The City Council meeting held this past Tuesday, October 9, 2007, was another example of poor communication and failure to provide the citizen’s of Bristol with adequate and necessary information on important issues facing our city.
On Thursday, September 27, 2007, I attended a special meeting of the City Council at which recommendations from the West End School Building Committee and Forestville School Building Committee were to be presented to authorize each respective committee to begin the process necessary for the building of two new 900-student, K-8 schools.
Since no one from either site committee was available at the special meeting, and the councilors were not provided with any specific information related to the decision of why the one site was chosen over another, a motion was made to table the decision for a future regularly-scheduled meeting of the City Council.
At Tuesday’s City Council meeting I was surprised to see that the school site selection committee was not listed on the agenda. Upon taking my seat I noticed a large number of Bristol Public School administration staff was present, as well as members of the Board of Education, and site-selection committee members. After a brief ceremonial presentation to McCabe-Waters baseball champions, a motion was made to move Item 6, Unfinished Business, to the top of the agenda.
A two hour and fifteen minute presentation and discussion of the site selections was made by the BOE and school administration staff. There was no opportunity for the public to provide general public input before the site selections were voted on. The public was only allowed to comment on the motion to accept in the case of the Forestville site or reject in the case of the Scalia site. No discussion was allowed regarding building structure, size, or suitability to the community as a whole. Many people in attendance, including myself, were frustrated as to how events unfolded and the appearance that it was purposely designed to limit the ability of the public to freely voice their feelings and have their concerns addressed in a meaningful and receptive manner.
It was obvious that the BOE, superintendent and other school administrative staff had a prepared presentation for the City Council. The fact that the mayor and City Council, with the exception of Councilman Nicastro, continued to push forward and approve the Forestville site without first presenting all available information, including important phase 1 and 2 environmental studies conducted on the Crowley property, and answering questions from the public first is very troubling.
A central message of my campaign is improved communication. The majority of the people in over 800 households I have visited are not comfortable with the size or grade structure of the new schools. They want more information before supporting the project. Our city’s website lists agenda as a category for City Council meetings. Not one agenda from City Council meetings has been listed this year. Given the family, job, and other competing responsibilities that Bristol residents face on a daily basis, it is inconceivable that most people would find time in their busy lives to attend a meeting with no prior knowledge of what is to be discussed.
Bristol, a city of 60,000, must do better. Our city’s leaders must substantially improve how they communicate by actively reaching out, marketing, and inviting the public back into the process of government.
*******
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
25 comments:
"We had to listen to Tom O'Brien talk for an hour, and he's boring," said resident Maureen Carter, one of the people quite angry at having her turn to speak pushed so late into the evening.
It is obvious that Merrick does not understand the difference between a Council meeting and Town meeting, doesn't understand parliamentary procedure.
And he wants to represent us???
"At Tuesday’s City Council meeting I was surprised to see that the school site selection committee was not listed on the agenda."
The council was probably surprised too. Why don't you put the blame for that where it belongs: on the Republican mayor who is responsible for the agenda? Could it be because you don't want to add fuel to the fire of how dysfunctional the Republican Party in Bristol is?
"There was no opportunity for the public to provide general public input before the site selections were voted on."
Then how do you explain the fact that not one person who did speak about the Forestville site had any objection to it? And that everyone who spoke about the Scalia site agreed with the council that it should be shot down? Sorry to burst your bubble, but the vast majority of Bristol residents have gotten all the information they need on K-8 and understand why the BOE has recommended it.
The amount of space this blog has given to Merrick recently has made it less compelling. I know Steve is trying to be helpful by posting press releases and statements, but Merrick is abusing that courtesy with his repetitive junk.
Given the fact the BOE presentation lasted 2.5 hours,my question is this?Why wasn't it(the presentation) done at a special call meeting?That issue was a meeting in itself.After sitting through Mr. O'Briens "20 minute" presentation,those of us who chose to stay for the entire meeting didn't get to leave until 11:45 PM!The newly appointed Water Dept. Head(who was accompanied by his wife and parents) had to wait until 11:30 for his wife and parents to hear him be appointed.The representatives from the BOE and school system knew FULL WELL their business was going to take much longer than 20 minutes,and as such,just out of common courtesy, should have asked Mayor to call a Special Call Meeting for this issue!
Merrick makes a good point. People are not heard. Descension of opinion is either ridiculed or ignored. It's time to clean out the city council.
The Board of Education takes it's marching orders from the school administration (more specifically the Superintendent). It's reverse representation. The Democrats take their marching orders from the city unions.
merrick dances to a different drummer, unfortunately, it's also to a different beat.
Bob Merrick is right on target. Sure it was the Republican Mayor who set the agenda, but the five Democratic Councilmen voted to move it up on the agenda, and not one of them said "Mayor, this is not proper before us,"
While it may not be a clear violation of the FOI laws it surle does not meet the spirt of the law and it should always.
He is a much better choice the "Mr. Know it all, Lap-dog for Zoppo all these years Minor."
I'll vote for Bob just to get Minor out!
It's not the council's fault the citizens weren't heard at school board committee meetings so don't blame the council. Trying to get rid of some decent people on the council under the guise of using the BOE's lack of informing and allowing citizens to speak is unfair and unjust. As far as moving the BOE up, the mayor made the motion. Don't put the onus on the council. The move up for the BOE was on the premise that the presentation would be 20 minutes. How were they to know it would take so long? It didn't help that you had disorderly people speaking out of turn in the audience including two council candidates who obviously have no respect for following proper procedure. It's grandstanding in its highest form and don't think anyone couldn't see that. None of those candidates have appeared at these council meetings for the last two years, but all of a sudden they're here for the last three. Give me a break! If you really cared about the city you would have been involved months ago ... not all of a sudden voicing your concerns just because you know the cameras are rolling!
