But they will be heard, at least for not more than three minutes each.
Supervisor/Board Chair John Haschak expanded his Terrible Dilemma about managing public expression Tuesday morning when he added yet another option to his six previous options which we discussed a few days ago: https://theava.com/archives/26075#4
Under present board rules public expression cannot exceed ten minutes per topic unless permitted by the Board Chair.
Haschak wanted to discard his previous options in favor of splitting off-agenda public expression into two parts, ten minutes in the morning and then unlimited speakers in the afternoon.
Unfortunately, not only did Haschak’s colleagues disagree with his unwieldy proposal, preferring to leave things as they are, but they didn’t even want to limit the number of public speakers at all, saying basically that they didn't think there was much of a problem letting everyone who shows up have a say. If someone goes to all the trouble to come to Ukiah and speak to the Board, they should be allowed their three minutes, and if that introduces a touch of inefficiency, well, so be it; democracy was never meant to be particularly efficient, especially in Mendocino County.
(But later in the meeting, when Philo resident and Vietnam combat vet Don Shanley wanted to read his full letter in opposition to “Hip” camps and glamps, Haschak made it clear that he’s a stickler for the three minutes, rudely turning off Shanley’s mic mid-sentence a paragraph or so before he finished.)
After Supervisor Ted Williams said he didn’t want to “censor the public,” he pointedly asked Haschak what problem he was trying to solve, Haschak first offered nothing more than what he had proposed in his original agenda item: the mythical Mendo Efficiency.
Haschak also tried noting that sometimes consultants who are paid by the hour have to listen drawn out public expression and that having public expression at 9am might force some south coast constituents to drive to Ukiah on icy roads. Again, nobody was persuaded.
The Board inefficiently and repetitively batted Haschak’s proposal around for about 45 minutes with no one seeming to appreciate the irony of strict limits for the public but unlimited blathertime for the Supervisors. Haschak’s colleagues favored of letting as many public speakers as want to be ignored be ignored.
Supervisor Williams finally moved that: “public expression stay at the top of the meeting, and we not limit the speakers.” Williams clarified that as long as the speakers kept their remarks to the existing three-minute limit, there should be no limit on the number of speakers.
Supervisor Norvell agreed saying that if there was a problem they could deal with it later.
When the vote was called, Williams’ motion passed 4-1, Haschak the lone(ly) dissenter. Haschak’s attempt at Board meeting efficiency was blathered into submission.
Coincidentally, earlier in the morning, an innocuous agenda item to refer the question of whether the Planning Department’s interpretation of a marijuana program rule that would allow somewhat larger pot gardens to the “General Government Committee” drew quite a few commenters both pro and con the referral as well as pro and con the expansion. After allowing about a dozen problem-free public speakers, the Board proceeded to make the referral as proposed, voting 3-2 in favor with Mulheren and Williams opposed. Nobody seemed bothered by the number of the pot commenters, even as they were, as usual, ignored as the issue was shunted back to committee.
Be First to Comment