[Vision2020] Moscow City Council

[Mike Curley]

John and other Visionaries:
Point 3 of Mr. Reidner's discussion gives me pause.  While it sounds like a good thing for 
a member of the public to be heard on one occasion, the net effect is that the person is 
going to be denied an opportunity to be heard that is presently provided--at the 
committee.  Although the committees do not conduct public hearings, the practice has 
been to allow interested members of the community a brief time to speak, ask 
questions, provide information.  If that is eliminated, what many will see happening is 
that council members will make up their minds at the workshops without public input.  
It really makes more sense to go the opposite direction.  Get all the available 
information on the table as early as possible.  The public hearing at council meetings 
might be shorter (because the whole council heard me at the workshop), clarifying 
questions can be asked and answered in the interim, and if there is good reason for 
further research, it can be presented then rather than taking time on the Council 
agenda and finding out at that later date (based on the public testimony) that more 
information would be helpful.

Your concern that the committee meetings have become de facto council meetings is 
well-founded in my opinion, but this change will only make it worse, because all council 
members will be present.  (It also means the workshops will probably take longer than 
the committee meetings did because more council members will weigh in on any given 
topic--so to save time, public input will be cut?

I don't know which time serves more people better.  I assume council meetings are 
scheduled for 7 because more people can attend or watch at that time.  However, if 
members of the public can speak at either the committee/workshop or the council 
meeting, then those who can't make it at 7 have a chance to attend at 4.

The City Supervisor also mentions the efficiency of presenting information to all council 
members at once.  It would also help the process of meaningful public input if staff 
reports were made available online (and otherwise) to the public at the same time they 
are presented to council members so that comments, responses, and questions will 
make more sense.  It also increases the chances that written comments can be 
prepared--which are probably more helpful to council members in their deliberations.

I have had a sense that there is a fear that "public input" will overwhelm our council 
members and mayor and make meetings intolerably long.  My impression is that 
getting more information in the hands of the public in a more timely fashion will 
actually streamline public input at meetings because many of their questions will be 
answered in the materials or can be asked in advance.  Also, the more open the 
process, the more trust there will be--again reducing time listening to complaints about 
the PROCESS--which has often been bigger than the issue to which the process was 
attached.  Further, it will make more sense for council to limit the amount of time each 
person is allowed to speak if s/he has had a meaningful opportunity to address the topic 
BEFORE the meetings.  When one only gets one shot and  the information has not been 
available until the meeting (and even then, only to council members and staff), it's 
pretty tough to limit one to three minutes and get any kind of meaningful input.

I'm not sure this particular wagon is broken, and I'm not sure that if it is, what has been 
suggested is the appropriate fix.  Given the lack of trust that has been generated over 
the years, any proposal to change structure immediately after 3 new council members 
have been seated and that tends to further limit public input without significant increase 
in provisions for public information should be considered carefully.  Efficient use of staff 
time and better preparation (by staff) for meetings are healthy objectives.  They should, 
however, be balanced by consideration of the public's interest and input into the 
process.
I leave you with two things to consider:
	1.  Should we perhaps keep the committee meetings for now and provide notice to 
the public that all council members MAY attend, but that no "deliberations" 
(discussions/actions leading to conclusion of the matter) will be made, thus leaving a 3-
member sub-group to conduct more efficient meetings and direct the flow of issues 
back to staff, forward to the council agenda, or suggesting public information and input 
by alternative means?
	2.  Does it make sense to have most matters that are heard at a committee 
meeting be put on the council agenda for the FOLLOWING week rather than the same 
night's council agenda.  Certainly some matters demand immediate attention.  For the 
most part thought, a seven-day delay is not a problem and provides the advantage that 
staff (and the public and the council members) can better respond to issues raised at 
the committee meeting, committee members have some time to consider and 
reconsider what they heard/discussed, and a member of the public who is interested 
but not available on one day has a second chance on another day--or a week to 
research and perhaps to provide written comments.
Thank you for your consideration.

Mike Curley




On 28 Jan 04, at 14:00, bill london wrote:

From:           	bill london <london@moscow.com>
To:             	John Dickinson <johnd@moscow.com>
Copies to:      	vision2020@moscow.com
Subject:        	Re: [Vision2020] Moscow City Council
Date sent:      	Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:00:04 -0800

