Majority of Ann Arbor council members against reducing public speaking times
Ann Arbor City Council members have had some long meetings recently as they've dealt with issues that left them deliberating into the early morning hours.
Just since April, they've had meetings that have started at 7 p.m. and lasted until 3:11 a.m., 1:50 a.m., 12:55 a.m., and 12:30 a.m.
Another meeting was recessed at 11:31 p.m. and then continued four more hours — until 11:27 p.m. — the next Monday.
In addition to lengthy debates at the council table, long public comment periods have caused meetings to run late.
All 11 members of the Ann Arbor City Council were in attendance Monday night as the council debated whether the reduce speaking times for members of the public.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
But a majority of council members voted Monday night against reducing public speaking times from three to two minutes, fearing that could send the wrong message to the community.
"Democracy is about giving people an opportunity to speak," said Council Member Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward.
The idea of reducing speaking times at meetings was floated recently by the Council Rules Committee.
It was Council Member Jane Lumm's counter proposal Monday night that forced a voice vote in favor of keeping the three-minute limit for public comments.
"I certainly think there are instances when two minutes may be sufficient, but there are certain times when a speaker legitimately wants to make multiple points or in-depth arguments … and no matter how concise they are, two minutes is not enough," she said.
Council Member Sabra Briere, D-1st Ward, said as someone who has addressed council from the podium in years past, she can assure that three minutes goes by very fast.
Lumm said it's OK if the council wants to try to limit the length of meetings, but it shouldn't do that "on the backs of the public."
The council ultimately decided to hold off on making any final decisions on council rules changes, including those regarding speaking. The council kicked the issue back to the Council Rules Committee, which is expected to come back Sept. 16 with a revised proposal.
While it seems evident now that there isn't support on council for reducing public speaking times, there might still be support for reducing council member speaking times.
Council Member Marcia Higgins, D-4th Ward, said there's even been talk about having a running clock at the council table so council members can do a better job policing themselves.
Under the current rules, council members are allowed to speak up to two times per agenda item — five minutes the first time, and three minutes the second time. The committee proposed dropping that to three minutes and two minutes, respectively, but that's still being evaluated.
Lumm said she'd rather see two speaking opportunities for council members that are each three minutes long. She feared two minutes wasn't long enough for closing arguments. She added there's been more robust discussion at council meetings lately and she doesn't want to lose that.
But there's a desire among at least some council members for shorter meetings. Council Member Sumi Kailasapathy, D-1st Ward, said she's not in favor of reducing public speaking times, but she would like to see meetings adjourn at a more reasonable hour.
Instead of meetings that last into the early morning hours, she said, the council should consider a policy where if a meeting goes past 11 p.m. it will be continued the next Monday — her thinking being that two four-hour sessions are better than one longer session.
Kailasapathy said it's difficult for people with full-time jobs and young children when meetings go past 1 a.m.
Mayor John Hieftje said some council agenda items are time-sensitive, so that would need to be given consideration if meetings are going to be recessed more regularly.
Council Members Christopher Taylor, D-3rd Ward, and Margie Teall, D-4th Ward, argued in favor of reducing public speaking times to two minutes to make meetings more efficient.
Teall said she could support a three-minute limit for speakers who reserve one of the 10 spots to speak at the start of council meetings, but she would like to see two-minute limits otherwise. She made a motion for that Monday night but couldn't get support.
"Maybe for me, it is a bit about how long meetings go on," Teall said. "And certainly that was one of the major points that the Michigan Municipal League suggested — that nobody should be making decisions at 2 o'clock in the morning or at 2:30 in the morning."
Taylor argued reducing public speaking times to two minutes isn't anti-democratic, but rather encourages more people to come speak.
He said many people have told him they don't like speaking before council because of the time investment necessary to wait through other speakers who get three minutes each.
"For my part, I can stay up late — I don't mind," he said. "I think it's good and useful to listen. I signed up for this and it's not a burden to me to listen to people. I welcome it."
But he said the average citizen doesn't want to have to wait until 11:30 p.m. to get his or her two cents in and they would appreciate a swifter process.
He stressed that council members receive no shortage of input from the public on issues between the emails and phone calls they get, in addition to other interactions with constituents.
Council Member Sally Hart Petersen, D-2nd Ward, said reducing speaking times is "not meant to be a cure-all for meeting efficiency," but she thinks it's one step to make meetings more efficient.
She said she was fine with either a two-minute or three-minute limit on speaking times as long as it was the same for both council members and the public.
One of the issues that wasn't resolved before council decided to postpone the rules changes Monday night was whether to prohibit people from speaking at the start of a council meeting if they already reserved one of the 10 spots to speak at the start of the last meeting or the last two meetings.
