Improvements are needed in favor of fairness and viewpoint diversity when it comes to public testimony at Seattle City Council meetings.
People with the schedule flexibility and time to be first to sign up online two hours before the meeting and queue up hours in advance at City Hall get slots to speak before the meeting which precludes the participation of many if not most.
Meanwhile, I’ve noticed, especially over the last ten years, an increasingly narrow band of extreme left-wing political actors frequently overrepresented in both the speakers and the audiences stacking the meeting.
Talking over and shouting down signed-up speakers and bursting into chambers ranting is not free speech. I’m talking to you Alex Tsimerman. It’s really important that Council President Sara Nelson has been improving the tenor of the room. I am grateful.
Right now, a couple of hours before the meeting, a sign-up opens online and you sign up as fast as you can and push send. First in gets the first spots for remote speaking. Five minutes later you’re way down the list.
For in-person public comments, you have to queue up for hours before the meeting starts to get an early spot when they start to let people come upstairs to sign in. Yesterday I got there 1.5 hours before the meeting and got #65 which was really #130 because they were alternating with remote testimony. I couldn’t stay that late.
Even my Buy Nothing Group urges members to not always sell to the very first commenter and to consider random drawings.
So, with that in mind, I think we could have signups for remote and live speaking slots open for a longer period of time. From the time the meeting notice is emailed out would be best, but no less than a whole day before the meeting day, closing at some decided point. The person signing up declares whether they have a for or against position.
Then a random lottery draws five names from each of the four lists: in-person for, in-person against, remote for, remote against. Then a list of those twenty speakers is published the day before the meeting.
Speaking spots could be yielded to another speaker with the same position and no-shows could be replaced by waitlist alternates or replacements with the same position.
This would influence the audience as well because if attendees know they were going to hear at least ten speakers that share their viewpoint, it’s easier to listen to ten who don’t. Currently it’s challenging to listen to fifty that don’t share my viewpoint and four that do.
Maybe it could even help the political climate to have a better balance.
If each speaker gets one minute, then the public comment period with the twenty speakers could easily wrap up in thirty minutes and the meeting could start. Whew! Bring it on.
Allowing remote speakers to video record their comments in advance to be shown on the screen so we can watch and listen to them comment would be useful perhaps as well and would certainly make remote testimony more interesting and effective. If they can’t get to the meeting in person, I’m sure standing by the computer and phone for hours to wait your turn remotely isn’t that easy either.
So, a quick search on BING said that it could certainly be done this way according to the law.
In some ways, what we’re doing is probably not compliant because the guideline is that it should be equal opportunity for all interested parties to participate and to not discriminate against any particular viewpoint. I don’t think we’re achieving either of those.
Also, to get a seat in the chambers for the meeting (since they don’t let you just hang out in there waiting), it would seem efficient to just get a ticket when you arrived at City Hall so you could then go get coffee, meet with others, grab a bagel, or whatever until the meeting starts without waiting in an airport kind of line and standing the whole time.
Yes, please.
Now is a good time to consider changes to the way we sign up for public comments at Seattle City Council meetings.
A Better Way to Sign Up to Speak at Council Meetings
Improvements are needed in favor of fairness and viewpoint diversity when it comes to public testimony at Seattle City Council meetings.
People with the schedule flexibility and time to be first to sign up online two hours before the meeting and queue up hours in advance at City Hall get slots to speak before the meeting which precludes the participation of many if not most.
Meanwhile, I’ve noticed, especially over the last ten years, an increasingly narrow band of extreme left-wing political actors frequently overrepresented in both the speakers and the audiences stacking the meeting.
Talking over and shouting down signed-up speakers and bursting into chambers ranting is not free speech. I’m talking to you Alex Tsimerman. It’s really important that Council President Sara Nelson has been improving the tenor of the room. I am grateful.
Now we need to make some changes to the sign-up system.
Right now, a couple of hours before the meeting, a sign-up opens online and you sign up as fast as you can and push send. First in gets the first spots for remote speaking. Five minutes later you’re way down the list.
For in-person public comments, you have to queue up for hours before the meeting starts to get an early spot when they start to let people come upstairs to sign in. Yesterday I got there 1.5 hours before the meeting and got #65 which was really #130 because they were alternating with remote testimony. I couldn’t stay that late.
Even my Buy Nothing Group urges members to not always sell to the very first commenter and to consider random drawings.
So, with that in mind, I think we could have signups for remote and live speaking slots open for a longer period of time. From the time the meeting notice is emailed out would be best, but no less than a whole day before the meeting day, closing at some decided point. The person signing up declares whether they have a for or against position.
Then a random lottery draws five names from each of the four lists: in-person for, in-person against, remote for, remote against. Then a list of those twenty speakers is published the day before the meeting.
Speaking spots could be yielded to another speaker with the same position and no-shows could be replaced by waitlist alternates or replacements with the same position.
This would influence the audience as well because if attendees know they were going to hear at least ten speakers that share their viewpoint, it’s easier to listen to ten who don’t. Currently it’s challenging to listen to fifty that don’t share my viewpoint and four that do.
Maybe it could even help the political climate to have a better balance.
If each speaker gets one minute, then the public comment period with the twenty speakers could easily wrap up in thirty minutes and the meeting could start. Whew! Bring it on.
Allowing remote speakers to video record their comments in advance to be shown on the screen so we can watch and listen to them comment would be useful perhaps as well and would certainly make remote testimony more interesting and effective. If they can’t get to the meeting in person, I’m sure standing by the computer and phone for hours to wait your turn remotely isn’t that easy either.
So, a quick search on BING said that it could certainly be done this way according to the law.
In some ways, what we’re doing is probably not compliant because the guideline is that it should be equal opportunity for all interested parties to participate and to not discriminate against any particular viewpoint. I don’t think we’re achieving either of those.
Also, to get a seat in the chambers for the meeting (since they don’t let you just hang out in there waiting), it would seem efficient to just get a ticket when you arrived at City Hall so you could then go get coffee, meet with others, grab a bagel, or whatever until the meeting starts without waiting in an airport kind of line and standing the whole time.
Yes, please.
Now is a good time to consider changes to the way we sign up for public comments at Seattle City Council meetings.