Monthly Milestone: To Address a Meeting
Editor’s note: The monthly milestone column, which appears on the second day of each month – the anniversary of The Ann Arbor Chronicle’s launch – is an opportunity for either the publisher or the editor of The Chronicle to touch base with readers on topics related to this publication. It’s also a time that we highlight, with gratitude, our local advertisers, and ask readers to consider making a voluntary subscription to support our work.
For regular attendees of Ann Arbor city council meetings, this piece of art is easily recognizable as a "photo-illustration" – there's no "submit comment" button for the public commentary slot on the paper agenda.
I’m fond of using the milestone column as an occasion to highlight some of the work our readers do when they write comments about material we publish.
So I’d like to begin this month’s column with a request: Stop reading the words on this page and fetch yourself a stopwatch.
Now go read some different words – all 972 of them – assembled into a coherent comment by a reader, Richard Murphy, about a recent Chronicle column: Murph’s comment on the purpose of downtown development authorities.
How long did that take you?
Now, go back and read that comment again, but read it aloud this time. Read it the way you would if you had unlimited time to make a maximum impact on a live audience – an audience composed of, say, members of a public body like the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority.
How long did that take?
Now suppose you had to adhere to the Ann Arbor DDA’s four-minute public commentary speaking format. Could you cram Murph’s 972 words into four minutes? Go on, give it a try. How did you do?
Most of you won’t know how you did – because you didn’t play my stupid little game. Some Chronicle readers will simply hope that the few and the proud who actually timed themselves will report back on their reading rates in the comments below.
Other readers will simply trust me when I claim that cramming Murph’s 972 words into four minutes of spoken English is a real challenge. And even if you succeed in converting that text to speech in under four minutes, it might well be incomprehensible to listeners.
I’d like to convince you that Murph’s text is perfectly suited to its native habitat – which is a comment thread in The Ann Arbor Chronicle. As a spoken comment addressing a live audience, however, it would likely not survive in a different, more brutal environment – a public servant’s memory of a public meeting.
Chronicle Commentary
What we ask of commenters is summed up in The Chronicle’s commenting policy this way:
Be Generous. Be generous with your information and good humor. Be generous with your time and effort. Be generous with your respect.
How does Murph’s comment stack up against that policy? He leads off generously with good humor:
As scintillating as the back-and-forth between Fred and ABC is about which set of population estimates to use for the city, I’d like to return to the topic at hand …
Now, for Fred and ABC to understand that as good humor, as opposed to bitter sarcasm, Fred and ABC need to be somewhat generous in their assessment of Murph’s intentions. But even for a reader not generously inclined to see the opening remarks as playful, I think they’re steered towards that understanding by the quality of the comment itself. This guy Murph is obviously not interested in a potshot scolding of a thread he thinks has gone off into the weeds. Instead, Murph’s commentary teems with information, like a primordial soup of perspective on where downtown development authorities came from in the first place. That’s the part that begins, “To handwave the history a bit …” So Murph was generous with his information.
Was Murph also generous with his time and effort? Yes, I think obviously so. The comment is organized into 10 main paragraphs, each of which is composed of actual sentences, complete with punctuation and correct spelling. The first paragraph alerts the reader to his basic orientation to the topic – he thinks that subsidizing the city of Ann Arbor’s general fund through the parking system is wrong. The following paragraphs, which explain that basic position, cohere in a way that suggests he did not just sit down and type out the first words that popped into his head, and then hit the “submit comment” button.
How about respect? Murph demonstrates respect in at least a couple of ways. First, he shows respect for context and history. The current parking contract negotiations exist in the historical context of why downtown development authorities exist in the first place. He sketches that out for readers in a way that is not condescending or patronizing. In doing that, he also demonstrates respect for public servants who must make their current policy choices in that general historical environment – an environment with state-level issues that put local officials in a situation where they see no choice but to try to game the system. In choosing metaphors, he’s also respectful, keeping things well above the belt: “… it’s irresponsible for the City to stand on their neighbors’ shoulders to keep their own heads above water.”
Comments like Murph’s are not rare in Chronicle threads. His was simply the most recent one I noticed when I perused the comments looking for a parade example to use for this column. Chronicle commenters churn out comments of similar quality on a regular basis. Granted, not all of them are 972 words long. Some are even longer.
