When a Public Hearing is not a Public “Hearing” Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Posted by Conaway B. Haskins III in Uncategorized.trackback
Mike Harton is the newest contributor to SouthoftheJames.com. An ordained minister and educator who has served as a local parish pastor for spiritual formation, a denominational educational leader, a seminary professor and consultant/coach, Mike is currently an administrator for a Lilly Endowment grant to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship . He also edits a CBF e-magazine. Mike has served in a variety of community leadership roles from little league coach to Vice President of the Task Force for Responsible Growth. He and his wife – a Chesterfield County public school teacher – volunteer with Meals on Wheels. Harton earned a Doctor of Education degree from Indiana University.
Note: A version of this post was submitted to the Richmond Times-Dispatch as a Letter to the Editor
Julian Walker’s November 23, 2005 report on Chesterfield County government’s efforts to control public comment in public hearings begs a question: what is the obligation of public officials to listen to citizens who wish to express opinions and provide helpful information on matters of business? The new rules on public comment are nothing more than efforts to squelch free expression whether it be expressions of question, concern, or simply for gaining information.
It is obvious from recent [Planning] Commission behavior and the new rules governing both the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission that neither body can tolerate citizen involvement in decisions that directly affect them. In fact, this year, Sheriff’s deputies were called on four citizens who were addressing or had addressed the BOS or Commission. One had left the meeting room and was confronted in the hallway, then escorted to the parking lot where she stood in the cold waiting for her ride. Another was arrested at the podium, and still another threatened with removal after the meeting had concluded. Clearly, intimidation is a chosen tactic of these “public servants.”
The tightened rules require citizens to restrict their comments narrowly to the issue at hand and to not mention any supporting data or related issues. The new rules applied to a hypothetical: if the subject is beans, one cannot talk about the plant, the soil, the rain, sunshine or fertilizer that makes them grow—all that is irrelevant. You can only talk about beans. The rumor is that a button is now being installed in the sound booth of the public meeting room allowing the podium microphone to cut off at the discretion of the chairman. The message is, “If we don’t like what you’re saying, we’ll just cut you off!”
Planning Commission Chairman Litton claims that people use the public hearing to pursue their political agendas. Similar comments have come from the Board of Supervisors. While that may occur occasionally, I know personally that those who have sought to address the Commission and the Board of Supervisors recently include a minister/educator, a PTA leader, a businessman, a stay-at-home mom who has worked in two states on DUI causes, a retiree, and a pharmacist, none of whom have political agendas with the Commission or BOS. With few exceptions, these citizens are treated with distain.
The body language and comments from the Commission, in particular, are unmistakable. There is little respect for public opinion or expertise. It is also crystal clear that there is no sense of accountability of these “public servants” to the public. Watch their backs bristle at the slightest hint of challenge from a citizen! If an adversarial relationship between these official bodies and the public has been created, it is the creation of those bodies, not the citizens attempting to address them.
Is Dan Gecker still on the Chesterfield PC? I know Dan and I coldn’t see him going for sort of stuff, but maybe I’m wrong?
Public officials treating its citizens with such disdain are just inviting folks to form a political agenda, “to get rid of them.”
Yes, I am still on the planning commission. The first I heard about any “policy” change was when I read it in the Observer yesterday. I do not believe that the planning commission has had a policy change – a vote would be required and none has been taken.
I disagree with any proposal that would limit the right of the public to speak on matters before the commission. We have had many cases before the commission that are much more contentious than the Tarrington case recently heard by us. The substantial accord hearings for the schools and the rezoning in Mosely come to mind. We heard every citizen.
To the best of my knowledge, we have the ability to call a recess at any time and we do not tape during the recess. We cannot meet during a recess and it makes no sense to tape the empty chairs. This is not a change – it is common sense.
The chairman has always had the right to ask a speaker to stick to the topic before the commission. This is not new, nor is it censorship. Imagine speakers at a hearing on a proposed rezoning talking about their favorite sports team’s latest win, or their child’s last birthday party. Clearly, topics such as these, that have no bearing on the issue to be decided, are not appropriate for the forum and take up the time of other citizens who came to speak on issues important to them. The art of being chair is to decide what may be relevant and what clearly is not relevant. Fortunately, most speakers do in fact stay with the issue. During my two years as chairman, I can recall only one instance where I asked a speaker to stick to the subject.
I would disagree with any proposal that 1) limits the right of the public to speak at our meetings on the issues before us; or 2) limits the ability of the public to see the decision making process.
Dan Gecker, Planning Commissioner, Midlothian DIstrict
It never ceases to amaze me how criticism of a governmental body gets pegged as an agenda being promoted by some activist group. Democracy is not a neat and tidy process. Working out the details of issues can get messy. It’s like working on your home – you can’t put in a new window without tearing out the old one. And as my wife will attest, it’s a messy job.
The process of making our county a better place to live can get messy. Old ordinances and zoning regulations must be torn apart to allow for new ideas that will make Chesterfield a better place to live.
The mess that I speak of sometime involves lengthy discussion, harsh words (see Doug Wilder,) compromise and most of all listening.
I have witnessed enough of these public meetings and community meetings to testify that listening is not always what is going on. Especially our exteemed Planning Commissioners and BOS.
It will be interesting to see how county officials work their way through this one. They have a tendency to take the hard road – I can imagine the county allowing it to go to court before giving in to actually living up to what they brag about – “open government.”
