- This topic has 10 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This is how the current board policy reads (page 5 of the manual.) It needs to be updated with regards to speaking times and the changes to Texas State law. We have also discussed in meetings changing the sign-up procedures.
A. Members of the Public Addressing the Board
1. Registering to speak: Each member of the public wishing to speak to the Board at a regular meeting shall sign up on a form provided by the Board. Forms will be available one hour before the meeting is scheduled to begin. This form must be completed and submitted on the day of the meeting before the scheduled time listed in the agenda for the meeting to begin.
2. At each regular meeting, the Board will set aside 20 minutes to afford the general public an opportunity to speak to the Board on any matter concerning the education of students and the business of the Board that is not listed on the Board agenda.
3. Individuals will be allowed no more than three (3) minutes to speak. A member of the public who is speaking for groups or several persons shall be given up to five (5) minutes to make the group’s presentation. At least three group members must be present for an individual speaking to receive five (5) minutes. Other people present must be recognized for the chair to allow five (5) minutes. No person shall be allowed to exchange his or her time with another person.
4. The Board may modify these times and requirements.MY SUGGESTIONS ARE MEANT TO BE VIABLE ONCE WE RETURN TO ALL IN-PERSON MEETINGS AND THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT AS IT WAS IN FEBRUARY 2020.
SUGGESTED CHANGES TO ABOVE POLICY IN ALL CAPS BELOW:
1. Registering to speak: Each member of the public wishing to speak to the Board at a regular meeting shall sign up on a form provided by the Board. Forms will be available ONLINE TWENTY-FOUR HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING AND IN-PERSON one hour before the meeting is scheduled to begin. This form must be completed and submitted ONLINE 3 HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING OR IN-PERSON before the scheduled time listed in the agenda for the meeting to begin.
2. STRIKE THIS SECTION, We cannot put a time limit on public speaking. (POLICY BED LOCAL CURRENTLY ALLOWS FOR NON-TOPIC SPEAKERS AT REGULAR MEETINGS. WE COULD REITERATE HERE IS TRUSTEES FELT THAT WAS NECESSARY)
3. Individuals will be allowed ONE TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP. 1-10 SPEAKERS 3 MINUTES; 10-20 SPEAKERS 2 MINUTES; 20-25, 90 SECONDS; OVER 25, 1 MINUTE EACH.
4. The Board may modify these times and requirements.
TWO ISSUES WE NEED TO CONSIDER UNDER NUMBER 1.
*ONCE WE GO BACK TO ALL IN-PERSON, DO WANT TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW PUBLIC SPEAKERS TO ATTEND VIRTUALLY? Mr. Poneck is reviewing the law, but Open Meeting in-person requirements apply to trustees, not the public. In theory we could continue to allow virtual public speakers.
*IF WE ALLOW ONLINE SIGN UPS AND IN PERSON SIGN UPS, WHAT IS THE SPEAKING ORDER? Do we allow those that come in person to speak first in the order they signed up, then the online people? If an online sign-up comes in person to speak, are they before the people the speakers who signed-up in person an hour before the meeting? So 3 possible groups in the future; online sign-up, virtual speaker; online sign-up, in-person speaker; in-person sign-up and speaker.
I agree with all of the above. For the last order question, I defer to the consensus.
Excellent work Pres Weir. Thank you. I do want to see the continuation of the virtual option for public speakers once we are back to being able to have members of the public present at our meetings in person. Over these past few months many speakers during public comments have articulated the reasons why this makes sense very well. So I am completely supportive of this. To your last question about speaking order, I am inclined to have those who are physically present speak first so that they can get home or to work or another location if they desire to leave after their comments. Speakers who want to speak virtually would typically already be at home, work or a location where they are needed. This is my initial thought but I am open to other viewpoints.
I agree that President Weir did an excellent job with her research and proposed changes. I concur with them. I agree with Trustee Weston in the desire to continue the ability to give public testimony virtually. Any way we can make public engagement with the board easier is welcome. And I also agree that allowing those who are in person to speak first makes sense.
Dear Fellow Trustees,
First thank you President Weir for your work to get this conversation started.
These are my comments correlated to President Weir’s original post:
1. I agree with the 3 groups indicated at the end of the original post ( online sign-up, virtual speaker; online sign-up, in-person speaker; in-person sign-up and speaker). I think people wanting to speak either in person or online should be able to signup online 27 hours in advance or even as early as when the agenda is posted. I agree the online ability to signup can close 3 hours in advance for logistics purposes which is why I would add the 3 hours (for a total of 27 hours) to give a full 24 hours to sign up. I would like to allow public speakers both virtually and in person. The speaking order I prefer is in-person followed by online.