The idea there, according to supporters, is to better accommodate the average resident who wants to come speak, whereas right now those 10 spots can fill up quickly by frequent commenters.
Council Member Chuck Warpehoski, D-5th Ward, proposed a policy to give priority to people who have not reserved a speaking time slot at either of the last two council meetings, but that raised questions about how that would be administered or enforced by the city clerk's office.
There seems to be strong support on council for another rule change that includes adding public commentary time to informal council work sessions.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
Jim Walker
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 7:37 p.m.
It is good that council has not reduced the speaking times. Many issues are complex and it is quite difficult at times to get the points across in 3 minutes. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, Ann Arbor
RunsWithScissors
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 4:02 p.m.
I wonder why so many citizens feel the need to address city council directly. Isn't that why we have council members? I may be naive in thinking this, but shouldn't the council members find out what's happening in their ward - have ward meetings, discussions, forums, blogs, etc. - and then represent that finding during city council meetings? I'm not suggesting that public speaking be eliminated - that's always a plus in our culture - but that we examine why so many people feel their council members aren't representing them and thus appear at city council meetings to make sure they're heard. I'm counting on my council reps to have the ward's best interest in mind. But I don't have the time to study what's up for discussion, how it would impact our ward, and how my council members feel about it. How about a wee bit of transparency - a online forum for example - where the council members can post what's happening and invite input from the ward members? I'm dreaming, ain't I?
gamebuster
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 3:01 p.m.
Thanks for keeping 3 minute public commentary time. I usually center on what I need to say rather than introducing myself and addressing people there. It seems acting very rude. Honestly speaking, two minutes are definitely not enough. Limit should have been put on council members speaking to 3 min first , then 2 minutes.
Peter Eckstein
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 2:59 p.m.
Congratulations to Jane Lumm for bringing this issue to a head--and protecting the right of the public to make at least slightly complex arguments before City Council. In my own experience, I could have made some points faster and better had I had the ability to make some or all of what I had to say in a Power Point presentation. Visuals are hard--and sometimes expensive--to prepare and present without use of a projector. Protecting Council members' right to debate complex issues is as important as protecting the public's. We don't need filibusters (and haven't really had them from members) but we do need more open-ended, free-wheeling exchanges if decisions are to be made in public, rather than by staff or by segments of Council behind closed doors.
Vivienne Armentrout
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 11:59 a.m.
Congratulations to council members who opposed this abridgement of the public's access. I also don't like the idea of council's time being shortened - a vigorous debate is an important feature of the process. Several ideas for shortening the meetings: 1. Start the meeting promptly at 7, regardless of the tardiness of councilmembers. Their arrival times could be noted in the minutes. According to the Chronicle's notes on last night, the meeting did not start until 7:09. The business of the Council requires that a quorum be present. I'm not sure that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance requires a quorum. The habit of allowing meeting starts to be delayed until all are seated is not only inconsiderate to those who arrive on time, but to the public who are waiting to participate. 2. Restrict the number of proclamations and introductions. Many of these ceremonial events appear to be unnecessary in any event, and perhaps most of them could be scheduled when the agenda is light. 3. Make good use of the consent agenda for most housekeeping business. These are usually staff-generated. Council members can ask for any to be moved from consent agenda if there are questions or discussion. 4. Restrict the addition of last-minute items to the agenda. This is a bad habit that has been deleterious to council's ability to study and prepare for important items, and to the public's ability to follow council business. 5. As suggested by Mr. Ranzini, agenda items that are likely to require substantial discussion should be paced in their inclusion on the agenda. It should generally not be necessary to bunch them up to this degree.
Vivienne Armentrout
Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 12:04 p.m.
Tano, I am not suggesting that pressing items should be delayed. I'm thinking of issues that are more long-term but substantial. A meeting that serves as an example: there were two items on the agenda known to be highly contentious, the site plan for 413 Huron and the proposal to alter the terms of the DDA. This resulted in two extremely long public hearings and the council ultimately postponed the DDA item at past 2 in the morning, after a couple of council members left. It was know that there was a great deal of opposition to the 413 Huron item. The DDA item could have been scheduled in a subsequent meeting without harming progress.
Tano
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 3:20 p.m.
" agenda items that are likely to require substantial discussion should be paced in their inclusion on the agenda. " What does that mean? Other than "delayed" because the Council cannot be bothered to work until their work is done? Perhaps there needs to be more frequent meetings, but to simply delay consideration of pressing business is not a good option.
arborani
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 3:17 p.m.
Well said.
Veracity
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 2:45 p.m.
Excellent suggestions, Vivienne.
a2grateful
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 11:51 a.m.
