Two Suggestions For Better Council Communications Proposed — Then Retracted

By John Voket

Legislative Council Chair Will Rodgers said proposals by freshman council member Gary Davis illustrated “the best of intentions” after he first made, then retracted, two motions to pilot programs he hoped would foster better communication between the public and the council.

While it became evident that Mr Davis put much time into refining the potential benefits of his proposals, he admitted after withdrawing his motions that he failed to consider or research what kind of exposure or liability his ideas might cause to the town.

The first proposal, which was outlined in documents provided to The Bee prior to the meeting, involved the Legislative Council adopting a six-month pilot program to determine if expanded public participation in council meetings brings value to public policy decisions.

According to Mr Davis’s proposal, his idea of an expanded public participation would:

*Provide the public an opportunity to address any issues of public policy at public participation sessions, even if concerns are not included on the council agenda.

*Allow members of the public to ask a question after presentations to the council once council members have completed the questions for presenters.

*Allow members of the public to express support for stated positions through positive feedback methods, including applause.

After a six-month trial period, Mr Davis hoped the council would decide whether or not to amend its by-laws to include the expanded participation.

Mr Davis contended that members of the public sometimes feel frustrated attending council meetings because of the limited opportunity for participation. At the same time, council members do not receive benefit from the opinions of the pubic concerning important public policy issues because the item may not be on the council agenda, or because the public cannot ask questions during presentations.

Mr Davis’s ultimate goal was to determine if expanding public participation would “bring value to the decisionmaking process employed by the Legislative Council. It will also demonstrate a greater willingness of town government to encourage the active participation of its citizens in public policy decisionmaking processes.”

That proposal initiated spirited debate, following a review by Mr Rodgers of a recent presentation he attended on minimizing municipal liability. The council chairman said the presenter, a well-known constitutional law specialist, indicated the best way to minimize municipal liability against legal action was to eliminate public dialogue at meetings.

“He confirmed that there is no constitutional right to allow public dialogue,” Mr Rodgers said. He then reviewed several points from the seminar saying that opening up discussion to any subject would flout freedom of information guidelines about giving advance notice of items on the agenda.

“The public has a right to know what will is being discussed at public meetings,” Mr Rodgers said. “Once you start discussing a specific subject, you can easily advance it farther than beyond what is noticed [on the agenda].”

Mr Rodgers said holding open dialogue could also lead to false expectations, citing a February 2007 council meeting where the public was led to believe they could influence a change in plans on building a town hall at Fairfield Hills through advocacy and dialogue in opposition of the project.

He then expressed a personal feeling that allowing public reaction or applause creates a highly intimidating atmosphere for citizens who intend to oppose issues that seem to have vast majority support, as shown by applause or similar outbursts.

Mr Rodgers than said he was willing to support allowing the public to ask questions of presenters who are listed on meeting agendas, if the individuals agree to taking such questions from audience members in the confines of meetings.

Mr Davis then apologized, saying he did not mean for his proposal to state the request for public dialogue, but maintained the need for greater outreach and cooperation with the public. He then suggested possibly providing occasional public forums.

Council representative Patricia Llodra said every council member needs to do “a better job at reaching out,” without destroying the structure of council decorum.

Mr Davis then retracted his first proposal, saying he was pleased the accommodation of citizen questions would be permitted pending approval on an case-by-case basis.

His second proposal involved resources he learned were available on the town website. Mr Davis suggested providing the opportunity for residents to subscribe to an e-mail list that would inform them when council activities, including meeting agendas or meeting minutes, are posted on the town website.

Mr Davis referenced an existing service provided by the Parks and Recreation office informing residents of the opportunity to sign up to receive e-mails about field closures. In addition, a similar service is provided for residents to be part of a state-mandated service for Planning and Zoning, and to notify town residents of news and announcements.

He said in the proposal that both Scott Sharlow, who manages the town’s Technology and GIS Department, and Ann Mazur, who clerks for the Planning and Zoning Board, have indicated that creating a similar service for the Legislative Council is feasible.

Mr Rodgers said he wanted to use the second proposal as a teaching opportunity, stating Mr Davis’s research mission was perceived by the unionized town workers he approached as a program already approved by the council. The misconception caused both Mr Sharlow and Ms Mazur to believe their work duties would be changed to accommodate the new program, according to Mr Rodgers.

Mr Davis said he spoke to the two staff members on separate occasions, and then sent Mr Sharlow a copy of his proposal to determine if it would be feasible. Ms Mazur then asserted that while the proposal suggested there would be no anticipated budget impact, in her case, expanding duties to put more information on the town website would justify being paid more money to perform the new duties.

“That’s great information,” Mr Davis replied. “I would have loved to have had it before making the proposal.”

Mr Rodgers then reviewed the possible liabilities, saying the creation of such a program would lead to a public expectation that it would continue. Mr Rodgers’ suspicion that significant disclaimers would be required to minimize liability was shared by vice chair Francis Pennarola.

“The caveat is the e-mails would not be official, and the council [and town] could not be held responsible if there is a mistake,” Mr Pennarola said.

After learning Mr Pennarola was willing to fully vet any liabilities and research the scope of disclaimers within the ordinance subcommittee, Mr Davis then retracted the second proposal.

Mr Rodgers said after the meeting that he was forced to authorize an extra $200 payment to Ms Mazur, for the extra time she spent researching the proposal on behalf of Mr Davis, because she was led to believe it was a council directive.

“This is an example of something that should have been floated informally,” Mr Rodgers said. “Once it was floated in writing it took on a life of its own.”