> J-
> First, my thanks for using V2020 to explain this city action, and to 
> gather input.
> Second, one of my concerns for a while was the way the committee 
> meetings functioned as defacto council meetings (without the oversight 
> of the public -- or until very recently TV coverage).  So, I would 
> welcome this change, at least as an experiment.  I would think those 
> "workshop" meetings would attract a reporter or two so we would get some 
> coverage of the issues, and I am  also assuming that  TV would cover 
> those workshops as well...
> BL
> 
> John Dickinson wrote:
> 
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> >  
> >
> > I would like to ask for some comments on the restructuring of Moscow's 
> > City Council working groups.
> >
> >  
> >
> > At a Moscow City Council Workshop that was held Monday, January 26, 
> > The Moscow City Council voted to suspend the City Council 
> > subcommittees (Administration and Public Works) for a trial period of 
> > about 3 months. During this period the subcommittees would be replaced 
> > with a pair of regularly scheduled Council Workshops that would 
> > alternate on Mondays with normal City Council meetings. So normal City 
> > Council meetings would occur on the first and third Mondays of each 
> > month and City Council Workshops would occur on the second and fourth 
> > Mondays. This change requires a suspension of City Code sections 
> > 2-2-16 and 2-2-17, which will be brought up at the next regular City 
> > Council meeting on Tuesday February 3. (We are meeting on Tuesday next 
> > week because of the IDWR Public Meeting on Water Issues being held in 
> > the UI Law Court Room on Monday at 7:00 pm.) City business that once 
> > flowed through a particular subcommittee will now go through a 
> > "committee" of the entire City Council.
> >
> >  
> >
> > One other issue that was discussed during the workshop was the times 
> > of these meetings. Presently City Council meetings begin at 7:00 pm 
> > and the subcommittee meetings begin at 4:00 pm. The discussion at the 
> > workshop appears to favor keeping these same times for the new meeting 
> > format. So normal City Council meetings would begin at 7:00 pm and 
> > City Council Workshops would begin at 4:00 pm. Are these times 
> > convenient for either attending these meetings or viewing them on TV? 
> > Are different times for these meetings helpful or confusing?
> >
> >  
> >
> > The structure of subcommittees and workshops and the times of the 
> > various meetings will be set by a careful consideration of the needs 
> > of the public, the Council, and the City Staff. The most important of 
> > these is the public. What do you think of the proposed new 
> > organization? What do you think of the times for these meetings, both 
> > normal City Council meetings and City Council Workshops? I am very 
> > interested in your thoughts, your concerns, and your ideas. It might 
> > be helpful for everyone if you presented your thought to Vision2020, 
> > but you can also send any comments directly to me. Thanks.
> >
> >  
> >
> > John
> >
> > --
> >
> > John Dickinson
> >
> > Moscow City Council
> >
> > Moscow, ID 83843
> >
> > 208-882-7977
> >
> > jdickinson@moscow.com
> >
> >  
> >
> >  
> >
> > P.S.  Here is a bit more information about the reorganization of 
> > Council. As a lead in to the City Council Workshop, Gary Riedner 
> > (Moscow City Supervisor) provided the following rationale for the 
> > change to the workshop format.
> >
> >  
> >
> >    1. How best to conduct Council business. From a review of the
> >       survey, each of the municipalities that responded has a slightly
> >       different method of conducting the public's business. It is
> >       interesting to note that other than Moscow, the only other city
> >       to have any sort of committee structure is Rexburg, which uses
> >       its "committees" as a sort of liaison with individual
> >       departments on a monthly, as compared to a weekly, basis. All
> >       other cities conduct their business before the full council,
> >       either in a workshop setting or at regularly scheduled council
> >       meetings. The intention is to insure that the entire council
> >       gets the same information.
> >
> >  
> >
> >    2. Provide the most efficient use of Council and staff time. Is the
> >       frequency of meetings justified as a proper use of time for both
> >       elected officials and staff? In terms of time, elected officials
> >       are part-time public servants who usually hold outside
> >       employment. Staff prepares agendas, documentation and reports
> >       and must prepare for each meeting. From a managerial
> >       perspective, staff would prefer less frequent meetings with more
> >       opportunity to better prepare. Experience over the past decade
> >       has shown that staff spends a substantial amount of time
> >       preparing for Council and Committee meetings. Reports given to
> >       the Council as a body, rather than to a Committee of only three
> >       members increases information sharing and efficiency, ensuring
> >       that all members of the Council have the same information.
> >
> >  
> >
> >    3. Provide the public with as much input as desired into City
> >       decision making. At this time, all Council and Council Committee
> >       meetings are open to the public and are televised on the City's
> >       public, education, and government (PEG) channel. There may be an
> >       advantage to pursuing the concept of a workshop structure so
> >       that issues that are brought to the Council are presented and
> >       debated to the entire Council, rather than a separate committee.
> >       This would allow a member of the public to present input on an
> >       issue on one occasion, rather than to present to a committee at
> >       one time and to the Council at another time.
> >
> >  
> >
>