Navigation

User login

Online users

Peter Alden Stroble
Rob Richards
Just another voice
JP
Katherine
stevenl
einmaleins
OlyDowntowner
Laurian
benny

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

jasonla
Jododp
Jfodfie
GregDiablo
doffsey

Is Doug Mah Making It Up As He Goes?

Submitted by Real Olympian Hero on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 12:33pm.

In a recent city council meeting, Olympia Mayor Doug Mah, in response to a citizen that wanted to speak about the isthmus rezone, said that they could not. The reason he gave was that one of the rules regarding council meetings is that the council does not have to hear public testimony "within" 90 days of a public hearing. The council has a public hearing scheduled on the rezone next month. The rule, as far as I understand it, actually states that the council doesn't have to hear public commentary on an issue for 90 days AFTER a public hearing is held. So what's the deal?

I have a message in to the city that hopefully will clear this up.

Real Olympian Hero's blog
Login or register to post comments

I heard about this,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 12:36pm.

keep us posted.

Yes, I heard about it also

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 1:12pm.

And there are some other shenanigans in the works according to the grapevine. Given the great interest in this proposal, I hope they provide adequate time and space for this public hearing. Anyone know the plan?

There's not much of a plan yet...

Submitted by jlw on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 5:16pm.

...but when there is, info about it will be available here. I have heard that when a rezone of the isthmus was considered in 2002, so many people turned out to object, the hearing had to be held in the Washington Center. As you probably know, the Olympia Center proved inadequate to hold the enormous crowd that turned up on June 24th for the Planning Commission Hearing on this issue.

UPDATE

Submitted by Real Olympian Hero on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 1:35pm.

Response from the city:

"

The Council recently changed this to also include future public hearings. Our agenda has been changed to note the change and I believe all references to Public Communications and public hearings on our website have been updated to include the future 90 days as well.

Sorry about the confusion.

Mary M. Nolan
Executive Secretary
City of Olympia
PO Box 1967
Olympia, WA 98507
(360) 753-8244
mnolan@ci.olympia.wa.us

"

So, it appears there indeed has been a rule change. My new question is why was this necessary? It really feels like the council has further closed the door to the public. First, we stop having community forums, now, extreme limits on public testimony. Who do they think is going to vote for them if they continue to deny us access?

July 1st?

Submitted by Ehver Green on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 1:43pm.

Must have changed on July 1st. There was no meeting on July 7th due to council vacation. I did a brief search to see how or why this was changed but came up empty handed. Admittedly, it wasn't an exhaustive search.

June 30th's City of Olympia Meeting Agenda (Public Communication):

During this portion of the meeting, citizens may address the Council regarding any item related to City business, including items on the Agenda, except on agenda items for which the City Council held a Public Hearing in the last 90 days. <...>

July 14th's City of Olympia Meeting Agenda (Public Communication):

During this portion of the meeting, citizens may address the Council regarding any item related to City business, including items on the Agenda, except on agenda items for which the City Council either held a Public Hearing in the last 90 days, or will hold a Public Hearing within 90 days. <...>

This sounds like some kind of gag rule.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 1:47pm.

What could the motivations for this possibly be? I'm utterly baffled.

Mayor Mah explained it this way:

Submitted by Katherine on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 8:37pm.

"The purpose of the window, if you will, is to ensure that we have a clear record of any action coming before the city council. And it avoids long running records of any legislative action, or at least that's the intent."

When the question was raised by Thad, Karen Messmer was the only councilperson to vocalize disappointment at not being notified of the change in the language, as none of the previous agendas had the 90 days after a meeting language. She also felt it should have highlighted for the public, and also staff who were unaware of the change. She also felt that 180 days was perhaps a too long of window.

Joe Hyer said he thought that 90 days before and after was the way it had always been, and that he agreed with it was that the city should not have an open record for such a long period of time.

I tend to agree with Councilwoman Messmer. 180 days is an exceptional amount of time, though I am too lazy at the moment to see what other municipalities do. That said, with out some rule in place, council meetings could easily turn into one-issue, long and drawn out public hearings every week, with the same people and same points of view being represented.

Perhaps 45 days on either side would be more effective in limiting the record by allowing enough time and space for the public.

Written comment, however, is always excepted.

I agree, six months is too long.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 9:27pm.

I also can't help but think this may not be exactly legal.

Public communications at Oly Council Meeting

Submitted by Cathie Butler on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 8:39pm.

Actually, you should wag the finger at me. Not clarifying the info on the City's website was my mistake.

