[Lumpy Lambert] said recent meetings have lasted as long as nine hours because, after the sunshine lawsuit, commissioners no longer could discuss business beforehand in private. Now, all business that may be voted on by the commission must be discussed publicly.
Interesting. So Lumpy openly admits to conducting public business in private. And contrary to the article's suggestion that things are different now, that has always been against the rules. Now they're complaining that doing public business in public takes too long. County commissioning is hard work.
Anyway, the article is about a proposed online chat room for commission to conduct business. Not sure what's wrong with public workshops, but this seems like a reasonable compromise.
So if a commissioner had been talking about something cumulatively nine hours between private and public conversation and now he talks about it nine hours in public, what is the difference time wise? It is still nine hours.
From what I saw of the nine hour meetings was several hours wasted on some seemingly vindictive subject matter. The chairman should move that to the end of the meeting when he sees it happening. Sometimes citizens had to sit there for hours to get focused, lets get to the point and get it done subject matter before the commission. The commission was so burned out they seemed to jump through it too quickly. If commissioner whomever starts droning on about something that seems personal, stop it and move to end of agenda. If people waiting in audience to be heard about whatever, they get priority.
My guess is meetings more productive and some wasteful talk gets cut short or eliminated by the commissioners themselves.
"Except the state open meetings law specifically prohibits electronic communications: "No such chance meetings, informal assemblages, or electronic communication shall be used to decide or deliberate public business in circumvention of the spirit or requirements of this part.""
Michael Silence notes: Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, sponsored legislation promoting the use of an electronic message board for commissioners. The new state law becomes effective July 1. The public could view commissioners' communications at any time, and discourse would be archived for at least a year.
Duh. Says so right there in the article. I skipped right over it going from Lumpy to the University Twit.
Citizen forum used to be near the top of Commission agenda. They moved it to the end a few years ago, presumably because they were tired of having to sit there and you know, actually listen, to citizens.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Tue, 2008/05/27 - 2:17pm.
I'm all for citizens having their say at public meetings, of course, but I *have* noticed a surprising habit on the part of recent commission chairs (maybe not Tank) of sometimes allowing the same citizen speaker to repeatedly return to the podium, either to counter some other citizen speaking in opposition to him/her or to counter a particular commissioner's ensuing comment. It would seem that the chair is within his/her right to tell such a repeat speaker to sit down and shut up?!
But back on topic, Dunn's chat room proposal was a terrific notion. Hope commission sees fit to create one.
So if a commissioner had been talking about something cumulatively nine hours between private and public conversation and now he talks about it nine hours in public, what is the difference time wise? It is still nine hours.
From what I saw of the nine hour meetings was several hours wasted on some seemingly vindictive subject matter. The chairman should move that to the end of the meeting when he sees it happening. Sometimes citizens had to sit there for hours to get focused, lets get to the point and get it done subject matter before the commission. The commission was so burned out they seemed to jump through it too quickly. If commissioner whomever starts droning on about something that seems personal, stop it and move to end of agenda. If people waiting in audience to be heard about whatever, they get priority.
My guess is meetings more productive and some wasteful talk gets cut short or eliminated by the commissioners themselves.
CORRECTION: An update to the original post said:
"Except the state open meetings law specifically prohibits electronic communications: "No such chance meetings, informal assemblages, or electronic communication shall be used to decide or deliberate public business in circumvention of the spirit or requirements of this part.""
Michael Silence notes: Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, sponsored legislation promoting the use of an electronic message board for commissioners. The new state law becomes effective July 1. The public could view commissioners' communications at any time, and discourse would be archived for at least a year.
Duh. Says so right there in the article. I skipped right over it going from Lumpy to the University Twit.
The update has been un-updated.
Sometimes citizens had to sit there for hours to get focused...
Citizen forum is near the top of the agenda at meetings of the Farragut Board of Mayor and Aldemen. Commission would do well to adopt the practice.
Larry Van Guilder
Citizen forum used to be near the top of Commission agenda. They moved it to the end a few years ago, presumably because they were tired of having to sit there and you know, actually listen, to citizens.
I'm all for citizens having their say at public meetings, of course, but I *have* noticed a surprising habit on the part of recent commission chairs (maybe not Tank) of sometimes allowing the same citizen speaker to repeatedly return to the podium, either to counter some other citizen speaking in opposition to him/her or to counter a particular commissioner's ensuing comment. It would seem that the chair is within his/her right to tell such a repeat speaker to sit down and shut up?!
But back on topic, Dunn's chat room proposal was a terrific notion. Hope commission sees fit to create one.
Post new comment