I’ve defended the Town of Culver in the past when people say things happen without enough notice or public input. From the 2014 Comprehensive Plan, to four times Culver participated in Stellar planning through the housing expansion with READI, Culver has been pretty forthcoming with community input and requests for participation and input. In the past couple of years there has been some changes of this and a recent visit to the Culver Town Council meeting highlighted this.
I used to attend the Council meetings on a regular basis, but with our main projects under construction in Plymouth, it became a choice of where to spend my evenings in the most productive manner. (The change to Thursday meetings in lieu of Tuesday meetings wasn’t helpful either…) Where Public Input used to be at the end of the meeting, there is now a Public Dialogue item towards the beginning with the following admonishment: This is an opportunity for the Council to open discussions with the public concerning items on the agenda. Unlike the public concern section, these conversations will be within an open format monitored by the President to ensure no one individual dominates the discussion or misdirects away from the specific topic.
I don’t think this change just occurred last month, but it is a recent change. It causes a few concerns for me. 1) This puts the opportunity for public input before there is any business conducted by the board. This means if you want to comment on something that occurred, you would need to come back at the next meeting for an opportunity to speak and, technically, per the admonishment above, request to be placed on the agenda. 2) Acknowledging that the privilege was occasionally was abused in the past, the intent of this seems to be to stifle audience input in other parts of the meeting. I have not been going often enough to speak to how this is operating, but reading that statement would make me less likely to raise my hand during board debate.
Lord knows, I have sat through council meetings where they have dragged due to prolonged audience interruptions, but I also know that there have been countless meetings where audience input has provided salient points that rightly affect the deliberation of the council. I always give deference to elected officials, who are essentially volunteers, stepping up to make a difference. But winning an election does not automatically make you an expert in all things. There are almost always community members with specialized expertise in things under discussion, if not specific experience with the issue under discussion that’s happening in their neighborhood.
I did note significantly fewer audience members than my experience in the past. Limiting input will have that effect. This will limit audience attendance to those that have a specific issue before the board, which was the reason I attended. In my opinion, this will not only limit input, but also the dissemination of information in the community.
This is not the only instance of this kind of change. There is another trend towards fewer community member populated subcommittees in favor of more direction from staff, appointed positions and elected officials. Community help such as this has been terminated in favor of more control. Community volunteer groups are experiencing more skeptical scrutiny than support. This is likely just another case of the pendulum swinging, and as often happens in government, it results in an over correction in the opposite direction. Hopefully we’re near the peak of the swing towards the control side and we start back in the other direction soon. I don’t think much is being intentionally hidden. I think it’s being justified for expediency. I would like to see things move back towards inclusiveness soon. I think collaboration with the citizens produces some of the best results, as shown from the Stellar experience.