Late additions to the Wake County school board's newly adopted public participation policy that could prevent some people from speaking at meetings drew boos from the crowd on Tuesday.
The board added on second reading a new section saying that "the Board may provide for the designation of spokesmen for groups or persons supporting or opposing the same positions."
Another new section says that "the Board may provide for the selection of delegates from groups of persons supporting or opposing the same positions when the number of persons wishing to attend the hearing exceeds the capacity of the meeting room."
Neither section had been in the first reading of the policy that had been adopted May 4. School board attorney Ann Majestic said those sections were added to take into account this state statute on public comment at school board meetings.
The policy was passed unanimously.
At many of the meetings since December, the number of speakers has exceeded the 30-minute window set aside for public comment. What school board chairman Ron Margiotta has typically done is extend the time before stopping and telling the remaining speakers they can talk at the end of the meeting.
For instance, Margiotta had the public comment run for an hour on Tuesday. The remaining 15 speakers were held to the end of the meeting, by which time most had left.
With critics of the new board majority accounting for most of the speakers at meetings, it's likely that the invoking of these new sections would lead to a negative reaction.
Cilck here to view the adopted policy.
Comments
Different perspective
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 18:20 — duvalAS a parent in the system for many years I have attended many CEM meetings where our schools were fighting for something. We, each parent from the same school, all had the same goal in mind, yet presented different sides of the argument.
After many years we all realized that it was very important to come to the BOE with facts, not merely emotion, as they are making decisions that will effect 140,000 plus students.
As each assignment decision is made a domino effect occurs throughout the system.
3 minutes, now chopped down to 2 minutes, was not nearly enough time to present all of the facts in a given school situation. Much less a situation that involves all of the wcpss community!!
This is not only a preposterous proposal, it is a slam against free speech and the right of all citizens to voice their opinion to our ELECTED leaders.
Asking a speaker to distill
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 21:35 — red_balloonAsking a speaker to distill facts, 'facts', emotions, rants, abuses, etc. to a two minute presentation is not a draconian measure. There are too many people like Barber who think their wisdom and insights merit monopolization of a public official's time.
Slippery slope....
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 07:13 — bpuli9999This Board has been particularly partisan in what it wants to hear and over the past few months they have tried (and succeeded) in preventing public participation.
I think Mr. Margiotta has been more than fair with
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 14:24 — Athey01hearing public comments... its very admirable. However, I don't think it will change his mind, one iota. He has made up his mind, as to what he thinks is correct... which is his right. He is hearing, but not listening.
WHat a bunch of hooey
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 09:10 — Bob_SconceDo you really believe what you typed?
This board has bent over backwards to allow anybody who wants to speak to do so. It has extended the 30-minute mid-meeting public comment period and allowed comments to drag on late into the evening. The board members receive hundreds, if not thousands of emails, and senders generally receive responses when they do email (which, for folks receiving emails at that rate, is quite a feat).
Further, this board ran a series of community engagement meetings earlier this year for the sole purpose of listening to community members.
State law only requires them to have a 30-minute comment period once a month. This board has gone well beyond that, and prior board practice.
The only complaint that board opponents have managed to raise -- that the board should be holding its meetings in auditoriums -- was shot down in court. Along the way, we discovered that doing so is neither practical nor legal, and would have actually diminished the ability for the public to know what's going on because the equipment isn't in place to stream meetings from school auditoria.
it is weird...
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 09:04 — red_balloon...to read your claim that public participation was prevented. Last I read, Brannon, despite all her pleadings, couldn't fill the room, leave alone have crowds spill into the hallways and lay claim to another round of imaginary and distracting grouses.
Once Enloe classes are out
Fri, 05/21/2010 - 09:16 — CaryCurmudgeonOnce Enloe classes are out she might be able to bring in bigger crowds.
What a surprise they are
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 18:19 — mom2teensWhat a surprise they are trying to further suppress free speech. Can you imagine the reaction if the old board had refused to listen to each and every coordinated parent group at Community Engagement Meetings??? So much for the 'listening to parents' board...more like the "if you agree with us we'll repay you (with unfunded projects); if not, too bad."
This board continues to be an embarrassment.
ahem
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 18:26 — CaryCurmudgeonThe board voted unanimously for this policy ammendment. FWIW, I don't know how the school board would designate spokespersons and I think this is a can of worms best left unopened. They passed this to be in synch with state law. It doesn't mean anything unless they decide to start appointing spokespersons. Given this board has bent over backwards to allow public comment I'd be very surprised (and disappointed) if they chose to change that practice. Note that the statute only requires 30 minutes of public comment, once a month.
Why a "negative reaction"?
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 10:22 — dubiousAs written, the additions to the policy (and the statute) are not at all unreasonable. Note that these limit the participation of GROUPS. If 20 people show up wearing purple shirts and waiving similar signs, it is not unreasonable for the Chair to designate one individual as the spokesman for that group and limit them to one speaker. Now, if Chairman Ron starts asserting that INDIVIDUALS who are expressing similar concerns and opinions somehow constitute a GROUP and then proceeds to cut these speakers off, break out the pitchforks.
It says "groups of persons"
Thu, 05/20/2010 - 10:28 — KeungHui (author)It says "groups of persons" not just groups. That's a distinction that could have been used to apply to the various people who spoke out against the changes in the assignment policy even if they weren't all officially wearing a group t-shirt.