But some are shorter. And the value of some of the shorter comments lies in what they ask more than what they say. For example, in a comment on a recent city council meeting report, LiberalNIMBY inquired about the delay in city council approval of the area, height and placement zoning code revisions: “Any specifics as to why council postponed the Area, Height, Placement revisions… again? Plans to invest in the community now are being put off while council dithers.” A later commenter disputed whether any investment opportunities are being currently delayed. But the question LiberalNIMBY asked – Why the delay? – is a fair one, and had an actual answer.
Public Meeting Commentary
What makes for a great online comment, however, does not necessarily make for great commentary at public meetings. It’s worth noting that Ann Arbor’s public meetings include an opportunity for public commentary not necessarily because public officials in Ann Arbor are particularly interested in public participation at their meetings, but rather because it’s the law. Michigan’s Open Meetings Act states that “A person shall be permitted to address a meeting of a public body under rules established and recorded by the public body.”
Who am I to judge the quality of public commentary and the use that public servants make of it? I’ll throw down some credentials. The Chronicle has published 368 reports of public meetings since its founding in September 2008. That means I’ve personally sat through and written, or edited, reports on 368 public meetings – all of which include summaries of public commentary. So when I contend that this legally mandated opportunity could be used more productively than it typically is, that’s 368 meetings worth of experience talking.
There’s a bit of blame to go around. Yes, it’s true, sometimes members of public bodies don’t give the outward appearance that they’re actually listening to what a public speaker is saying. Sometimes that’s because they aren’t actually listening. But during the public comment period, it’s a fair question to ask: How listenable is the commentary?
What makes a public comment listenable? That’s hard to nail down, of course. It’ll certainly vary from body to body and from one member of a body to the next. But it’s a safe bet that Murph’s 972 words crammed into four minutes would not be listenable.
The best advice I’ve ever heard on effective public commentary came from Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board member David Nacht, back when he chaired that body. The advice came in the form of a question that Nacht asked frequent commenter Thomas Partridge as Partridge was holding forth. What Nacht wanted to know from Partridge was this: Are you telling us this to make us aware of something, or are you telling us this so that we will do something?
I think it’s a great question for anyone to contemplate who’s planning to address a public body:
What’s your goal – to make public servants aware of something or to ask them to do something?
If the goal is to make a public body aware of something, then it’s worth asking: Is a speech filling the entire allowable time period the best way to do that? One alternative strategy would be to write out all the information that you’d like to include and send that to the public body – there’s no limitation on length. That communication can be attached to the public body’s meeting agenda and included in the official public record that way.
For example, on the subject of the Huron Hill’s golf course request for proposals, attorney Susan Morrison sent the Ann Arbor city council a letter in advance of the council’s Nov. 15 meeting, with the final paragraph: “Please include this letter as part of the record of proceedings before City Council at its November 15, 2010 meeting.” And the letter was a part of the city clerk’s report of communications for the Nov. 15 meeting.
It’s worth noting that Morrison did not invoke any special attorney superpowers to achieve attachment of her communication to the council’s official set of meeting materials. Any mortal can do that. So when Morrison addressed the council in person at the Nov. 15 meeting, she was not under the same kind of time pressure she would have been otherwise. Although she filled most of the allowable three minutes, hitting the main highlights of her letter, she would have also been free to just say: “Hello, I’m Susan Morrison, I’ve sent you a letter on behalf of the Ann Arbor Parks Preservation Association about the Huron Hills golf RFP and it’s attached to the meeting packet – we’re asking that you reject the Miles of Golf proposal.” Done.
So, on an individual level, I think the quality of a turn at public commentary should not be measured by whether it exhausts the allowable time. I think a better standard is this: Thinking about the public’s time that is claimed by a public commenter, is it used effectively for the public’s benefit?
Even though I think Murph’s comment would be useful for DDA board members to digest, I don’t think it would be an effective use of the public’s time or the board’s time for Murph to try to read aloud his comment in under four minutes – and I’m happy to report that he did not try it at yesterday’s meeting. But I’ve emailed the DDA the link.
About the writer: Dave Askins is editor and co-founder of The Ann Arbor Chronicle.
Excellent points, and something I will consider should I take advantage of a public comment time in the future. I can only pray, for the sake of our local policymakers, that the notorious Mr. Partridge (and his many fellow travelers) would consider applying Mr. Nacht’s advice to his regularly scheduled remarks at every public meeting held in Washtenaw County.
David,
Good column. I’ve watched many people actually lose support during public comment because 15 people stood up and said the same thing, rather than – as refreshingly happens upon occasion, someone gave a statement and asked the 14 people behind him who agreed to stand and be counted.
