| Author |
Message |
    
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 5504
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 3:17 am: | 
|
Doesn't anyone else realize why this 'rule' was established? It's so easy - to keep the voters from speaking and exposing what's actually going on in town!!! |
fiche
Citizen
Username: Fiche
Post Number: 167
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:21 am: |
|
The three minute rule is not without precedent and and been enforced by the South Orange BOT off and on over the years for as long as I can remember which (as to trustee meetings) is more than 35 years. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 5508
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:51 am: |
|
fiche
Do you happen to remember the last time it was used? I thought someone from the BOT mentioned it's the first time it's had to be used. Since I started to watch the BOT Meetings earlier this year, I don't recall any resident complaining other residents were talking too long. Have any complained before that? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4310
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:59 am: |
|
It was used at the last 2 meetings, although I thought I recall hearing it would ONLY be used on Conference Agenda nights (because those meetings tend to run long). I was surprised it was used this week. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11978
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 8:25 am: |
|
Maplewood has the same or similar rule when citizens address the TC as does, I believe, West Orange. To be honest I think it makes sense. Otherwise certain people would go on for an hour. There are some people who can't get to the point. |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 8:27 am: |
|
I think some very valid points were made by the residents who spoke concerning the 3 minute rule. If the board wants to limit a speaker to 3 minutes so everyone can speak then fine, BUT after everyone who wished to speak had had 3 minutes, then those with something else to say should be allowed to return, and if after the second round there is still more, it should continue.
It is obvious that the BOT (most of the BOT) doesn't care to hear what the residents have to say and that is pretty shameful.
So go ahead and use your 3 minute rule, but you will need to let people say everything they have taken the time to go there to say... |
fiche
Citizen
Username: Fiche
Post Number: 169
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:29 am: |
|
JTA, I don't remember for sure, but I know at least during one period in the '70's and once in the 80's both when very hot topices were being discussed. I know for a fact, because I was attending those meetings. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2843
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 3:44 pm: |
|
SOparents: It is not up to the BOT. The VP is the moderator. We have requested for time limits many times in the past. The suggestion was usually for five minute limits. More and more often the meetings have been running very long which seems to be what motivated the VP this year. I have always let any resident say what they want (witout interuption) and speak for as long as they want. Part of the reason for the town meetings was to give another opportunity for people to speak because most of us do care or we would not have volunteered to serve.
|
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1628
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:09 pm: |
|
In my opinion, if a time limit is necessary, two criteria must be met:
1. It must be applied equally to friends and foes (not always the case this year)
2. Trustee interruptions/answers must stop the clock so that residents get their full three minutes (again, often not the case this year)
Time limits only work if the Trustees use similar discipline. If the meetings are running long, at least some of it is due to the bad habits of our group of trustees -- the difference between a BOT meeting and a BOE meeting, for example, is dramatic.
I appreciate those who serve (mostly), but I sometimes have to agree with the poster who compares our BOT meetings to reality television. I'm often amazed by the low level of civility displayed in a public forum (even before the open mike accusations of Bunny's!). |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 5514
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 12:58 am: |
|
Mark-
IMHO You are about the only person who seems to really consistantly care what the residents have to say. You also seem to be the only one who consistantly treats those speaking with respect. I am curious though, why didn't you say something what the VP made the slanderous comment he made about Bunny's? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2845
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 9:38 am: |
|
JTA: I did not hear the comment at the meeting. Very often the mic will pick up for tv, but the comments can not be heard from those sitting close by. However, in all honesty, I probably would not have said a word to the VP in this case. It is up to him if he is going to apologize (or not) and he has to live by his comments.
Over the years I have had my own personal issues with the Pogany's and have tried not to let it interfere with any political decisions. Clearly, the VP has his issues with Bunny's (and this is another time it showed in public).
|
Sheena Collum SHU
Citizen
Username: Sheena_collum
Post Number: 738
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 1:55 pm: |
|
I'm actually drafting an email to the BOT right now.
I think it's a great idea to have speaker limits and I've always used them as well. It ensures that everyone gets the same amount of time to speak initially.
One example is say you have 15 people in the audience who wish to be heard and the first speaker decides to speak for 1/2 hour (I've witnessed a BOT meeting where gentleman literally did not leave the mic for over 1/2 hour and there were still many residents who wished to have their concerns addressed), the others in the audience don't have all night and many will just leave and get upset that one person is monopolizing the podium.
The basic way you avoid this is to set speaker limits for fairness to those present.
What I would suggest is basically what I said at the last meeting.
1) First, it shouldn't be 3 minutes... 5 minutes is more standard for the public.
