I found it interesting during the pandemic when many public meetings were conducted online and streamed, that participation, meaning the number of folks watching and listening to those meetings far exceeded the number of folks who'd ever attended a council meeting in person. This was applauded though most of the members were anxious to return to face to face meetings and none of the online meetings really took advantage of the tools available for online meetings. For example, it's common for folks in online meetings to utilize the chat function to ask questions and to "raise their hand". when they wish to speak, and to do active on the spot surveys, so it was possible to increase public participation though I don't know any city councils or other public meetings that took advantage of it. You wouldn't have to answer questions posted in the chat, but you would get a sense of what people were thinking and you could ask them questions via a survey that would instantly give you percentages of those responding, e.g., 54% of those watching support the proposal. Today we hear so much about folks who aren't engaged but when we have tools that could increase public engagement, we choose not to use them. Even now, when folks stream meetings, they choose not to engage the public--almost like they fear increased engagement. I'm being a little facetious, but typically I hear council members say they've "heard from constituents" but there's no way to verify how many have responded and what they've actually said, the survey option would let everyone know. All that aside, Mr. Bordewyk is correct that absent more transparent public meetings, it's the press that keeps the public informed and reminding people of the requirement of open meetings on an annual basis insures public servants are aware of what it requires.
You wrote, “ Sometimes, the local newspaper reporter may be the only person sitting in the audience for a city council or school board meeting.”
That is especially the case in Sioux Falls, as the city council enacted a rule several years ago which moved questions and comment period by the public to the end of every council meeting. Additionally the council and mayor refrain then from answering questions, challenging the way they do business.
I remember when Ralph Morris, a retired Morrell union officer made it a point to attend every council meeting and bring issues of interest to the entire city before the council and or to challenge an action by the council that was not in the best interest of the city.
I should have added that the council needs to be aware that many of the citizens who would comment at meetings, love the city at least as much if not more than they do.
I found it interesting during the pandemic when many public meetings were conducted online and streamed, that participation, meaning the number of folks watching and listening to those meetings far exceeded the number of folks who'd ever attended a council meeting in person. This was applauded though most of the members were anxious to return to face to face meetings and none of the online meetings really took advantage of the tools available for online meetings. For example, it's common for folks in online meetings to utilize the chat function to ask questions and to "raise their hand". when they wish to speak, and to do active on the spot surveys, so it was possible to increase public participation though I don't know any city councils or other public meetings that took advantage of it. You wouldn't have to answer questions posted in the chat, but you would get a sense of what people were thinking and you could ask them questions via a survey that would instantly give you percentages of those responding, e.g., 54% of those watching support the proposal. Today we hear so much about folks who aren't engaged but when we have tools that could increase public engagement, we choose not to use them. Even now, when folks stream meetings, they choose not to engage the public--almost like they fear increased engagement. I'm being a little facetious, but typically I hear council members say they've "heard from constituents" but there's no way to verify how many have responded and what they've actually said, the survey option would let everyone know. All that aside, Mr. Bordewyk is correct that absent more transparent public meetings, it's the press that keeps the public informed and reminding people of the requirement of open meetings on an annual basis insures public servants are aware of what it requires.
Well said Mr Bordewyk!!
You wrote, “ Sometimes, the local newspaper reporter may be the only person sitting in the audience for a city council or school board meeting.”
That is especially the case in Sioux Falls, as the city council enacted a rule several years ago which moved questions and comment period by the public to the end of every council meeting. Additionally the council and mayor refrain then from answering questions, challenging the way they do business.
I remember when Ralph Morris, a retired Morrell union officer made it a point to attend every council meeting and bring issues of interest to the entire city before the council and or to challenge an action by the council that was not in the best interest of the city.
I should have added that the council needs to be aware that many of the citizens who would comment at meetings, love the city at least as much if not more than they do.