Ah…those were the days. Getting off the backbench and stepping up to the microphone was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done; however, it was one of the most beneficial. I recommend that everyone make it a habit.
By the way, I didn’t think anyone without a direct financial interest spoke at DDA meetings now.
There definitely is a big difference between what kind of comment works in which venue – and these points for improving both public and written comment are well taken. I especially like the appeal to “Be Generous”. True generosity of spirit (and spirited commentary) is so refreshing in public settings!
Sorry Davy lad, but this will be off-the-cuff, and may well have errors of spelling, grammar, typing, usage, metaphor, style, articulation, observation, and reasoning. It also may not be well-organized.
Public Commentary before public bodies is not for the benefit of the public body: it’s for the benefit of the public. Only a person with little experience of our public bodies imagines that official’s minds are open when the public speaks. Rather, Public Commentary is the closest thing Ann Arbor has to a Speaker’s Corner. The real audience includes other attendees, reporters, Chron readers, and Community Access Television viewers. I think, too, though, one of the most important audiences are the speakers themselves. That is, many people simply need a public place to vent their frustration with officials, decisions, processes, or The Universe. They need to have their day in “court”, so to speak. They have, I suspect, little to no illusion that any pubic official, will change his or her mind, on any topic, due to any three-minute (or less!) speech, no matter how eloquent, passionate, or forcefully reasoned it may be. Rather, these nominal petitions-for-the-redress-of-grievances are, in the end, more statements about the speaker’s passion, their sense of membership in the polity, their need to get something off their chests, than serious attempts to sway, say, Steve Taylor’s thinking on the library lot convention center. In any case, public commentary is not for the benefit of elected officials.
The cynical among us will agree with your observation that public officials seem not to want comments from the public, let alone Public Commentary; the less cynical will agree with your suggestion that citizen’s opinions are worth more when presented via other methods. Public comment, in the end, exists because people want to have their say, period. It isn’t intended to be effective. If folks really wanted to speak effectively to local elected officials, they would save their eloquence for the first Tuesday in November.
The tedium of attending a solid year of public body meetings would destroy a lesser man. Surviving the tedium of actually listening to that year of public body meetings is nothing short of astounding heroism. Surviving the tedium of digesting, then summarizing, a year’s worth of public body meetings is a Herculean, nay, a Sisyphusian, labor. Demi-god strength meets eternal damnation. I admire your stamina, your heart, your indomitable will to endure. But public commentary doesn’t exist to save anyone from Death-by-Tedium – not even you.
Democracy is such a damned nuisance.
I don’t agree, Jack. I used to sit on the other side of that bench and I found that public comment could be informative, even if it were itself ill-informed. It is the way elected officials can take the temperature of the populace. Sometimes it even brings new information.
I hope that members of the public will continue to assemble with pointed, cogent, and effective comments on the business at hand. I think that such commentary can change the course of council’s actions, if not reverse it.
Of course, as you indicate, it is the right of individuals to waste everyone’s time if they wish with continual poorly focused statements. Since council has a limited number of speaking spots, I consider that self-indulgent, but can’t think of a way to limit it.
I appreciate the effort the Chronicle makes to “chronicle” comments from the public as well as the rest of the business at these meetings.
Ms Armentrout,
You are in good company, I am often confused with my son. I do wonder if that is due to my youthful vitality, or to his maturity.
“Even the dull and ignorant, they, too have their story”, from Max Ehrmann’s 1927 poem “Desiderata”, strikes me as applying to council no less than to any other forum. I can see being annoyed with someone who is fully capable of composing a sharply-focused, articulate, less-than-or equal-to-three-minute speech, who chooses to ramble or be inarticulate. It strikes me as harder to condemn someone for the crime of being themselves in front of elected officials, even when others might find “who they are” to be inadequate. Petitioning government for the redress of grievances (even when you know they are not paying attention) is among the defining elements of American civilization. Should there be elected officials who find the public less entertaining than a “Finnius and Ferb” cartoon, such officials might wish to consider whether or not they would be happier at other hobbies. It strikes me that citizens should tolerate their fellows, just as we hope that our fellows tolerate us.
I wish I shared your optimism about the efficacy of Public Comment time. The only time I have seen Public Comment be effective was the night of the vote on the Elks Lodge rezoning. At the time, it seemed that the sheer number of citizens was what got their attention (Joan Lowenstien referred to them as “A hoard”, as I recall, and I remember that the expressions on the faces of the Council to appeared to express fear for their physical safety), not the passion or substance of anything that anyone actually said. I, myself, cannot recall any other time when it appeared that anyone on Council was affected by anything said by the public.