2) Questions posed to the BOT don't count as 'time' (they are currently doing this and I agree)
3) After everyone who wishes to speak has spoken once, anyone who still had questions/concerns would be able to go back up to the microphone (and I would limit this time to 3 minutes). If that person still has more to say, they would have to wait until everyone who wishes to speak again, gets their chance.
This avoids some of the problems that the BOT has had and to be fair, I've gotten annoyed with it as well.
Let me also add that I think it's censorship to 'fully cap' residents at a public meeting from voicing their concerns. Making the process more efficient is okay, cutting people off in advance is not.
In addition, when the BOT makes a suggestion that residents can contact/email their BOT members, there needs to be assurance that an answer will come out of that. I'm on month 3 of waiting for a response from one of my requests and I was going to address it on Monday night... oh well next time...
Those are just my thoughts... the VP said he would take them into consideration with the rest of the BOT and I def. will follow-up.
|
jeep
Citizen
Username: Jeep
Post Number: 183
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Oh please how long and how many times do we the residents have to listed to the same people complain and complain about the same thing. I love the 3 min rule. More than enough time. |
phd6786
Citizen
Username: Phd6786
Post Number: 35
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 4:41 pm: |
|
I love the three minutes rule too. People should go up there, ask a question, get an answer or the promise of an answer, and be done. Make a comment and step down. No soapbox speeches, no detective style interrogation, no monopolizing the mike with always the same questions. Enough already. If you can't say what you have to say in three minutes, you have nothing important to say.
If you are not satisfied with the BOT's performance, and who isn't, go out there campaign against them and throw them all out, elections are in less than eleven months. But please let other people speak during remonstrances without having to go through the ordeal of listening to one person for a half hour before their can speak. Show some consideration for your fellow citizens.
|
bets
Supporter
Username: Bets
Post Number: 23418
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 1:01 am: |
|
Quote:3) After everyone who wishes to speak has spoken once, anyone who still had questions/concerns would be able to go back up to the microphone (and I would limit this time to 3 minutes). If that person still has more to say, they would have to wait until everyone who wishes to speak again, gets their chance.
This avoids some of the problems that the BOT has had and to be fair, I've gotten annoyed with it as well.
Let me also add that I think it's censorship to 'fully cap' residents at a public meeting from voicing their concerns. Making the process more efficient is okay, cutting people off in advance is not.
In addition, when the BOT makes a suggestion that residents can contact/email their BOT members, there needs to be assurance that an answer will come out of that. I'm on month 3 of waiting for a response from one of my requests and I was going to address it on Monday night... oh well next time...
Makes perfect sense and also may give us lowly residents a false feeling that our opinions are not totally objectionable to "they who have all the power". A village unwilling to allow its citizens speech is a village with something to hide.
What are they hiding?
Inquiring minds want to know. And I do, too. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 5534
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 9:58 am: |
|
Sheena-
As much as you and I have a rift between us; how long do you plan to stay in town? I think I remember you saying years. I can't believe I'm even saying this but, you should run for BOT. I think you'd make a good BOT member... |
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 838
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 2:20 pm: |
|
I am adamantly opposed to the 3 minute rule and am a strong supporter of the 5 minute rule as the best viable alternative.
Down with the 3 minute rule - 5 minute rule rules!
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 4335
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 2:32 pm: |
|
I can't wait for the next time that Joel Dranove goes to speak before the BOT and Calabrese threatens to have him arrested for violating the 3 minute rule!  |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3453
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Three minute rule... does that mean I can eat something off the floor if it's been there less than 3 minutes? |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 1759
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 2:40 pm: |
|
Naw, they'll either cut-off the mike or start playing music (like they do on those award shows) 
|
entertainer
Citizen
Username: Entertainer
Post Number: 315
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Many of the speakers often want dialogue with the board. They want to make a statement, ask several questions, wait for each question to answered in detail(to their personal satisfaction), give counter-points, ask revised questions, await more answers, and give a summary and conclusion. This is impossible in 3 minutes. 5 minutes either. Repeat this process for 10-15 speakers. Yawn... Use email. Give the board ample time to research and prepare a response. THEN go on a rampage! |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 5537
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Didn't someone ask how the 3 minute rule workd Monday night? I thought the response was the clock stops when the board is answering, then starts up again as the resident speaks.
As I said in my original post, I think this is more to shut peole up and to keep them from exposing some of the crummy things happening in town then being fair to other residents as the board wants us to believe. Perhaps there could be a combination of the current way things have been done and the new way the BOT wants things done. This way everyone has the chance to be heard. |
susan1014
Supporter
Username: Susan1014
Post Number: 1635
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Yes, if we had a functioning town government, I'd be all in favor of a time limit. At this point, a time limit risks being a way for certain members of our town government to keep certain topics/facts from ever seeing the light of day. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3459
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Is the three minute rule enforced with an actual timer that is visible to the speaker as well as the timekeeper? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page