Last night, the Abington Public Affairs Committee approved a motion that would revise the rules of procedure for full board meetings. Instead of providing for public comments prior to the vote on each agenda item, and allowing general comments on any matter toward the end of the meeting, residents would be given three minutes to speak on agenda items, and three minutes to speak on non-agenda items, in the beginning of the meeting, following the approval of the minutes and any scheduled ceremonial presentations.
There would be no public comment on agenda items later in the meeting.
The motion, which was last on the agenda, seemed to come out of left field for committee chairman Robert Wachter.
“Is there anyone who would like to make that motion? Because I certainly wouldn’t,” he said.
Abington Township Manager Michael LeFevre chimed in by saying, “Can I explain?”
“What I’m suggesting, after observing the meetings for the past 16 months, there’s probably a more efficient way to operate, and what I’m recommending is that we move all public comment to the beginning of the meeting,” LeFevre said. “I’m suggesting that by moving it to the beginning of the meeting, immediately after the approval of the minutes, and any ceremony or presentations that may have been scheduled, it will afford more opportunity, and encourage more participation from our residents and provide better access to our board.”
LeFevre went on to say that the current procedure forces residents to wait through an entire meeting should they want to address the board.
“I suspect that most residents have other obligations or other interests that really prevent them from dedicating an entire night to the opportunity to speak for three minutes to the board of commissioners,” LeFevre said.
Residents would be able to speak for a total of six minutes.
Commissioner Les Benzak cast the sole “no” vote.
Should it pass, the revised public comment period would not apply to committee meetings or public hearings. And if an agenda item were modified during the course of the meeting, more comments from the public would be taken. There would also be a “trial period” for the new system. LeFevre said he spoke with Abington Solicitor Rex Herder regarding the motion; Herder said it’s in full compliance with the Sunshine Laws.
The Abington School Board has a similar system in place; the board asks for public comments in the beginning of the meeting following its “orientation” and “awards” segments. Public comments are capped at 30 minutes.
After LeFevre explained the motion, it seemed to be well received by the committee and other commissioners. Commissioner John Spiegelman said a revision to the rules of procedure might help those who are new to the process of coming to meetings. Commissioner Thomas Bowman said he liked the idea as well.
“I think Michael [LeFevre] has a good point,” Bowman said. “I don’t think the residents should have to come out to our committee meetings if they just want to make a point to us about something that’s either on the agenda or not. Residents shouldn’t have to follow our organizational flow if they want to make a comment.”
Commissioner Lori Schreiber said she has seen this type of system in place in other municipalities; she said those meetings appear to be more efficient, but added that jumping from topic to topic could get confusing. Schreiber also said that she is not comfortable with residents not being given the opportunity to ask questions during the meeting.
The Abington Board of Commissioners will meet May 10 at 8 p.m.
The Abington School Board allows for comments TWICE, once @ the beginning and once @ the end. During the most recent meeting, the discourse benefited from this opportunity to have two "bites" @ the rhetorical "apple," because Dr. Sichel's referral to the website could be reviewed during the interim-period. In that instance, regarding school bullying, I was able to corroborate the existence of a hotline for anonymous reporting of any incident-of-concern; I was not, however, able to corroborate [in the "pupils' rights" section] an explicit statement that all such reports to the authorities would be investigated. This was an important observation, which I just [today] reported-back to the MontCo commissioners, advising that this double-clarification be implemented/coordinated throughout all municipalities. Studies consistently show that a major reason for reticence to report incidents is fear that they won't receive scrutiny. On the one hand, there is no corroboration for any worriment regarding "tattling," here; on the other hand, kids learn that this can become a "teaching moment" for all potentially concerned...and can trigger involvement of counselors and/or police, with the latter reserved for violations of law such as physical assault. Thus, it would be desirable to invite public comment that is bookended both @ the beginning and @ the end, just as is done by the School Board.
It is totally absurd to expect the public to anticipate how a given issue will be presented subsequently, and the result of such an "innovation" would be what perhaps is desired by some people who wish to diminish public-input. People would come @ the beginning and speak their piece, and then depart, leaving the Commissioners to do whatever they desire without feeling their subsequent comments would be subject to prompt and timely critique. In fact, the legality of this approach is problematic, for the public cannot provide adequate critique of an issue that is subsequently to be subject to a vote if the complete database cannot be known ahead-of-time.
At the very least, the opportunity to invite general comments should be added @ the beginning of the meeting, just as occurs @ Abington School Board Meetings. [The 3-minute rule, the inability to critique comments of others, etc....these are issues that remain unsettled.]