A few months ago I decided to make a list of the top 10 or so things the Jackson City Council could do to improve its weekly meetings. At the top of the list was that the meetings should be shortened from three hours to two so that citizens could actually attend meetings and still have time to address the Council during the public comment portion at the end.
Frankly, I expected the Council would reject the proposal on the grounds that they needed every minute of those weekly meetings to conduct City business. As it turns out, the Council decided that two of those meetings weren't even necessary, and now will meet only twice per month—every other Tuesday. Council meetings will still last three grueling hours, but now just twice per month—meaning only half the opportunity for citizens to address the Council.
If hearing from citizens is truly important to the City Council, why not resume the weekly meetings, but shorten them to 90 minutes? This would give the Council the six hours per month they believe they need to conduct regular Council business, and citizens would retain the opportunity to address their representatives each week. Actually, 90 minute meetings would encourage more public comments since more citizens can afford to take 90 minutes off from work than they can three hours.
It's such a reasonable idea—that is, to those Council members who care about public comments. One hopes that each and every member does. This is the season for miracles. Will the Council meetings rise again, reborn as a radiant 90 minute weekly meeting where the citizens are heard and their recommendations seriously considered? May we all have such faith as we approach the New Year.
Previous Comments
- ID
- 109358
- Comment
BRENT! Welcome to the JackBlog, dude! Enjoyed the party last night... I know you did, too. First hard liquor in my LIFE. Hardest thing I'd ever had up until then was two glasses of wine. Only other alcohol I had this year was Eucharistic. And well said re: the Council and the whole marathon-Phish-concert approach to meetings. There are three people on the Council who consistently seem to care about such things (Barrett-Simon, Crisler, McLemore), three who emphatically don't (Bluntson, Stokes, Tillman), and one who is trying, I think, to seek a notional Elizabethan via media (Allen). Ben Allen is rapidly becoming the Anthony Kennedy swing vote of our City Council, and something tells me that the status of meetings will ultimately depend on which way he leans. Cheers, TH
- Author
- Tom Head
- Date
- 2006-12-16T17:14:34-06:00
More like this story
More stories by this author
Support our reporting -- Follow the MFP.