Of course, a government body, individual or collective, that does not value public input, or care to hear it, would desire to limit it, and even eliminate it. This would represent the zenith of that government body's personal agenda. This is Ann Arbor? "Democracy is about giving people an opportunity to speak." Kunselman has it right. He must have been paying attention in grade school history class, heeding a famous phrase from a famous speech regarding survival of democracy: ". . .Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." How different this sounds from a certain local government mantra: ". . .Government of the people, by the royal elite, at our whim, amusement, and folly, shall further our personal vision and agenda for the city." Meetings are too long because people are actually speaking? Get a clue. Maybe someone needs to start listening. Instead of strangling the voice of the message, listen! If the voices are so many that you lose ability to process represented ideas, then listen to the wisdom of Kailasapathy: adjourn the meeting to a more reasonable hour. Then, take time to process what you heard. Then, listen carefully at the continuance meeting. Think about the messages. Act on what you hear after careful analysis and consideration. "Serve" the people who are speaking, acting on their behalf and interests, instead of your own!
Tano
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 3:16 p.m.
"...a government body, ..., that does not value public input, or care to hear it, would desire to limit it, and even eliminate it. ...This is Ann Arbor?" No, actually. The proposal seems to have been soundly defeated.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 10:50 a.m.
"I certainly think there are instances when two minutes may be sufficient, but there are certain times when a speaker legitimately wants to make multiple points or in-depth arguments … and no matter how concise they are, two minutes is not enough," [Councilwoman Jane Lumm] said." Jane is correct on this issue and the others who want to cut short public comment periods ought to hide in shame. Transparency and public input are critical to the democratic process and ought to be welcomed! Transparency and public input lead to better decisions. Also, our Mayor, as the chair of the meeting, ought to do a better job setting the agenda so that multiple contentious issues are not on the same meeting agenda. The meetings running so long are do to his shortcomings in doing that poorly.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 6:49 p.m.
@Tano: I find that our mayor finds setting true priorities challenging and struggles to build consensus with people who don't think just like he does. Former Mayor Lou Blecher made a great statement which contrasts well with the weaknesses our current Mayor brings to the council table: "It is time the city government started using "Management by Objective" as our City Councils practiced during my four terms as mayor. Priorities, set by importance, is the only way to operate anything...whether it is a government, a business, a family. For any city, the government's first priority MUST be the health and safety of it's citizens...just ask them. For example, we set the following top objectives: a police car in front of any address in two minutes...a fire truck in four minutes, waste pick up every week with a sanitary disposal methodology, clean water.....etc. We built the sixth and last fire station to meet the four minute response goal and it is ,in my opinion, very bad policy to dismantle the very infrastructure, that supports, what should be a number one priority. When the money runs out you stop on the last priority and , if you have money left...give it back to those who gave it to you. Look, you can help lead the effort for the arts without spending priority tax dollars...we helped create the Summer festival, the Michigan theater,and the Hands on Museum with very little public money and the citizen volunteers took them over and saw to their funding...(doing a heck of a lot better job than the city council could) and we asked the business community to help fund public art (which many did). Let's get back to the important things that government was formed to do.....those things that individuals can not do alone...Lou Belcher"
Tano
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 3:12 p.m.
"our Mayor,..., ought to do a better job setting the agenda so that multiple contentious issues are not on the same meeting agenda." Explain how that works, please. There are a very limited number of Council meetings, and a certain number of contentious issues. How do you imagine that the mayor could better schedule things such that all of these issues are dealt with in a timely manner, yet in a way that does not have multiple issues at the same meeting.
Veracity
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 2:40 p.m.
Stephen, Well said and you need not trip all over your grammar. Perhaps that last sentence could be re-written as follows:"The meetings running so long are do to his scheduling shortcomings." In any case, the key words are "his" and "shortcomings."
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 11:20 a.m.
...That the meetings run so long are due to his shortcomings... Sigh. Sorry. Where is that edit button?
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 10:53 a.m.
...are due to his shortcomings... Sorry for my typo...
Basic Bob
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 10:22 a.m.
So much time, so little work.
Alan Goldsmith
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 10:09 a.m.
"ut a majority of council members voted Monday night against reducing public speaking times from three to two minutes, fearing that could send the wrong message to the community." Who voted for and who voted against this?
Ryan J. Stanton
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 5:33 p.m.
It was a voice vote, so there actually was no roll call vote taken, but Teall's voice was the only I heard when the mayor called for those opposed.
Jack Eaton
Tue, Jul 16, 2013 : 2:28 p.m.
According to the report in the Ann Arbor Chronicle, at about 8:00 pm, "Lumm ... proposes that the reduction from three minutes to two minutes for public speaking time be eliminated. Warpehoski seconds Lumm's proposal." Later (about 8:20 pm): "Outcome on Lumm's amendment: The vote is 10-1, with dissent from Teall. http://annarborchronicle.com/2013/07/15/july-15-2013-ann-arbor-council-preview/