What do you get when you cross Marionette Theater with Rodney Dangerfield?
“Government meetings that don’t get no respect.”
Something is wrong in Colusa that people can never put their finger on. It’s not normal for those who attend Planning Commission or other meetings to always walk out of the room shaking their heads as if the people responsible for shaping the community for generations to come are being manipulated with sticks and wires.
It doesn’t have to be true – it just has to be perceived.
If those responsible in all matters of local government had Dangerfield’s style of self-deprecation and his vaudevillian one-two punch, Planning Commission and City Council meetings would probably be entertaining.
Instead, watching people on the dais interact with each other, the staff, and members of the public is often like watching a Greek tragedy enacted by The Muppets.
It’s not necessarily the fault of the individuals or their lack of experience, as the case may be. I’ve been observing dysfunction in this process for several years now, when lead or advisory bodies had entirely different members, some of whom had served for many years.
It’s not just the people – it’s the process.
If Colusa officials want people to have trust in the public process and in them, then the process itself has to be respected – and that is not going to happen unless all those who engage in making decisions, including staff, exercise the highest standards of integrity, proficiency, and knowledge.
The City Council has been flirting with the idea of a joint workshop with the Planning Commission, and many people think that is a good idea. At first, the council thought they would meet to discuss cannabis issues, but because both bodies have specific actions before them related to cannabis, they decided such a discussion would pose a conflict.
The City Council can, however, have a joint workshop with the Planning Commission to have open and honest public discussion on issues that seem to trouble meeting goers the most.
From what I’ve heard, people would like to see two important things discussed: ethics and meeting procedures.
With cannabis being the most controversial issue in Colusa for the past decade, how is it that three of the five new members of the Planning Commission have ties to existing or proposed Colusa cannabis businesses? Were these members recruited? Were the relationships disclosed prior to their appointments? Were these members selected above more qualified applicants? This is something only the City Council can explain.
Close relationships to these businesses complicate discussions currently under the purview of the Commission, such as recommending a limit on the number of cannabis businesses that will be allowed in Colusa or whether to place a moratorium on cannabis altogether.
It’s important to be fair to individuals who insist they can act without bias with regard to cannabis, but people I’ve talked to can’t seem to find any scenario where a majority of members with close ties to a single industry would change the public’s perception that Colusa has a rigged system, whether the industry was pot, pizza, or pig manure.
If groundwater were the most controversial issue of the day (and someday it could be), would members of a board or commission with close ties to private water suppliers have an ethical conflict (real or perceived) if they were tasked to recommend a limit or moratorium on well drilling? It’s a difficult but worthy discussion to have. It would certainly require recusal, if the interest is financial, and, at minimum, disclosure of close familial relationships at the onset of each discussion on any broad subject related to the industry.
As for meeting procedures, perhaps the City Council should lead an open discussion with the public, not because so many of Colusa’s boards and commissions have new members, but because respect for the process is lost when it doesn’t work for either the body or the public.
People need to stop clutching Robert’s Rules of Order under their arm, like it’s the Bible. It was written nearly 150 years ago before legislation was added to the California Constitution granting the public’s right to participate in public meetings.
Colusa is guided by Rosenberg’s Rules of Order – a simplified version of meeting procedures that everyone should memorize – and California’s sunshine laws.
The public has a right to speak on every item listed on the agenda, not just during a set period for public comment or public hearings, period. That includes the selection of the chair (mayor) and vice chair (vice-mayor), consent calendar, staff reports, future agenda items, everything.
If governing bodies adhere to Judge Dave Rosenberg’s suggestions and the Brown Act, then each matter in a formal meeting would open with the mayor or chair telling the public what the body is doing and allowing the public ample opportunity to speak.
The public has a right to speak before and during the body’s deliberation. Nothing bothers people more than an item opening with a motion, a second, little or no discussion by the body, no clarification or repeat of the motion (especially if discussion occurred after it was made), and then a vote.
If public officials are going to ignore the public’s rights to participate in the process, then they need to quit telling people they can’t speak after a motion is made. Says who?
When the process is followed, the public will (and should) quickly raise their hand, rise and walk to the podium, and wait until the chair calls upon them to speak. If the process is ignored, people speak or shout from the audience, talk among themselves, or grumble all the way down the hallway at the end of every meeting.
Meetings work best when they are not paralyzed by parliamentary procedure – or the lack thereof. A balancing act is far better than a puppet show in disguise. ■