It just does not seem right to have a meeting labeled optional, skirt around the OMA and pressure people to attend (but of course, not all attend together.

As for Dave’s proposal, couldn’t all those things be incorporated into the monday council meeting.

Steve, it might be possible to adhere to the letter of the law with OMA by staggering attendance, etc. but that would not meet the spirit of the law, which is meant to ensure that discussions amounting to deliberation of an issue are recorded and open. It could also prove to be unworkable, since some councilmembers might wish to be present when a particular issue was discussed and it was not their “turn”.

When I was on the BOC, we instituted a caucus for a while – it was meant for Democratic commissioners but a Republican attended sometimes without incident. We posted it (with an agenda ahead of time) and kept minutes. I don’t recall any member of the public attending and it didn’t get much attention. We discussed having these meetings with a subquorum but on the advice and with the wisdom of our corporation counsel, we decided to play it above board.

Why would you feel differently about the need to keep up with it if it were mandatory, but not if it were optional (which, again, it is)?

Vivienne, my understanding of the OMA is that it doesn’t apply if a quorum isn’t present. That’s not meant to be an argument, just a clarification. I suppose the potential value of considering that might be that council could have (up to) five slots for caucus attendance, depending on what the purpose of caucus is ultimately determined to be. I wonder what council attendance has been historically over the last ten years or so.

Julie, what do you think about Dave’s proposal?

The caucus has always been optional it is not a new idea. While some of you may think mandatory is better, what does that actually accomplish? Residents have access to group discussions throughout the city and can organize their own meetings and invite the mayor/councilmembers ( yes, they do show up-at least in the 4th ward they have). What is the real intent of making this mandatory? I am results orientated person. If there is not an increase in productivity or attainment of goals, then it is most likely not necessary.

Some have wanted to make it appear that certain councilmembers are shirking their duties by not attending, while implying that other councilmembers are more dedicated. This is a political game and does not have to do with democracy. As long as councilmembers are accessible to the residents of Ann Arbor that is all that matters.

Keep in mind that city council is supposed to be a part time job. (I actually wonder how many hours they really put in) Most of these people hold a full time job and have families with children along with their city council service. If we keep mandating more and more hours from them, our city council will be comprised of all retirees. We should avoid wasting people’s time so that people who are willing to serve, can, without having too much hardship put upon them due to unnecessary meetings.

If caucus became mandatory, I don’t like the fact that I would have to follow two official meetings to keep up on issues in the city. If Monday night city council is the official mandatory meeting, I know that all relevant public discussion will be at the meeting. If you mandate the caucus, some things will be discussed there, considered by the council, and might not be brought up at the Monday night council. Sunday night caucus will then need to be televised so that all are informed.

Maybe it’s–in part–about the value of having more than two people in a discussion. Maybe for some people it’s about having time on Sunday evening but not during the week when coffees and office hours are held. I have to say “maybe” because I can’t speak for 100,000+ people. Can you?

In my limited experience it’s not about grandstanding. And, yes, the last caucus I attended with four council members (including the mayor) and about six or seven residents (including Dave) was productive. The mayor facilitates well and there’s little off-topic chit chat.

Dusty, it’s less a matter of what they do than of how they do it. Who decides and how? Is it the mayor’s caucus or the council’s caucus? If one council member wants to sit in council chambers for ten minutes to see if anyone shows up, that’s their business.

Do you two really object to the possibility of a little more democracy by willing participants? If there are no willing participants (from council), of course it would/should get cancelled. However, that’s not what’s being discussed because no evidence has been presented that that’s been the case and no one has argued against such an obvious decision.

I thought caucus was held so that there could be a more in depth and informal discussion about agenda topics. It was not supposed to be used for a meet and greet of the council members. If the agenda is light for that week then it is should be completely acceptable to cancel caucus. Councilmembers can and do to set up their own office hours or coffee hours with their constituents.

If the city ran all the city departments in such a wasteful manner, there would be uproar over the waste.

Their are many alternative ways to get in touch with your councilmember to discuss issues, so there is no true loss of contact, unless of course the residents purpose is to make statements in front of a crowd and grandstand. But you can do that at the actual council meeting.

I still ask what is wrong with doing what they do now and have caucus most of the time and skip it when it is slow?

The generalization (perhaps overlaying another assumption) is that the meeting has the potential to “wear people out”. The obvious exception is Dave. He clearly stated that he likes attending. Other possible exceptions (and particularly relevant if you were referring specifically to council members) include Briere and Anglin. Finally, those “few citizens” presumably would be attending for a reason. The meeting apparently has a value for them beyond what they could get from some phone calls or other alternatives–Greden’s inability to stretch his imagination notwithstanding. For them, the particular Sunday in question may also be a rare opportunity for a face-to-face discussion with council members.

Rather than taking a passive stance on caucus, Greden could find a way to make it productive or else proactively steer potential citizen attendees to a better “vehicle for public involvement”, whatever he believes that to be.

I think it would be reasonable for the mayor to poll the council members as Briere alluded to.

Okay, Vivienne, if your prediction wasn’t pessimistic, can we call it narrowly realistic? ;-)