ABOUT THE COUNCIL

Yes, Council President Gibson’s letter in response to a critical Courier editorial is not without merit. It gives validity to the comments he made after the CABC presentation. Unfortunately, there is still no appreciation of cause and effect.

He addresses the deficiencies in CABC’s product without considering why such a product was produced. Nor does he address why the committee was given only 15 minutes to present its case, which boiled down to a Power Point exercise.

To begin with, the CABC was ill conceived. Given that its proponent Councilman Burney was desirous of some citizen input in the Council’s budget review process, such a committee could have been effective if;

1. -- It had been given a clearly defined charge.
   
2. --The scope of its report had been delineated.
   
3. --Unrestricted information had been provided
   
4. --Adequate time had been allowed
   
5. --The department presentations had been properly presented.
6. --The Council membership understood what they were creating and not tried to restrict it through fear that the committee would usurp the Council’s prerogatives.
7. --The CABC membership had any idea what they should focus on or how to proceed.

To fault the CABC because it dealt in generalities and not specific names is unjust.


A properly charged CABC with full cooperation of the entire Council could be a valuable asset in the budget setting process. More importantly the production of the annual budget lacks professionalism, and in itself often lacks specifics and has too many vague items.

The fault also lies in the city’s poor selection of responsible administrative individuals. It is apparent from the most recent fiasco that the vetting by the Mayor’s office has been inadequate and that the Council’s consent has been based on inadequate perusal of support documentation.

Which brings me to the topic of Council meetings, their format, location, and public convenience?

This year after a few years’ hiatus for personal reasons, the Muhlenberg crisis was the impetus for me to resume a two decade attendance at the meetings. Much to my amazement the dedicated and vociferous public attendance that I remembered was no longer evident. If there were a minion (10) citizens present that was a lot. I am sure that was in part the result of the weird meeting schedule in effect for over a year.

In addition the Council had instituted the practice to place almost all the resolutions to be acted upon into the consent agenda irrespective of the resolutions contents. Since there can be no discussion on Consent Agenda items during the 30 minute 3 minutes per individual public discussion prior to the Council action, public opinion was was obvious not desired.

There would also be no discussion by Council members at the business meeting on most items.Indeed, the focus seemed to be “let's get out of here as quickly as possible”

It is true that some Resolutions elicited some discussion at the agenda setting session which are held in an inadequate uncomfortable venue which is not conducive for public participation. Not only does the public have no opportunity to express an opinion prior to the council's decision to include the item on the business meeting agenda, but adherence to the 30 minutes , 3 minutes per individual, afforded the public for comments after the meeting has deprived some the opportunity.

I was amazed that when at the first meeting I attended I attempted to exercise my right to request the removal of a resolution from the Consent Agenda so that I could make a comment, the Council members did not know how to react. Although that right is specifically provided in the Council rules, they were going to vote whether it should be removed or not. It took another member of the public to instruct them on their own rules.

Such ignorance of their own rules is consistent with either a lack of fiduciary responsibility, or lack of commitment to the public. To schedule meetings for the Council Members convenience and not the general public isolates them from the people.

The proposed fewer Council meetings and more time for Committee meetings is self serving. Perhaps the Council can inform us when was the last time a standing or special committee presented a report at the public meeting? Who keeps attendance for committee meetings? If minutes are taken, where are they available for perusal?

I am sure there are meetings formal or informal, but they are all private and the public are not privy. That occurred for every meeting about the hospital and no formal report was ever submitted.

Change for change sake is not an answer. The tried and true formula worked well in the past; it is the discouragement of public participation that is today’s problem.

I will grant that here are those on the Council who appear to have genuine concerns, but let’s get back to basics and see why there may be problems that could be corrected. Above all accept the fact that there are members of the public that make constructive remarks which should not only be encouraged but also heeded.