This rule has been an issue brought to the attention of the City Council for well over a year. The issue of the publics right to address the council is central to government at the local level. It is interesting that it took so long for this issue to become officially on the agenda. It demonstrates the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the council and the agenda setting process of the current Mayor and City Manager. It demonstrates part of the reason that the same issues are bought forth over and over again during public comment time. When a citizen brings forth a concern, it should become an agenda item within a reasonable period of time.
The three minute rule is only one issue raised by citizens, and some of the council members. The problem with the trucking company, has been raised several times and is not yet on the agenda or had code enforcement action taken and reported to the Council and Public. If an item or issue does not originate from the Staff, or a Developer through the Planning Commission or Planning Department, it is Duly Noted, and not addressed fully by staff or the council. This causes repeated presentations on the same topic during public comment period. THIS is the only recourse or action the PUBLIC has. It is not only their right, but their responsibility to bring forth their issues and concerns, but to be persistent.
There is one exception to this rule of Duly Note and being Dismissive. IF you want a no parking sign, or red curb, this can be put on the agenda almost immediately.
Council Members have expressed one justification of the 3 minute rule as being a means to be fair to all people in the community. "Everyone should have the same amount of time to address the council". This is flawed logic, and bad government policy. First of all people who are promoting an Agenda Item, such as a development, or an Ordinance Proposal, have an unlimited amount of time to make their presentation, and answer questions of the council back and forth. Their questions and comments are not necessarily limited to the specific agenda item and they often contain future plans or actions that would be required on future agendas. However, the public is required to listen to these presentations and spontaneously digest the information and be able to respond within 3 minutes, to a presentation which may have been an hour in length.
This practice is not giving everyone the "Same" amount of time. Nor is this a demonstration of a desire to be fully informed of the publics concerns, and the issues of the proposed action.
Council Members have expressed the justification of the 3 minute rule as a means to move along the meetings or they will just run on and on... For those Council Members who are inconvenienced by the public speaking, and bringing forth their concerns quite frankly may want to resign from the council if this is a bother to them. There are many opportunities to manage the length of the council meetings without cutting public comment and being informed on the issues being presented.
The council could limit "Special Presentation Time to 5 minutes". Certificate, handshake, picture. Good By. AND only 1 per Council Meeting. AND let the school kids get their awards at a PTA meeting, not at the Council Meeting.
The council could limit their "Council Reports" to 3 Minutes. The could also limit their Council expense Accounts for Meetings they attend at the same time. It is nice to know that Council Members do know where the Library is.
Council Members and City Staff have justified the 3 minute rule by saying "well other people do it". Now there is a piece of logic every parent has heard before. Of course the answer to that logic is the same old well, if everyone was running off a cliff would you ......
There are times the speakers don't need 3 minutes, other times it may take 30 minutes to provide a full discussion of the ideas, facts, concerns and issues on a topic. An absolute time limit is not fair, equal, and sufficient opportunity to allow public discussion on agenda items being voted on. It may be an appropriate amount of time for the Non Agenda Public Comment portion of the meeting where a issue is raised but not fully discussed.Public Hearings should not have time limits, as the decisions made result in what amounts to a legislative action. Failure to hold a free and open and unrestricted hearing on these actions is ill advised and has contributed to the cause of many of the law suits the city has lost. If a business is requesting a business permit and the citizens feel the need to inform the council of the problems a particular business may bring to the community, this presentation may take more than 3 minutes to be done in a fully efficient and complete way. Where as that business proponent may speak for an extended open ended period of time during their "Presentation" and Question and Answer Period. The Public or people wanting to address the proposed action are limited to 3 minutes, and required to be spontaneous with their response to the presentations. This is not fair, this is not giving full consideration or opportunity to be heard. This is a minimal effort at a SHOW of being fair and informed.
So if you have time limits Don't Be a Council Member.
So if you want to not see the same people over and over again, put their concerns on the agenda.
So if you want shorter Council Meetings, cut out the fluff, not the meat of the council meetings.
Woops there are some ideas, and suggestions, and specific recommendations in the above, and those should only come from City Staff. Citizens in Grand Terrace are known for not having anything of significances to add.
