PM]
MikeI think Shanna was right in an earlier post when she said David Bowers needs to "walk the walk" this time. But, despite his apparent shortcomings, it's refreshing to have a person in the chair who waves or smiles to constituents and makes himself accessible to them as opposed to his stone-faced predecessor.
[August 6, 2008 2:43 PM]
Henry HaleWhat the first two posters don't realize is that the time allotted is standard throughout the Commonwealth, and, having seen the simulcasts of the City Council meetings, they have turned into the "Jerry Springer" version of council meetings.
Also, a speaker with written comments should be able to articulate their position in the time now allowed. However, the real work is done by those with a real interest in an issue contacting and working with legislative members outside of the meeting; that's the democratic process at work. It doesn't pay any dividends to stand up in a meeting and be able to speak for more than 3-5 minutes if that's the only work someone is willing to engage.
These periods are for short and concise statements, not to have a comprehensive policy statement by the speaker. That work needs to be done afterwards.
[August 7, 2008 11:51 AM]
StevenThe Council can set any amount of time it wants.when Mayor Smith first came in office...the first thing the Council did was try to eliminate the Citizens abilty to speak at Council meetings entirely..that of course was very short lived..No doubt the "real work" on an issue cant be done in front of Council..but most people are not experts on how to pass laws or Council insiders..theyre everyday people who are concerned about issues in their City..and they should have the time to make their feelings clear...remember the Council works for us! Ever try to limit the time your boss speaks to you..wouldnt work out to well would it..Time for Citizens to speak should be extended..
[August 7, 2008 8:56 PM]
AlTime allowed may be "standard" but it is within the power and authority of the locality to set whatever time "limit" they feel appropriate as far as I am aware. More importantly, however, is the closed mind of council during public meetings. They could give speakers an hour to have their say but what I object to is not so much the 2 minute rule as the closed minds and decisions that have already been made. Never have I experienced the Roanoke City Council actually giving what citizens say at meetings any consideration. Resolutions are readied for the vote and changes only introduced as matters of procedure and then generally by the city staff, not as a result of citizens' comment. Even though I can accept the 2 minute time limit, my view is that giving people more time does communicate a spirit of interest in what they have to say. I also tend to feel that having to listen to 20 or 30 citizens hammer views before council for 5 minutes each IS more likely to have an impact than that of the 2 minute rule. There is a lot of validity in Mr. Hale's commentary but I can also say that most often no matter how much time one spends trying to sell their views and no matter how engaged one becomes in working issues, Roanoke City Council simply has a record and habit of disregarding the views of the citizens.