There has been a degree of public undercurrent (about the way
Urban Limit Line Committee meetings have been working) which I
would like to share for your consideration and review.
EDITOR:
There has been a degree of public undercurrent (about the way Urban Limit Line Committee meetings have been working) which I would like to share for your consideration and review. I have knowledge and believe it is important to present the following:
There is one overriding principle that needs to be emphasized whenever government is involved and that principle is from the Gettysburg Address; a government which is of, by and for the people. When people begin to feel otherwise, we need to examine if this principle is being compromised inadvertently.
There are people who have noticed Urban Limit Line Advisory Committee members leave the meeting, almost immediately, when the public comment section of the meeting begins. People are understood to feel like there is a “mindset” that their points are not being heard, much less considered, or that there is a feeling of “stonewalling.”
Furthermore, the public comment section at the end of meetings dilutes the essence of speaking in a timely manner – sometimes, long after a motion has been made, passed and no further points or perspectives could be considered to matter. The feeling understood is that no matter what is said afterwards is almost moot, because the vote or action of the idea has already occurred. I believe it is appropriate to consider this while addressing the principle in the Gettysburg Address and compare if there is a deviation. Then, could it please be considered that the public comment session be incorporated into prime committee meeting time, preferably two or three periods, intermingled within the meeting which could endure for approximately four hours?
I wish to share with you my experiences with the San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency, Strong Neighborhood Initiative Organization, which Paul Tuttle can partially verify, because he was there, many times in front of a very large forum of people, almost filling to capacity a large auditorium or, at least once, the council chambers. I served on the Winchester Boulevard Business Association Executive Board, was an officer for the Winchester Boulevard Neighborhood Advisory Committee and was an officer for the Westside Property Association. At times, these meetings would fill and auditorium with the mayor, council members, the SJPD, property owners, the public and any citizen who was interested.
People, committee members or not, would wait for their turn to speak, present their perspectives and everyone would listen. Interaction was encouraged to resolve important major issues, proportional in importance to the major issues addressed by Morgan Hill Advisory Committee meetings. Proportional in importance, because it can affect people’s properties and their lives on a long-term basis.
Respectfully, why can’t property owners be allowed the same freedom of speech during Morgan Hill ULL Advisory committee meetings, when a well-placed, meaningful point could impact a motion or a vote for the betterment of all? After a vote has taken place, an opinion with potential positive impact becomes a passive narrative which can fizzle to truly not matter, as if it wasn’t even spoken. This is especially so if ULL Advisory Committee members begin leaving the meeting when the public begins to offer their comments.
The understanding is that ULL Advisory Committee members are only to serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council, but we must realized also whose other recommendation and what other unified source can the City Council depend upon, but to accept recommendations from an Advisory Committee, particularly designated to perform the function of advising? It is for this reason, in principle, that it is important that all views from all people in the public audience be not only heard, but considered, when important motions are presented, voted upon and accepted.
Thank you very much for your consideration. Let us remember the principle in the Gettysburg Address, as well as principles within the U.S. Constitution, please, as the guiding influence for future meetings. May the public be allowed to speak throughout the meetings, at appropriately designated times.
Julie Ann Borina Driscoll,
San Jose
EDITOR’S NOTE: Driscoll is a former Morgan Hill resident whose family has owned property here for a number of years.
