Council Chamber or Echo Chamber? It’s time to improve public comment.
Downtown resident Karen Gielen recently wrote to The Seattle Times after reading a pollster was surprised after a year of protests that her findings showed Seattleites’ view of the police hadn’t much changed despite the dominant narrative at City Council meetings.
Gielen concluded, “Unfortunately, the public comment process is not set up to gather constituent views and is used by some council members to amplify their personal agendas.”
Among the roadblocks to hearing more diverse public comments Gielen faults insufficient notice when council meeting agendas are published just a few days in advance.
Another deterrent: the new online sign up system rewards the tech savvy and organized groups whose members flood the site as it opens, often relegating other callers to the back of the line where their speaking time is shortened or they miss the cut due to time limitations.
Another downtown resident, Cynthia Marin, shares these frustrations. She proposes each comment period dedicate time for speakers from each of the City’s seven districts who are vetted by providing names and addresses at the secure sign in. Unused time would revert to general comment.
Other suggestions:
Stop restricting public comment to agenda items only. This may be necessary when an agenda is crowded or contains a hot button issue but when that’s not the case it effectively limits public dialogue and new ideas.
When voting on hot topics, have Council Members’ offices tabulate public comment pro and con delivered via email and phone before the vote. Announce those tallies as part of the discussion.
Have the Seattle Channel broadcast quarterly ‘open mic’ listening sessions for each district to highlight top-of-mind issues. Allow written comments to be read.
Seattle has a diversity of opinion. Let’s find more ways to help everyone be heard.
