As regular readers know, and new visitors can see, I’ve been very critical of the way members of the Board have conducted themselves over the past several years. But I’d like to draw a distinction between criticism of behavior or action and the presentation of feedback, input or commentary on issues.
I feel that the Board needs to seek out, and actually consider, input, advice and opinions from a wider base of the community and experts on the matters. And, they should be open to accepting such input even from those who are critical of actions they have taken in the past.
This seems to be something that at least some members of the Board have thus far been unwilling to do, and has been most recently evident in the discussion of amending the parking ordinance for buses and large personal vehicles.
A recent decision by President Ritter Ed to no longer allow public comment during Board discussion of ordinances and other actions creates a situation where the Board could take action on a matter without the public being able to weigh in with specific information – whether opinions or from experts.
It seems to be a means to stifle public input into issues of concern to the community. Unfortunately, a prevalent philosophy of some Board members is to ignore — and often, in turn, criticize — those members of the community.
Board members should expect criticism from members of the community if they take actions that are seen as problematic; especially if such Board members are initiators or champions of a particular issue. Likewise, residents should be encouraged to voice such criticisms without fear of being cut off from the dialog.
Now, some have considered my criticisms to be be “personal”. But, as I said in a comment recently on this blog, they are not “personal” at all. But, they are distinct from being input or feedback. Instead, the nature of those comments are specifically aimed at actions engaged in which are illegal, unethical and/or complicit with such behavior. Such actions by elected officials deserve no mercy or “constructive criticism” because engaging in them undermines the rights of members of the community or society.
As I said at the start, these two types of criticisms are of different and distinct natures, and both serve a purpose — both ultimately seek to serve the community in different ways. Allowing input into, and hearing criticism of, issues and legislation from experts and members of the community helps elected officials serve better. Denouncing illegal, unethical and corrupt behavior engaged in by elected officials helps the community be better informed, so they may choose officials that respect them (and remove officials that don’t).
6 comments
May 16, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Concerned C'villian
I have noticed several references to President Ritter stopping public comment. This is not a change of practice or policy from either Sarto or even Boettger. The public comment section of the meeting is still there, and has not changed.
I watched the meeting on Comcast last night. Speaking out like that lady did would have gotten her ejected under the Sartocrat.
The public comment portion of the meeting is still there. So please explain, in detail, how Ritter’s policy is a change from prior administrations, since no other President has allowed public outcry during any portion of the ageda, other than public comment. Even during that time, only the speaker at the podium is recognized, and any other outcries should be gaveled or ejected.
May 17, 2009 at 9:02 am
Bill Sarto
Well, now let’s hear the truth. While I was Village President, I routinely allowed those who were at the meeting for “Village business” to be recognized during our discussion of issues. If a person had come to the meeting because of a “real concern on an agenda item” we were discussing I’d usually allow them to speak on that matter during the meeting. If they did just speak out, I would caution them to wait to be recognized before saying anything. I did this many times. Some who come to the meetings for one particular issue are not familiar with the rules. That’s why I would give them a caution and not throw them out of the meeting.
Mark Boettger did not allow this type of input from the public, but I did.
May 19, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Dennis Carr
Gee, I wonder if this will see the light of day on this web site?
Comments during “Board” discussion should not be allowed without consent from the President, be he “ED” or Mr. Ritter! Otherwise meetings again will become a shouting match. Control of the meetings just has to be there.
Everyone has a chance to run and if they didn’t, sssshhhh!
Since only eight or so citizens decided it was important enough to run for the board, then the rest of us have to deal with what the board decides.
While it was good that Bill decided to have opened the discussion to coment, it would also have been good to have the comments to be constructive instead of argumenitive. However it can lead to very long meetings if everyone got up and gave their point of view.
People are elected to lead, some do and some don’t, so you wait four years and do it all over again.
You have an opinion, you got your five minutes to say what it is at the beginning of the meeting. Or write a letter to the editor, or make a blog, whatever it takes, just do it right.
I dare say President Zero did not ask me my opinion of giving Millionaires a bailout of my tax dollars, why should a citizen of Carpentersville have any right to complain about an ordinance?
May 19, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Chrysippus
Comments during “Board” discussion should not be allowed without consent from the President…
I agree. I never suggested anything else. However, Ed has said that he will not recognize any audience member at the time an ordinance or other action is being discussed or considered.
If there are matters before the Board to be discussed that evening, members of the community should be able to address the Board at that time, in order that their comments remain in the relevant context of the issue. This is no longer allowed under the recent change made by Ed.
The general public comment section should be to allow residents to discuss issues not currently being considered by the Board.
Everyone has a chance to run and if they didn’t, sssshhhh!
I disagree with this. It is not only the elected who should get a voice; the Board must listen and respond to those they were elected to serve. If that means “long Board meetings” in order to allow citizens to provide their opinion to the Board during the actual discussion, then so be it.
The real point of this entry was that the Board needs to be more open to discussion and education on the issues, and how they affect the community. Sure, criticism is necessary and will happen, but such should not lead to a dismissal of opinions or end of all discussions.
May 19, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Bill Sarto
It’s clear that Ed Ritter is going back to those days when the public was not heard.
I find it interesting that Dennis Carr is supporting the silencing of the public during board meetings.
How many times did he come before the board along with many others to only keep repeating the same things meeting after meeting? How many times? He didn’t care then if the meetings lasted 5 hours.
When I did attempt to move the meetings along to get real business accomplished, the majority on the board would over-rule me and allow the same comments to be made over and over by different people. Many of these people didn’t even live in Carpentersville. How interesting.
May 19, 2009 at 3:45 pm
At a Glance
Since the Trustees and the Village President are positions established in our form of government to represent the views of the people, I’m interested in learning how the Board members will know what the views are if they don’t allow discussion.
There are ways to limit the discussion time without silencing the voice of the people but Mr. Ritter seems less concerned about the views of the people he was elected to SERVE than to get the meetings over earlier. No wonder the Board wants to use email to discuss issues so that they don’t need to take up the time at the Board Meetings to “discuss” the issues…but that is why there is an Open Meetings Act, to have the people involved in their government. I guess we are not allowed to have an open government in Carpentersville…..!!!
And, even if 37,000 people ran for office, there would still only be 7 on the Board. So, to say that only 8 ran, so the others don’t have a voice is ignorance of the very nature of democracy.