The Olympia Council discussed meeting protocols at its annual retreat in January, like they do every year. One of the items they discussed was Public Communication. They agreed to continue to provide up to 30 minutes near the start of Council meetings for Public Communication on any topic of City business for which the Council hasn't had a public hearing in the past 90 days or for which they have already scheduled a public hearing in the next 90 days.

BTW, it's their call to allow public communication at their business meetings and to set the parameters for such. It's not anything required by State law.

Unfortunately, I slipped up by not revisiting the wording on the website, etc. After there was some confusion at last week's Council meeting, I did so and have update the information. I apologize for the confusion and my error.

As a reminder, in addition to oral testimony, the Council accepts written testimony at any time either by letter or email.

Regarding the meeting location and logistics for the Sept 16 Public Hearing, I've been checking into possible locations and will be reporting to the City Council about this topic at their meeting on August 5.

Cathie Butler, Communications Manager, City of Olympia

I'm still a little confused

Submitted by jlw on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 10:54pm.

Thanks so much for responding to this, Cathie, but I am still confused. You said "They agreed to continue to provide up to 30 minutes near the start of Council meetings for Public Communication on any topic of City business for which the Council hasn't had a public hearing in the past 90 days or for which they have [italics mine] already scheduled a public hearing in the next 90 days." Are you sure that's accurate? Shouldn't that "have" read "haven't"? BTW, is this protocol change in the notes from the retreat?

Looks to be a question in

Submitted by Ehver Green on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 11:10pm.

Looks to be a question in the notes:

7. How much lead time does Council and the public need on agenda items?

You can talk about a city topic if: The topic hasn't had a public hearing in the past 90 days or it's not scheduled for a public hearing in the next 90 days. The rezone topic was off the table around mid-June (retroactively, of course).

I was hoping to hear

Submitted by jlw on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 11:22pm.

I was hoping to hear Cathie's take on this.

Reply to Reply

Submitted by Cathie Butler on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 5:57am.

So ... last night was July 22 Council meeting. Was there a Council public hearing on the specific topic within 90 days before last night? Is there a Council public hearing scheduled within 90 days upcoming from last night? That's the way to figure it out.

I remember a few years ago when the Council passed an emergency moratorium on development. With an emergency moratorium, the Council is required to hold a public hearing (I think within 90 days). They applied the same principle at that time. Some developers were not too happy when they came to the Council meeting the next week and were told that a public hearing was scheduled within 90 days so that all perspectives could testify, and that's when the Council would take testimony.

Talks about meeting management at their retreat are nothing new. They've had this conversation each year that I can remember whether the Mayor was Bob, Stan, Mark, or Doug (those are all the Mayor's in my time at the City).

Usually they remind the Mayor to be more firm in managing the meeting (particularly Public Communication) by holding people to the 3 minute time limit, only addressing appropriate topics (e.g. topics of City business, etc - for followers of City Council meetings, think Moses), the public hearing issue, etc.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, it's Council decision whether or not to accept any sort of public comment at their weekly business meeting. These meetings are the time when they meet to conduct the business of the City - like a Board of a Directors meeting.

Over the years, Oly Council's have agreed that part of the business of the City Council is to hear from any citizen or group who wishes to address them on City business (not all City Council's do this).

They've also acknowledged that when there's a Public Hearing, the Council has scheduled a specific time for anyone interested in the topic to testify directly to the Council at a meeting or a portion of a meeting noticed specifically for that purpose. The intent is to be fair to all perspectives by announcing a designated date/time (the Public Hearing) when they'll accept oral, public testimony on the topic.

They always accept written comment (by letter or email) at anytime.

Cathie Butler, Communications Manager, City of Olympia

One more thing..

Submitted by Cathie Butler on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 6:14am.

I forgot to mention above, the waterfront rezone issue is only one of eight Comp Plan amendments on the docket this year. Usually the Council has a single public hearing on all of the comp plan amendments. Because of the community interest in the waterfront rezone issue, the Council has separated that item from the others.

The Sept 16 Council meeting will be solely devoted to the urban waterfront rezone proposal. The public hearing on the other seven items will be on Sept 23 as part of the Council's regular business meeting that night.

On the other comp plan amendments (Sept 23 public hearing), they are subject to the say 90 day exclusion at weekly public comment as the urban waterfront rezone. Long time followers of Council meetings will recognize that there is a couple who are interested in Chambers Basin and who have testified many times at Council meetings about their interests and perspective. Since Chambers Basin is one of the items on the comp plan docket, that issue is subject to the same restriction, and you'll notice that the certain couple has been present at recent Council meetings, but not testifying.

