Published Jan. 16, 2013 in the Foothills Sun-Gazette in slightly edited form.
Sometimes little changes make a big difference, sometimes they don't. In my column published in last week's newspaper, somebody changed two letters in the title - "st" to "ch" - moving the meaning from East of Us to Each of Us. Although the author of the book I was reviewing and I both really liked "East" and were sad that the copies we're sending to friends and family aren't quite perfect, it's not a big thing. Whether a typo or somebody's attempt to make better sense of my writing, I know it was an honest mistake. It was not intended to hurt.
The same cannot be said for the language changes regarding public participation in Lindsay's City Council meetings over the past year. After the Valentine's Day meeting last year, three words were dropped from the agenda template - "or the public" - stripping the public of the right to have items removed from the consent calendar for separate discussion. During the three-minute public comment period, citizens can still ask to have items removed, but it is up to the individual Council members to do so. Luckily we now have members who will respect those requests.
At the same time an entire sentence was also removed from the agenda packet under the heading "Citizen Participation in Meetings" which instructed citizens how to place an item on the agenda. About six months later that sentence was replaced by one which says that during the three minute public comment period citizens can ask the Council to place an item on the agenda of a future meeting but that they are "under no obligation to do so."
This summer another sentence was removed regarding the public's right to comment or ask questions on agenda items while they are being considered by the Council. The old sentence indicated that we could; it was replaced with one which limits us to the pubic comment period entirely, citing the Brown Act. (I do not think the Brown Act says what they say it does, and that this is just an attempt to make it look legal.) This prevents the public from engaging in the discussion of its business by staff and council members, since the public comment period occurs at the beginning of the meeting, before those items are discussed and voted upon.
There was nothing accidental about these changes, nor were they innocent. They were made by staff without any formal action by the Council, and they were intended to curtail public involvement just at the time the public was getting involved. At a time when the current administration was claiming to be working for greater transparency and accountability, they made it harder for people to see and question what they were doing.
At last Tuesday's council meeting I thanked everyone who ran in November's long-overdue election and congratulated the three winners, all of whom have been chosen by the people for the first time. I also spoke my hope that in two years the same will be said for all five.
I thanked Ramona Padilla for stepping up to the plate for Mayor, and for being willing to contest the way the choice of mayor was planned. When she cast her "aye" vote, she not only voted for herself but also for following the rules. "I look forward to more rule-following in the future," I said.
And then I asked that the old language regarding citizen participation be restored. It's a small thing - three words, a couple of sentences - with big implications. Restoring rights for public participation could restore some faith in our government, recharging what has become a very dry well. I look forward to seeing this on some future agenda.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trudy Wischemann is a writer interested in rights. You can contact her % P.O. Box 1374, Lindsay CA 93247 or respond to this blog, below!
This column is not a news article but the opinion of the writer and does not reflect the views of The Foothills Sun-Gazette newspaper.
No comments:
Post a Comment