Why am I not surprised to learn that you might have been a more open and consciencious office holder than many elected officials, past and present?
- JOHN Floyd
Oh dear. I hope that I was open and conscientious. But I’m really perhaps overly generous and optimistic in believing that most public officials do at least take in the overall tenor of public comment, and even receive some of its substance.
I won’t, frankly, include Ms. Lowenstein in that, who has been openly scornful and dismissive (or contemptuous) of the public on so many occasions that it is impossible any more to give her the benefit of the doubt. (The most recent quote that I recall is that we were “sulky”.)
Let’s differentiate between public officials “listening” and their “doing what you want them to do”. They have been elected to use their minds, their experience, and their understanding of the issues to make a judicious decision, not to take an instant poll and vote according to a majority opinion of those speaking at a particular moment.
I’m obviously a skeptical and questioning person and I understand the frustration and desperation of those who do not agree with certain actions. Still, we must have faith in our institutions and those who have committed to serve them.
Meanwhile, we must continue to advocate for the course that we consider essential for the vision of our city, our state, and our country that each of us considers to be best. And to work for candidates who support our views.
I apologize for the stuffiness and triteness of what I just said. But what else is there?
Just a few points, friend.
1 – What John Floyd said.
2 – Murph’s comment would not lend itself readily to public speaking. His writing is pithy and requires time and concentration to comprehend. Few people can take in information through their ears easily, and if the information is complex or dense, not at all.
3 – I’m not sure what the point of your essay is. You move between public commentary and on-line commentary. Are you setting criteria for what makes a good comment here on Chronicle? Are you pointing out the (already obvious) difference between written and spoken commentary? Are you seeking the purpose of public commentary? Other?
4 – Garrison would correctly tag me as a member of P.O.E.M. Plus you’re being hit by two Oberlin grads at once. I hope you know that critiques by us are not attacks, but applause and suggestions for tweaking.
Oh, dear, Vivienne. We must have faith in those who have committed to serve our institutions? Didn’t we give that up somewhere in the mid-Sixties? Perhaps we can simply define “committed to serve.” The current public servants of this city seem committed to doing what they want, regardless of the public. We’ve come a long way from the days when most City Council members were like Mike Anglin: willing to listen and reconsider. It used to be possible to seek to effect change as private citizens without being attacked, ignored, or spurned.
You are, indeed, overly generous. I believe you assume good will based on your own abundance of the same. I have not seen it in the majority of our public servants for nearly a decade.
Recently the County Commission changed their public commentary rules, and I listened to 2 commissioners debate the change. One commissioner, in favor of the change, explained that while s/he fully supported public engagement in public processes, s/he felt that “public comment” was among the worst ways to accomplish it.
The point was that public comment is often late in the process and is serial monologue rather than dialog. This commissioner was interested in other, better ways to engage the community in meaningful discussion.
I’m still not sure what those are, and I think there is a role for mobilizing public turnout on issues. I suspect such mobilizations affected the decision not to re-consider the Heritage Row proposal and on the Argo Dam discussions. But, as this commissioner indicated, public comment just before a vote is not the place to make nuanced points to fine-tune a policy. Not only does the format not allow back-and-forth, also by the time public commentary comes around, usually it’s too late for that.
There are three types of public comment opportunities. One is to address the body on items on the current agenda. Another is to raise a question that is not currently under consideration by the body. (This can be very informative or a total waste of time; I recall hearing Roger Rayle first inform the BOC of the Pall-Gelman dioxane issue in one of these – an example of really new useful information.)
A third is at a scheduled public hearing on a specific action. The point of a public hearing is to make sure that a full public participation has been part of the process. Some years ago the BOC changed the schedule so that public hearings were at the Ways and Means meeting (effectively the first reading). In this way the public could be heard prior to the final consideration of an item. I hope that this is still the case.
I agree that timing needs to be considered with respect to decisions. I’m still trying to decide whether Council’s scheduling of a public hearing on the second reading is the best. It does, for example, allow public comment on CM Higgin’s substantial amendments to the Area, Height and Placement changes.
One problem is that public hearings or forums are often scheduled as a check-off in a procedure without any considered way to incorporate points brought up by the public. But if the timing is adjusted properly, a public record is made of those comments that can be entered into the deliberation. That public record is an important part of the process.
If you (#11) are quoting Commissioner Smith’s comments with regard to engaging the public, I don’t believe that he ever proposed a meaningful substitute.