A mockery of the public trust

Do you ever wonder if elected or appointed city officials care much at all about residents? I don’t mean only what they say, but also what they do and how they do it. Do you think they are concerned about your wishes on how your city is run, about your desire to understand the decisions being made and how those decisions directly affect your life? Well, some do care, and their efforts should be remembered the next time they run for office or the next time their re-appointment to a board comes up. Forthrightly and professionally conducting the business of the city, they prove themselves worthy of the public trust. But what about the others?

One part of government accountability is directly displayed in the way public meetings are conducted and, specific to this column, the ability, or lack thereof, of the public attending those meetings to be able to actually hear the proceedings. For those of you who do not normally attend meetings, what you are about to read may seem trite. But for some of those who do, you will easily relate.

Public meetings are, in fact, public, for a reason. They are public so that citizens can witness the way elected or appointed citizens (that’s right, they were citizens before they got elected or appointed) conduct the affairs of the city. Inherent to a public meeting is the capability of the public to be able to actually hear what is being said, to hear the business, their business, that is being conducted. After all, who funds city government? You do, of course! And while some citizens might not care what is being said or done, others do care.

I routinely cover four city councils and planning boards. As for the ability of the public to hear what is being said and decided and voted on, Fayetteville does pretty good. Significant concerns expressed about a year ago quickly led to the city discovering that the PA system previously purchased was not sufficient. So the city secured a better system that would provide for citizens to hear the proceedings. It worked. Only occasionally do some on either board forget to place the microphone close enough to their mouth to be heard.

As for Fairburn, the audible level from their elevated seating area functions quite well. The only concern with citizens being unable to hear the proceedings comes at the twice-monthly city council work sessions where the council sits at a table out front. The city says it is currently working on placing a microphone on the table or devising some other method so that citizens near the back of the room can hear what is being said.

Things nearly always come through loud and clear in Palmetto. It’s a small council room that works well. My issue is with the way the Planning Commission responded to those attending the annexation meeting last week. Conscientiously, commissioners moved the overflow meeting to the community center to accommodate the 120 who showed up. That was the professional thing to do. The room had no PA system, which I suppose, on short notice is understandable. The problem came in when numerous people asked on multiple occasions if commissioners could speak up so they could be heard as they considered the annexation of hundreds of acres of land. Commissioners were also asked to stand when speaking so their voice could be projected more effectively to the group of mostly non-residents. The board did, for the first time or two. Then they apparently “forgot,” again leaving many residents again unable to hear. And they often forgot to speak up during much of the meeting. Regardless the meeting topic, residents took their time to come to the meeting to “hear” the board’s discussion and recommendations. The way they were treated on that important occasion was a blatant insult.

Union City’s council chamber usually accommodates the listener. There are occasions where the audience cannot hear, and those occasions are usually remedied on the spot. But the planning board’s annexation meeting earlier this week was disastrous on two counts. Aside from repeated requests from the public that they could not hear, the acting commission chair subsequently used her “authority” and her gavel to bang out instructions to pesky residents that they should refrain from speaking unless speaking from the podium. It was a pitiful display of exerting the guise of power over a group of people not accustomed to attending the meetings, a group that she apparently believed would jump when she gave the order. It was a sickening display and a mockery of the public process.

Residents should speak up, not give up. Elected and appointed “officials” have far less functional power than what most people believe. And they are usually more afraid of you than you are of them! If you can’t hear, tell them, diplomatically but insistently. What are they going to do, try to have you arrested and look like fools? If elected or appointed “officials” cannot ensure the public’s ability to hear the proceedings, then those meetings become a mockery of the public trust.