There's a huge difference between listening to people and not agreeing with them.
Example: The infamous "Maureen" who continually interrupted speakers, was rude, discourteous, apparently knows little about Robert's Rules of Order as to how meetings can be conducted, was certainly heard.
But, I don't agree with her. Her conduct was simply repulsive as were many others. Oh, I heard them alright, but it's my right not to agree with them.
Mr. Merrick, with all due respect, it was well known that the sites for new schools were to be discussed at the last council meeting.
At the previous Special City Council Meeting, both site recommendations submitted to the Council at that meeting were tabled for further discussion and information. It was stated at the Special Meeting that the items would be brought up for a vote at the next regularly scheduled City Council Meeting which was this past Tuesday.
It was also requested at the meeting that the BOE and the Site Selection Committee Chairpersons be on hand to answer any questions that the council had or members of the public. I recall listening to many questions, answers, statements, demagoguery and outbursts. I did not agree with all that I heard or with the final votes. But I did listen.
Simply because you and others did not know that the selection sites were to discussed, does not mean that it was foreign to others. The item was on the agenda under "Unfinished Business." I will grant you that it was not specifically listed as such, but again, if you were at the Special Meeting, one would realize that it was going to be discussed at the next regular meeting.
Maureen and that BOE candidate were out of order at the council meeting.
However, and not to make excuses if Stortz had better communication skills maybe the public would have been calmer.
If he had said we might make motions after the BOE proposal and the public would be able to speak than they would have been sitting thier stewing.
Basically, Stortz was trying to pull this off with no public input.
I'm glad to see that even the Republicans are not condoning that behavior.
"While it may not be a clear violation of the FOI laws it surle does not meet the spirt of the law and it should always."
You are so full of smoke it's coming out of your ears. How do you figure moving the BOE presentation to before public comments violated any freedom of information law? This gave the public a chance to get informed (what a concept!) before speaking. Furthermore the council held off on voting until after the public spoke...and every comment made was in support of what the council was about to do! You're an ignorant troublemaker with nothing real to find fault with, so you're making stuff up. Get a life.
These politicos and city administrators can go through all the bureacratic hoops,manipulations,deceptions, flim flams, flip flops, power games, whatever .
Bottom line....
The citizens should have the right to vote on major school construction projects just like citizens in other CT cities and towns.
Where is Bristol's "check and balance" to her self-serving bureacracy.
Which one of these men is not an authoritarian, and shall actually support reform.
The democracy you have (or not), is the government you get.
The absence of a real vote on major issues that affect the daily of life of one's family and children breeds anger and contempt.
How is the average citizen to be respectful when faced with the "arrogance of power" from those who have it?
If anything is implemented in the new council it should be that anyone who disrupts the council meetings should be warned first then removed on the second offense. Enough is enough! Talk about dysfunctional! Some of the citizens in the room were the ones who were dysfunctional!
They can hire Domenic Busto to keep disruptive citizens in line during meetings.
I don't know if anyone on the council feels you shouldn't have a referendum for big ticket items. They've already stated that. Apparently you weren't listening. Unfortunately, the charter must be changed to do that so it's too late to do it. I don't feel that the budget should be part of a referendum, though. We have the finance board to be our checks and balances and they seem to pinch pennies tightly lately so I don't think we'll have a problem in that department. In fact, when it comes to the school issue, the BOF will certainly say what stays and what goes.
If there is no upcoming charter change,
are we to conclude that the City Council CAN NOT call a special election regarding school construction proposals?
And, if they "feel" the public ought to have a say on big tick items, why don't they back up that "feeling" with concrete actions ?
Nice time to do it would be BEFORE the coming elections, wouldn't it?
( The finance board membership is hardly reflective of the soicio-economic makeup of the community )
You keep on forgetting that the BOE is a separate entity that is voted in. The city council cannot call a special election for the schools. The only way this project will not go through is if the board of finance denies any funding for it even after the state has given its lion's share and even then it's iffy at best. Every one of the candidates, I believe, including the council members, believe there should be referendums on big ticket items, but even the candidates know there's nothing that can be done as much as they would like to say they will implement referendums. Remember, the charter revision committee must approve it. This is not an issue where if the council decides they want it, it happens. Making a change in the charter is a big deal and any referendum issues will not happen overnight. You're probably looking at the election after this one before you can get a referendum in place. After all, we have to be realistic. There are many issues going on in this city including the mall. Things must be prioritized. They can start the procedure of putting in place a referendum, but it will take time like everything else.
How Many people knew that the Board of Education was presenting a plan and that a vote on purchasing property was taking place last Tuesday?
It violated the spirt of the FOI laws period.
If the worst Mayor in the history of Bristol Bill Stortz had the votes for what he wanted he could have made it an agenda item and than voted.
What was he afarid of???????????????
Speaking of communicating? What's with all the Merrick signs that have suddenly appeared on city property and vacant lots throughout the district he's looking to represent? Does he have to stoop to this. You must be getting desparate Bobby!
Bob Merrick has run a positive campaign and part of any campaign is getting your name out there. That's what signs are meant to do -- promote name recognition. There seems to be plenty of other candidates' signs out there (all over Bristol & in similar types of locations). So in your thinking are those candadates desparate as well? Let's be fair here and continue trying to focus on the issues. Signs are a part of campaigning.
As I have said before, don't rely on anonymous posters who have their own agendas (including me). Do your own research to check out the candidates and draw your own conclusions. And, most important vote on Nov. 6th for the candidate that you best feel will represent you.
As if you liberal democrats have never put signs on city of state property?
You stick signs on peoples lawns that don't want them.
What does this have to do with communicating better anyway?
Post a Comment