UPDATE: Mayor TenHaken’s compromises to the City Council on Public Input

UPDATE: Mayor TenHaken will be on Lalley at 4 PM today to talk about compromise.

Paul is offering these compromises to Public Input, and as I understand it they will be on Tuesday’s agenda for amendments;

A compromise will show unity and leadership by you as council and I would encourage you to bring forward an amendment or new ordinance as follows:

  1. Public input stays in the current spot on the agenda.
  2. Provide thirty minutes for general public input unrelated to first and second reading of items.
  3. Three minutes of allotted time per speaker during public input.
  4. The meeting chair has the discretion to allow first time speakers and those who speak infrequently to approach the podium before those who are frequent public input speakers.
  5. Public input will be encouraged on first readings of ordinances. This should not extend the length of meetings as it will likely cut down the time of input on second readings and shift it to first readings, plus public input is often for first reading items.
  6. Cards will be available for the public to provide written comment in case there is not enough time for them to approach the Council or they would prefer to write the council rather than publicly address the group. The meeting chair shall direct these individuals to use the cards as needed and provide their contact information. Contact cards for the Council should also be available for constituents to contact them.
  7. Electronic presentations using the Chamber audio/visual equipment will no longer be allowed. If citizens need a visual for the Council, they may distribute paper copies not exceeding 11×17 inches in size.

Most of it I don’t have an issue with, except #7. But that isn’t the real problem here, the real issue is not having a public conversation about it.



21 comments ↓

#1 Peter "mega" Pischke on 06.14.18 at 2:15 pm

Well this is a pleasant surprise!

I wonder how Kiley, Selberg, and Nietzert will take this??

#2 "Very Stable Genius" on 06.14.18 at 3:36 pm

But #3 limits debate, doesn’t it?

#3 Warren Phear on 06.14.18 at 3:51 pm

Early all of these recommendations came from the PEOPLE on Tuesday nite. Those PEOPLE were largely due to the activism of the one Theresa Stehly. Pat Starr wanted to apply the brakes on Tuesday nite, and explore all these options. His only support came from Theresa and Janet. You want to kniw who to thank for this? I’d stRt with the PEOPLE and these 3 councilors.

Now we’ll see who takes the credit. Tenhaken on Lalley show. 4pm

#4 Matthew Paulson on 06.14.18 at 4:03 pm

Seems very reasonable. I mean, -no one- wants to still be at a city council meeting at 10:00 PM in the middle of winter.

#5 D@ily Spin on 06.14.18 at 4:59 pm

It’s to much. Keep the same input time and limit to 3 minutes. Some of the rest can be implemented later if or when needed. There’s to much public dissent. Slight change for the moment.

#6 Lemming on 06.14.18 at 8:31 pm

Although I was in favor of moving the Zombie videos to the end…this seems like an amazing compromise. I think it addresses both sides and keeps input at the start. Well done Mayor

#7 anonymous on 06.14.18 at 9:07 pm

This is what you call DAMAGE CONTROL.

I believe the Mayor and his team, along with the council leadership (Erickson and Selberg), were involved beginning last week when this idea of moving public input to the back of the meeting was formulated and then pushed forward by Selberg beginning Thursday, June 7th.

When TenHaken and his team saw the backlash from the public at Tuesday’s council meeting, they realized the longer this discussion drug out the greater the chance that their role in it would be exposed.

Hence, the compromise proposal.

Now, they are trying to portray themselves as the problem-solvers, when in fact they were involved in the scheme all along to move public input to the back of the meeting.

#8 Matthew Paulson on 06.14.18 at 9:49 pm

The simplest solution would be that if you want to speak more than say, once a quarter, you have to wait until the end of the meeting.