2. Agree.
3. I am inclined to not favor changing the time with number of speakers. If a member of the public clears their schedule to come address the board, I think speakers should know in advance their time allocation and we should highly respect that time. I know this might make our meetings longer but to me public comment is very important. I have heard and seen the disappointment as speakers scramble to cut down their thoughts in the allocated time.
4. See #3 directly above but inclined to agree only under extreme circumstancesPresident Weir,
Thank you for starting this long overdue discussion!
I am in agreement with all of Dr. Bone’s clarifications but particularly #3. We should hold steady on the time allotted for public comment, particularly at regularly scheduled board meetings.
For #3, I still would like to see some limits on either the minute allowance or total number of speakers. 25*3 => 75 minutes for the comment section. Maybe a compromise is to encourage the speakers to send the full script in email to the board.
Something else to bring into the conversation after speaking with community members…
Our questionnaire to sign up to speak is in English only. And after years of requests, we still have no translation services for both public comments and the meeting. I wanted to make note of this as we need to fix this to work toward being more inclusive.
As to Trustee Harrison’s comments about interpreters, it has been a concern of mine for 2 years now, especially coming from the McNeil Learning Community with our deaf population. I know that the administration has been looking into different options and I think we will have some information soon in a board update; hopefully it will also include the request from Trustee Weston last night about easier searching capabilities for the meeting videos.
In the past we have had people speak to the board in languages other than English. I believe that they usually brought their own interpreters; it was before I was elected and when the board meetings were in-person only. I think it should be possible for us to add languages other than English to the sign up instructions. And I also think it should be possible, with enough notice on the sign-up, for the administration to find an interpreter for someone who wanted to speak to the board in a language other than English.
With regard to Trustee Xiao’s suggestion, we cannot legally limit the amount of time for public speaking. Everyone who signs up and then shows up to speak must be allowed to speak.
We have not had our training, but the Lone Star Governance model contemplates 2-way communication as the means of gathering input from the community, not speaking at the board meetings. Board meetings are not 2-way communication opportunities; they are meant to get the business of the district done. So as the district implements LSG with integrity, the hope would be that the number of public speakers at meetings would decrease as the 2-way communication increases and more community members take advantage of that opportunity.
I agree with Trustees Bone and Harrison that it is frustrating for speakers who assume they will have 3 minutes to speak but then are given less time. I think in those instances where we are anticipating a large number of speakers, such as the boundary hearings last year, we need to make sure that if we anticipate time limits, that it’s known up front. That being said, staff does not know until a few hours before the board meeting exactly how many speakers we have. District staff can notify speakers when they receive the zoom link of the time limit if we decide to add that to our policy. Which I do still advocate for limiting the speaking time based on the number of speakers. The law is for 1 to 3 minutes per speakers. We could limit all speakers to 1 or 2 minutes to be consistent. But I think the sliding scale is the best approach; clearly stated on the sign-up and on the board meeting page, and clearly communicated to speakers as soon as we have the total number of speakers.
This item will be on the agenda for next week.
Last night evidenced a problem with this policy. Our student voices were muted because they were not given priority at the beginning of the meeting. I suggest we modify this policy to ensure students always get to speak at the beginning of the meeting, regardless of whether the item they are speaking on is scheduled for that time. We need to prioritize student voices above all else. I hope I have everyone’s support on this modification. It is such a joy to hear our student’s advocate.
At the 0:01:30 mark in last night’s (15 Apr 2021) meeting, I offered a motion to move all public speakers to the beginning of the meeting. Trustee Bone seconded it. The remaining five trustees voted “no” and forced the public speakers to wait. Had a majority of trustees agreed to my motion, no public speakers, including students, would have been made to wait. This is not complicated.
I even cited my experience from almost 3 years ago (before I was a trustee) when I showed up to my first RRISD board meeting as a constituent and was made to wait until midnight on 21 Jun 2018 to be heard. I said “It was wrong then and it’s wrong now to make the public wait.” Sadly, due to technical difficulties, there is no audio of that portion of the recording of last night’s meeting so the public didn’t hear it. This underscores the need for our meetings to be held in person but that is a topic for a different thread.
The problem with public speakers (including minor children) not being heard until 10 pm in the 15 Apr 2021 board meeting does not lie in our policy. The problem lies in the board’s vote to reject my motion to move them to the beginning of the meeting.
For those who are interested, I recapped my motion to move all speakers to the beginning of the meeting, who seconded, who voted for and against at the 4:09:45 mark in the meeting recording.
It’s going to be problematic to segregate or prioritize speakers based on age or anything else. I will always advocate and vote for public speakers to be able to deliver their comments at the beginning of board meetings. I believed that before I got elected, now that I am in this seat, and will believe it when I am no longer in office.
Making speakers wait last night was ill advised and tone deaf and that’s why I offered an opportunity to avoid it. That opportunity was rejected by the board.
- The forum ‘Round Rock ISD Trustees Message Board’ is closed to new topics and replies.