For the Sept 16 Public Hearing, I'll be discussing meeting location and protocols with the Council at their next upcoming meeting, August 5, to give several weeks advance notice about the details. The Sept 16 Public Hearing will be in a large facility - most likely the Washington Center (will be decided Aug 5). In addition to size, a plus of the WA Center is that the hearing can be televised live. A downside is that it wasn't designed for public hearings where people need to exit their seats and walk to the mic. The best forum for public hearings is a flat space with moveable seating.

To overcome that problem and help with meeting management/flow, we may have some sort of organized way to seat people in order of testimony so they don't have to "crawl" over the top of other people to get to the aisle.

Anyway, after Aug 5 we'll know how Council wishes to conduct the Public Hearing - location, meeting time and agenda, any protocols for testimony (over all length of hours and individual minutes of testimony), how sign in will be handled, etc. Stay tuned.

Cathie Butler, Communications Manager, City of Olympia

One More Thing

Submitted by Ehver Green on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 8:49pm.

ROH, why are you singling out Doug here? The council is made of up 7 Olympia residents, all with the same voting power. As has been stated time and time again -- the mayor of Olympia is for the most part a figurehead position.

Then, I look at your profile and remembered who you are. Looks like you still got www.dougmah.com pointed at Invest Pennies yet they've taken their site down and the registration has lapsed. Sigh...

Let's be fair and hold the _entire_ city council accountable for this one.

EDIT: Posted before I was able to read the posts by Katherine and Cathie.

" always accept written comment (by letter or email) at anytime"

Submitted by emmettoconnell on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 10:13am.

From Cathie's comment above. This is an important note, because I've never really wanted to venture downtown on a Tuesday night to testify in person. I've always felt comfortable writing emails and then posting them here or at my own blog.

I've often recieved thoughtful replies back from council members, so while it seems kind of shady, this 180 day block seems meaningless.

One problem with that.

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 10:42am.

While there is no written code for ranking means of communication to the council, the feedback I've gotten is that in person appearances mean a lot more to them than an email. It also means something when you can show a lot of community support for your cause.

Public testimony has distinct value

Submitted by Sandy M on Thu, 07/24/2008 - 7:49am.

I agree with Rob that there are benefits to public testimony which are impossible to measure. One important distinction is that live testimony is aired on TCTV (a lot of people DO watch) and the video is permanently archived on the city website. And if people show up in significant numbers to address a particular issue, it is usually covered in the Olympian the next day. The coverage may not be great, but the combined effect of all these factors is a heightened awareness in the community around that issue.

I'll go part way

Submitted by emmettoconnell on Thu, 07/24/2008 - 8:36am.

I agree that getting a bunch of people to show up to a city council meeting can be important, but I would counter that there are other ways to get a story in the Olympian that are easier than rounding up a crowd.

If you don't like the rules...

Submitted by hazzardus waste on Wed, 07/23/2008 - 11:11pm.

and you are in power you just change them. That's allways what THEY do. eat the rich the poor are skinny

I'm concerned about what I

Submitted by Meta Hogan on Thu, 07/24/2008 - 8:39am.

I'm concerned about what I perceive as a race-to-the-bottom in terms of meeting protocol here. Of course, it's not mandated by State law, and of course, some other cities don't allow public comment. I guess I thought we were different. Olympia has a uniquely engaged, informed and active citizenry. While I don't necessarily think the council should spend hours before each public meeting listening to comments unrelated to city business, I do believe that each minute spent listening to related comments saves minutes at public hearings, and saves time on projects. Kind of a "measure twice" option. The city can't afford to be everything to everyone. Allowing folks to step forward at meetings, particularly when the topic is a timely and controversial issue, provides an opportunity for those community leaders to identify themselves and their commitments, and for others to seek them out. That is not the primary object of public comment, but one of the beneficial consequences. Also, if you're considering making a comment at the public hearing, it might help to know that someone else has already done the research, or already debunked your point, or already made that point. It forwards the public dialogue to allow as many opportunities as possible. Plus, I think the council would be more effective at focusing public comment if they used a problem-solving approach. Not so much with the restrictive rules, more assurances about space and time offered at the public hearing. Many commenters are likely wary of the "opportunity" afforded by a public hearing, having attended others where they had no chance to speak, or where their input was compiled in a format not useful to public dialogue, or where they simply felt put on by the whole process. Just thinking out loud here... can we make suggestions for a more effective way to focus public dialogue, present them to the council, ask for protocol changes? Anyone have other ideas?

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: