|
PRISON EXPANSION THREATENS OUR QUALITY OF LIFE! BEWARE OF PHONE-Y CALLS! WHEN YOUR HUT'S ON FIRE! URGENT NEWS FOR ALL CITIZENS! THE MAYOR'S PERSONAL AGENDA! BUYING THE PRESIDENCY! HILLARY'S DONATIONS SUSPECT! THE CAB RIDE! TONIGHT'S THE BIG NIGHT, PEOPLE! IT'S YOUR CITY - AND YOUR MONEY! August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
CITY COUNCIL PODIUM IMPEDIMENT!
At yesterday's (July 16, 2008) City Council meeting I publicly requested, for the THIRD time that the speaker's podium be removed from the middle of the room and placed to one side. In it's present position, the people in the audience cannot see half of the seated Council members, but more importantly can only view THE BACK of the speaker. Given the poor acoustics and visibility, we are at a loss to either hear or see the speaker and have no idea what they are saying. As I stated, we cannot see or hear the speaker and cannot even view his/her body language and even if we are adept at lip reading, we are precluded from doing that. I then positioned myself at the side of the room as a speaker and was able to see everyone else in the entire room as they were also able to see me. I realize, the current position of the podium has probably been there for the last 50 years and the Council members are, as usual, reluctant to change and move forward, even for the betterment of the citizens. Additionally, the City is evaluating the probability of making a video of the proceedings and considering purchasing TWO video cameras. One to view the straight ahead position of the seated Council members and the other in the opposite direction to view the speaker and audience. Moving that podium and poor microphone to the SIDE of the room would open it up so that only ONE camera would be required as it could be set up near the door with a wide angle and telephoto lens. That would cut the cost in half! However, I asked the Council, since they cannot decide on this important issue, if they wanted to hire an outside consultancy firm for a fee of $100,000.00 only to have them come back in a few weeks with a report that...YES, that would be a good thing to do for the citizens in attendance at the meetings. Conversely, I asked if they wanted to instead turn it over to lawyers for a study and legal opinion. As a fellow lawyer, I informed them that, as a general rule, there are two kinds of lawyers. BAD lawyers, and GOOD lawyers. The Bad lawyers can take an issue and string it out for a long time, thus increasing their fees. On the other hand, a Good lawyer, I mean a really, really Good Lawyer, can string it out even further!! This is not brain surgery and I realize it is not a major issue with most people. But, it does represent a small improvement in our communications with City officials. If any reader here agrees with me, would you please let this be known to them? Thanks, Jim Richards 3 comments from 3 users
1
posted by
ruralvoice
on Jul 17, 2007 at 03:17 PM
Jim, you have implied that the purpose of the speaker is somehow to "also" address the audience. This is simply untrue. The purpose of the podium and the speaker is to address the Council. This is not a public forum for speakers to address the audience. The audience is simply observing a public meeting (it is not a meeting of the public, it is a meeting of the Council). In other words, the public can hold any meeting it wants and speakers can address the crowd. The public forum part of the council meeting is to address the council (not the public); however, the public certainly observes the proceedings. So, if the purpose of moving the podium is so that the person is better able to address the public too, I would say that is a somewhat weak reason. That said, if the podium is blocking the view of the council or its actions so they are not publicly observable that is another matter and should be addressed. I am offering this opinion because many times folks speaking at governmental meetings have subtle motives of wanting to address the crowd (grandstanding so to speak)--of course, their purpose is addressing the governmental body. I offer these observations with the best of intentions.
posted by
jimr
on Jul 17, 2007 at 03:38 PM
Many thanks for weighing in on this topic, rural. I appreciate your comments. However, under the Brown Act, this is a PUBLIC MEETING and should be heard and seen and, hopefully, understood, by all in attendance. The fact that you even bothered to log in and make a comment marks you as someone who is very much needed at these meetings and I hope you will likewise voice your own issues and concerns so we can all evaluate and address them. I also hope you will join me in URGING other citizens to attend these meetings. Please remember one thing: WE are The Electorate! These meetings are NOT for the City Council and their own private agenda's but for their report(s) to the public! Thanks again, Jim Richards posted by
countygirl
on Jul 17, 2007 at 04:14 PM
Since they seem to like to throw our money around for just about everything why not buy better, LOUDER, microphones and speakers while they are buying their video cameras. They can actually buy some of this with the money they would save buy only buying ONE camera. Why do we need two? More for your money, and ALL areas of concern are covered. Is this really that difficult? Come on!! You don't need to see a persons face to pick up on their body language. Listening to their voice and what is coming out of their mouth will give you a very clear image of what that person is feeling at that time. Even more so than their body language IMO.
1
|