#9 Greg Neitzert on 06.14.18 at 10:00 pm

Peter, considering we originated the idea, did the work, and came up with the proposal and brought it to the admin and then to the other councilors we are taking it quite well. This started Tuesday night after the meeting with a discussion I had with a colleague on the council. Something I heard from people privately after the meeting was try to come to a compromise. So we did.
We certainly didn’t have to but felt it was the right thing to do. And we reflected the major points we heard Tuesday night. I’m hoping we can do something in a united fashion. When presented to Councilor Stehly to her credit she pointed out a problem with one provision, that being the limit of one sheet or photo on the overhead. That was too limiting, so we pulled that language. Many people use the overhead to present multiple photos or multiple documents in a very effective and professional way. I’m proud of our proposed compromise. It was a fast and furious last few days, but if it sticks it will be worth the effort.

#10 Warren Phear on 06.14.18 at 10:09 pm

Number 7. I definitely believe the erickson/selberg part. They have a history of these kind of antics. At this point, I’ll give the mayor a mulligan.

#11 Bruce on 06.15.18 at 7:33 am

I disagree, the real problem is ramrod ramrod ramrod ramrod just like the last eight years. Our esteemed majority feels we have to punished like children because we don’t sit down and shut up.

I am building a list of individuals who would be willing to consider changes to the Home Rule Charter. The support for this list has been good so far. We must make structural changes to the way the Administrations AND the rubber stampers on the Council have worked destroyed our democracy.

The basic idea of a Home Rule Charter is good but our version needs a few major changes to shut down the abuse of citizens.

Any one who wishes to join the exploratory effort send me an email at bruce@citizens4integrity.org

#12 Bruce on 06.15.18 at 7:58 am

We now have heard Curt Soehl may have been informed by his financial supporters to push for this change. His grandfather Ralph must be proud of his vote on this.

#13 anonymous on 06.15.18 at 9:34 am

Isn’t it interesting that Councilor Neitzert,

who BTW voted NO to Councilor Starr’s amendment to move the second reading to July 10th to allow for more discussion,

is now taking credit for a proposed compromise.

This is an individual, who over the years before he was elected to the Council, demonstrated a keen interest in local government, local issues, and assuring that the average citizen is represented.

It is enlightening to see what often happens once someone is elected to office.

Do they remain true to their roots OR do they buy into all the trappings of the office….. hook, line and sinker!

#14 Peter "mega" Pischke on 06.15.18 at 10:55 am

Councilor Neitzert, I’m very happy with the compromise no matter whom it originated with. I’m glad that a compromise was found and congratulate the whole city council for it.

#15 The Guy from Guernsey on 06.15.18 at 11:52 am

May we reference #7 as “The Zokaites Clause”?

#16 Warren Phear on 06.15.18 at 12:36 pm

WOW

#17 Warren Phear on 06.15.18 at 5:00 pm

I’ll say this as politely as I can. This city council is still very broken. This 5 on 3 piling on is getting real tiring. High time for the 5 to act like the council persons YOU were elected to be, and learn how to reach across the aisle to the other 3 councilors. Can that be so tough?

#18 Bruce on 06.15.18 at 5:05 pm

There is no compromise. There is a group of six who are sitting on a fence post afraid their pants are going to split. There is a fear something bigger and painful may happen.

The only solution at this point is to pull everything off the table and have a real discussion. This has become a childish bullying game. “If you do this I’m going to do this” is not a way to govern. Retribution because you were caught and forced to sit on the fence post is not a reason to change.

“try to come to a compromise. So we did…. We certainly didn’t have to but felt it was the right thing to do.” I for one am still trying to figure out what the value of this fence sitting was. I’m ready to get the popcorn and see how much pressure it takes to see council back seams split as they spin.

#19 "Very Stable Genius" on 06.15.18 at 10:04 pm

Say, is “recall” spelled with one or two “Ls.”

#20 scott on 06.16.18 at 1:55 pm

just curious Greg, does the motion to move input to the end get voted down this week, and then something else will be introduced in it’s place?

#21 MOSES on 06.16.18 at 7:38 pm

Can we recall any of these Huether stamps

Leave a Comment