Of course, the chairman of the public board or commission has discretion to make necessary limitations of public comment in order to maintain an orderly and effective conduct of business. I do not believe Mr. Harton was questioning this duty of the chair.
The point Mr. Harton asserts is that there appears to be a “lack of appreciation or respect”, to put it lightly, for public comments which criticize the public actions of the body or an individual on the commission, regardless of relevancy.
Discretion can be abused or misused by any individual, including the chairman of a public body. This is hardly a news flash regarding current day politicians. While the actions taken by the chair may be legally permissable, that doesn’t mean the judgement is without misuse of power.
Speech regarding public officials in their official capacities or public policies can be spirited and provoking. If this type of speech is infringed upon legally or not makes little difference in the end. Further restrictions on public comment or any methods to prevent the public’s full view can lead to censorship, mistrust, persecution, or intimidation of the public.
Are people in Chesterfield willing to jeopardize the integrity of the public meeting in order to have a nice, agreeable vision of their government at work? Please say it ain’t so.
Dan Gecker is that man! I’d love to see him run for some sort of office one day, he’d have my vote!
Mr. Gecker’s behavior doesn’t square with his rhetoric. Carrying on side conversations while citizens are speaking, drumming his pencil, refusing to look at the speaker, etc. telegraphs his lack of respect for public comment. His comments here are just more of his usual smoke screen.
I’m amazed at the choice that Chesterfield County is making in deciding to control the manner in which speakers will be treated at the public hearings. Citizens have a right to speak their opinion on issues. Most speakers are very respectful, informed and passionate about their topic.
Many speakers are “new” to the public arena, but come because of their concern and interest in the decisions that affect them. It appears that our public officials forget that some individuals don’t always understand their terminology – Please speak to the deferral only or please speak to the CIP or PFP or substantial accord. Most speakers follow their guidelines of speaking to topic and only speaking the allotted time. Many speakers choose to speak at the public hearings so that the viewing audience (both present and televised) can hear their views. Giving a Different perspective. One of the common citizen.
Public Hearings are an opportunity to create awareness to the many county employees and faithful viewers on the issues that pertain to county citizens. It appears that our county officials forget that average citizens are able to determine when the speaker is out of line and speaking nonsense. We have a right to witness how every citizen is treated by our elected officials. Our public officials demand respect, but very little is given to citizens with differing views.
Is it necessary for our county officials to start writing our speeches to be delivered so that they can be assured that all views are the same as their own? Unfortunately, too many citizens don’t understand how this recent decision will affect them. Citizens are trusting our elected officials to make decisions that see the “bigger picture” while at the same time gives each citizen the right to voice their views.
The gentleman that was arrested at the planning commission attended the meeting to support his neighbors. He didn’t even plan to speak. He was utterly dismayed when he witnessed the commissioner’s body language and attention given to the speakers. He felt compelled to speak for these reasons. The viewers don’t have the luxury of seeing the board while the speaker is at the podium. The viewer can’t see the officials talking amongst themselves and even leaving during the public comment time. Some members look at you and nod and acknowledge your presence while others appear physically bored by the process.
The county is making this change because of the numerous letters and e-mails that resulted from the incident. Newspaper articles were written and it appeared on the news. The county hates bad publicity and they are trying to avoid it at any cost.
Could that evening have been different? What if Mr. Gecker had apologized or chose to be silent and let the man speak? Gecker was tired of hearing about the coal mines and found no relevancy to the garage door orientation.
It only reiterates to me that what so many citizens already know – the public hearings are a farce. They are held because they are required to do so not because they hope to hear citizens and make decisions accordingly. If they wanted to take into consideration, they would hold public hearings before the decision is made. And I mean on a different evening and not at a “citizen meetings” when not all the voting members are even present. What if the process was to hold a public hearing in order to gather information and input, then actually consider information obtained and on a different night give the decision on the case?
The only way to facilitate change is to keep speaking out!
[...] Today marks the one-year anniversary of South of the James. It’s been quite a journey, and along the way, I’ve had the opportunity to meet and greet many of my favorite bloggers, political personalities, and fellow citizens. Though this is mostly a one-man show, I have had the pleasure of publishing the work of several guest writers from across the Commonwealth’s political spectrum. State-level players like Dr. Toni-Michelle Travis of George Mason University, Don Scoggins of the Frederick Douglass Republican Forum, and Josh Chernila of Raising Kaine (and now of the Jim Webb for Senate campaign) took the time and energy to create original work for me. Locally, the blog featured notable policymakers and advocates such as Dan Gecker, the Democratic Vice-Chairman of Chesterfield County Planning Commission; Rev. Mike Harton of the Responsible Growth Alliance of Chesterfield; Dr. Tom Pakurar of Hands Across the Lake; gadfly Shelly Schuetz of Go West Chesterfield; Larry Miller, former chairman of the Chesterfield County Republican Committee, and of course, the pseudonym-enhanced “Bubba,” a Richmond-area Republican leader. These folks all contributed intelligent commentary on a number of issues, and this blog would have merely been one man’s drivel had they not been around.Going forward, the future of this blog is anyone’s guess for now. I’ll be stepping away for a bit to prepare for an upcoming leadership retreat, thus I my blogging during the next week or so is probably going to be silent around these parts. Looking further down the line, I’ve got some other projects that I’m exploring, along with pursuing some research that cries out for exploration and tackling a few books that have gathered dust for far too long. Plus, I have to get ready and set for Martinsville. [...]