The interesting commission meeting will be the next one. Remember, Chairman Paulk said they were still operating by the old rules at the meeting that happened this week. So next meeting they may actually refuse to let people speak on certain topics.

On the Frank Barnas Newstalk105.9 WVGA radio show 25 Jan 2011 the morning before the County Commission meeting, County Commmission Chairman Ashley Paulk complained that Citizens Wishing to be Heard has been abused and meetings are not free; there are people to pay.

“In these times we’ve got to run efficient meetings.”

Chairman Paulk also invoked Tuscon and said:

“You need to monitor people who are there.”

…

“You want a little better control over who and where they are.”

So posting videos of the meeting to the web should be a good idea so everyone could see what is going on.

And in the larger picture, should we be more concerned with a few dollars now or with the ability of citizens to be heard or for that matter with the long-term economics and health of the county?

Policies and Procedures for Citizens Wishing to be Heard

The host asked if tonight would be the time to comment on the new policy, and Chairman Paulk responded:

“This really isn’t a policy to be commented on; this is a policy set by the county.”

Well, lots of people commented on it anyway, and at least one commissioner said afterwards that he wanted suggestions on how to improve it.

Paige Dukes remarked on the radio:

“About five meetings ago there was no Citizens Wishing to be Heard.”

She noted that it’s not a state-mandated procedure.

Indeed it’s not, but it’s still a good idea.

Dukes and Paulk said on the radio, as the Chairman said at the meeting, that commissioners are available in their offices and he himself:

“I’m here every morning.”

The radio host warned Dukes and Paulk that this new policy could become a campaign issue in a year or two. The Chairman allowed as how he wasn’t worried about that:

“Everything could become a campaign issue” … “Anything I do I’m going to do what I think is right for the general population of this county.”

That’s laudable. But how do elected officials know what’s right unless they listen to the citizens? Nobody knows everything, after all.

The Biomass Topic

The host asked if the new policies and procedures were because of the biomass topic. The Chairman didn’t deny that, and appeared to elaborate on that being exactly the reason. He said he has a list of the times biomass opponents have come to speak:

“16-18 times over 18 months.”

He didn’t mention that the first time was in a hearing about rezoning of the site for the proposed biomass plant, not in Citizens Wishing to be Heard. I think he did mention that at a previous meeting. I hope the county is not proposing to prohibit opponents of rezoning from speaking in rezoning hearings.

The Chairman also said:

“The Commission … if it’s a matter they’ve made a decision on, they’ve taken a vote on, it’s a matter that doesn’t need to be discussed. If something new came up on it we have the option of discussing it.”

That may be true for a procedure in the Sheriff’s department as applied to law enforcement personnel. It’s not quite the same for decisions of an elected board in a democracy.

And specifically regarding the biomass topic:

“The county took a vote on it… The EPA and EPD and the authorities that issue the permits felt it was permittable and that’s where we stand on it.”

It’s interesting that later the same day he publicly thanked Susan Wehling for sending email on that very subject and he promised Bobbi Anne Hancock:

“I will seek an answer.”

We’ll see what comes of that.

More of Chairman Paulk’s opinions on the biomass topic:

“But we’re just not going to provide a public venue forever for a cause.”

… “I received a petition for one tenth of one percent of the people of this county. And you know I’ve got quite a few calls and everything else from other people who say let’s run the county and not look at this one issue.”

Chairman Paulk said much the same thing about that petition at the 11 Jan 2011 meeting. It’s interesting that he doesn’t attempt to quantify the “quite a few calls and everything else”. He also doesn’t say who they were from. This is why we need public debate: so we find out these and other things related to topics of public importance.

Personally, I think the tax-funded entity that should have provided the public forum is the Industrial Authority, since it’s the one that is promoting the project in question. But VLCIA failed to do so; as their moderator said:

“we’re not going to get into debate”

So it’s not surprising that people are availing themselves of other public forums.

Remember that the new rules weren’t actually being used at the most recent (25 Jan 2011) meeting. Next time they will be. Given how different what was said and how it was said on the radio in the morning vs. in the meeting room in the evening that same day, I wonder whether the meeting represented any actual change in tune, or was all the talk about being available in the office simply setting up for banning certain subjects in future public meetings?

-jsq

Short Link: