Is this a trend? Is the governing body aiming for only one public meeting a month? If so, it would meet the letter of the law in the city's special charter, but perhaps not the spirit. As one who has attended council meetings regularly since the mid-1980s, I believe a marathon meeting once a month is likely to chill civic engagement at a time when it is needed more than ever.
While other municipalities combine agenda and voting meetings, Plainfield's agendas run to several dozen resolutions and ordinances per meeting (65 and five respectively in September), so even the most important pieces of legislation may be glossed over without adequate discussion.
For many decades, the council schedule called for regular meetings on the first and third Mondays, with agenda-fixing sessions on preceding Mondays. Changes took place in 2006 (Monday-Wednesday schedule), 2008 (back to Mondays) and in 2009, when the once-a-month regular meetings started. Each change took place after a different annual schedule had been approved and published, causing much confusion. See details on council calendar change here.
Public notice continues to be a challenge, even with a brand-new website that still lists three council meetings this month instead of one.
The City Council will be adopting the 2016 annual calendar at the January reorganization. A change will require amending an ordinance on two readings, so if the council does wish to condense the schedule to one combined agenda-fixing and regular meeting per month, it technically can't happen until February or March. They could get around it by putting a legal notice in the paper perhaps, although the use of "Special Meeting" for these bundled ones does not exactly fit the definition of a special meeting.
Lately the actual business of the council has been dispatched in record time, with little explanation or discussion of items. Public comment and council comment, often on politics, takes quite a bit of time. One meeting a month would reduce public comment by half, as there is a time limit.
If the council decides on a new format, one hopes each council member who votes in favor of it will say why it is needed. Any change must be widely publicized, not just with a small legal notice in the newspaper. Otherwise, how can Plainfield citizens participate?
--Bernice
Section 2:2-9 of the Municipal Code requires an agenda/work meeting to be held the week prior to the regular meeting. The public deserves adequate opportunities to comment on proposed legislation, and the City Council should want the time to digest what the public has to say and clarify information without undue haste before voting. This can't be accomplished satisfactorily in a double-header.
ReplyDeleteCouncil can't even clarify information at a regular meeting
ReplyDeleteIsn't this set up by the Council President? If so, let's hope the next Council President gives more thought to the public's right to comment and the Council's need to understand what's going on. They can't grasp stuff when they have separate meetings. Just think how more confused some of them are with one mass meeting. What about those that don't even read their packets before a meeting, how much more unprepared will they be?
ReplyDeleteI can certainly understand why the Council members would want fewer and shorter meetings, but it does limit the ability for the community (and the Council and the City)to fully understand and reflect on the implementation and the consequences of such a slapshot approach to important issues--especially when Council members either don't read every resolution thoroughly and think about its meaning. And of course it limits the opportunities for adequate community input. Definitely NOT a good idea!
Delete