First of all, this is being presented as a Special Presentation. Once again they use a process that does not allow Citizen input. Special Presentations do not allow Citizen input. This is once again presented on Friday afternoon to where no one grasps it until the weekend is wrapping up and 48 hours before the meeting. That is the reason they put it out on Friday, hoping no one will pay attention. What is up with these people? Are they against the Democratic process and more in favor of manipulation of structures of governance?
First of all, by presenting this in a formal document, I believe that they are being dishonest with the public through obfuscation. Anyone utilizing the Removal of Consent Agenda Items process precedent as set forth on the City Council Agenda Pamphlet is not asking for a Public Hearing, they are following a process that has been endorsed by the Council for years. The issue is that someone has finally utilized the process and the City Council does not like it and they want to quickly sweep it under the rug before it settles into accepted normalcy.
When the City Administration's words state about the changing of the cover sheet,
"We hope this cover sheet is clear and easy to understand and will help citizens effectively participate in City government."
It needs to be understood that we believe this change gives the appearance of an attempt to make the Council meetings even less citizen friendly, and is obviously an attempt make the civic process less responsive to citizen input. Furthermore, politically, it looks like a way to avoid public debate on issues potentially important to the community. The above statement was true with the way things were/are now prior to the impending changes. The entire Council needs to be dressed down on this issue Tuesday night. What do these Council members have against the citizens they say they represent?
Look at the wording in the City Council Agenda packet where it says Alderman Lail made "comments at the May 1, 2012 Council meeting for staff to rectify the erroneous information related to consent agenda items that was written on the cover sheet of the council agenda’s available to the public at council meetings." No! Alderman Lail made a motion and then was interrupted by City Manager Mick Berry and they never revisited the motion, because the Mayor said that he took it as more of a comment. It is all recorded. Once again they are making rules up to suit their personal agenda.
They are trying to say for a citizen to remove a Consent Agenda item that it must be as a petition through the City Manager through the "Public Hearing" process. We aren't asking for a public hearing. The Consent Agenda obviously has nothing to do with public hearings. And again, how are we supposed to ask to be placed on the agenda on Wednesday in response to items on an Agenda that doesn't come out until Friday on the internet?
Also on the radio (Hal Row's show), Rudy Wright said that the council didn't want citizens abusing the process by pulling items that were (paraphrasing) petty in nature. If that was our goal, then would we have not done this before now? We waited nearly five months for the City Manager to attempt another HooDoo through illegitimate process. A $285k or $137k item does not belong on the Consent Agenda. It doesn't matter whether they are using their Parking Slush Fund or not. That is the reason why we stood up. This is an important issue that citizens deserve to have input on and they wanted to railroad this through and they don't want anyone to be able to introduce resistance and push back to their personal agenda.
As has been stated, this is an issue of Precedent. No matter how the language found its way onto the pamphlet, this became the rule through practice, until someone had the audacity to use it. So, while it may not have been 'officially' adopted through vote of council, and that is certainly not the gospel given that, "Staff was unable to find when that rule was included," it became inclusive through practice until Rebecca Inglefield stood up and used it.
Hickory City Council Agenda packet for May 15, 2012 - Beginning on Page 10
5 comments:
"Items belong on a consent agenda only if they are noncontroversial and all on the board agree. If anyone considers something even questionable in this regard, they should ask that the item be removed from the consent agenda. Integral to using a consent agenda is that all board members receive the materials for it well enough in advance that they know whether they belong on the agenda or not....
When folks are apathetic and do not use the accountability structures provided for them then it just encourages such behavior [of avoiding public discussion]!"
~David O. Renz, Ph.D.
Chair, Department of Public Affairs
Henry W. Bloch School of Management
University of Missouri – Kansas City
"Effective consent agenda practice requires the exercise of great discipline by the agenda planners to limit items only to those that absolutely would not benefit from individual discussion. The general counsel should directly participate in the decision-making process.
An overarching concern is that the very nature of the consent agenda (e.g., elimination of individual discussion of certain matters) runs counter to the image of an active, informed board and may create an “optical issue,” if not a substantive legal issue, should the board’s decision-making process subsequently come under scrutiny."
~Michael W. Peregrine, Esq., Partner, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP
The Governance Institute
Consent Agenda Practice: A Second Look
A consent agenda is a good tool, used with discretion and restraint, only for those items that are mundane and for which there is really no need for discussion. Items like the finance officers’ report for example. That should really only come up for discussion if there is something wrong with revenues. Otherwise, expenditures were set when the budget was adopted. Unless you’re continually drafting money from a Capital rollover account to fund special projects around downtown.
And while the City Manager does have certain leeway in what is on the agenda, who among us is so naïve as to think that he too isn’t being guided and instructed in what he puts on the agenda. Because if he varied from the wishes and intent of the Mayor and governing board too many times, there’d be a new City Manager.
Personally my thought: This City Council is useless. They don't take their responsibilities seriously and do not fulfill their roles. They just , for the most part, sit there like knots on a log and fulfill the mission of the pageant processional that is called a City Council Meeting.
They have abrogated their role/mission. Why would you take a concern to one of them? They hear, but they do not listen. Hearing = Glad Handing. Listening & Discussion = Effective Governance. They refuse to discuss issues with the public.
Because they know they don't have to! Put cardboard cutouts in the chairs... let the Mayor run the meeting via teleconference, since no one ever votes no anyway or goes against the grain, and they'll still get elected!!!
Post a Comment