Re: “a citizens filibuster”, to what end? Doesn’t seem likely at all.

Re: Ruth’s “feast or famine”, I learned somewhere along the way that public speakers can be asked to ‘consolidate’ comments by having everyone stand who is in agreement with a speaker so that each one can be counted and recognized without repeating essentially the same sentiment and extending the session unnecessarily. I successfully (I think) did this at the joint commission public hearing on Argo Pond years back. On the famine side, I suppose there are ways to request, encourage, or facilitate public input if it’s really desired, possibly through some other means.

In fact, that is what the Ann Arbor school board does (although I think there is a maximum length of time that someone can speak if there are not many speakers). Having watched this in action when there is a contentious issue at hand (typically, the budget)–I’m not sure this is the best solution either. With school board public commentary it seems it is often feast or famine: sometimes there are 50 people who want to speak, and other times there is 0, 1, or 2 people who want to address the board.

For what it is worth, I arrived late to Council – and the public comment had begun. I did not realize until later that the first speaker waived her speaking time, so did not raise a point of order.

I would like to think I would do object and ensure that each of the 10 speaking spots was used, but admit to being surprised that public comment was moving along so swiftly, and did not question. When Council member Lumm raised the issue, I understood that I’d missed something.

I regret my tardiness.

Commission rules have changed through the years of my tenure. There are now only two opportunities to speak at regular commission meetings, the time is limited to 3 minutes and supposedly the comments must reflect the agenda. The latter has been interpreted loosely and decisions tended to be on the side of the speaker.

There has never been a limit on the number of persons who may speak during public comment time or at a public hearing. I believe that this is as it should be. Citizens should have the right to speak before local officials and as a local official, I had an obligation to listen.

It got long. It got boring. It got amusing. Years ago, a union of Washtenaw County employees threw peanuts at the commissioners to symbolize their opinion of benefits proffered during union negotiations. No commissioner was hurt during the pelting, and at least we were nourished during the rest of the many presentations.

If you have time to be an elected public servant, you should have time to listen. I have always valued public comment time as a time we all honor our rights to express our ideas in a public manner.

Boy!!! Am I going to miss the Chronicle!!! Again, many thanks for your years of great journalism.

I don’t think that’s right to do that, but it sounds possible.

I don’t like how the mayor responded to this. Someone could easily make the shortest speech ever at city council and still make a point. How?

Put your name down on the public commentary and give the topic of ‘Loophole’. Then, when your name is called, even if the Mayor asks you a question… do not answer him! Although some could view this as rude, you would be only following the rules. Then, stand up and walk out to vacate yourself into the bathroom or out to the art outside (don’t go bathroom in the artwork). Wait a few minutes, brush your hair, and then come back. As such, you would make your point about the loophole and it would be the shortest speech ever.

I supported Sabra Briere for mayor, but am disappointed that she didn’t raise this point. She usually is pretty good about process.