They Passed What?

At the June Charter Commission meeting that was held on the 12th, the Commission voted to approve four items. This was documented in the John Huotari article in the Oak Ridger on the following Monday, June 15.

Item 1: City Council Meetings
This is a change to Article II, Section 1. Regular meetings of council

Existing Language: The council shall hold regular meetings in Oak Ridge at least once monthly. Increased frequency, time of day, and place of its meetings shall be established by resolution.

The Proposed Change: We don't know exactly but the Oak Ridger reports that it was, "Council shall hold at least two meetings per month 'at which the public is allowed to address the Council.' It also calls for Council to provide greater public access and engagement."

Oops, I thought I might be able to review all of these today, but it looks like this one change is enough for any one day, sorry...

OK, what was being considered? There were three competing proposals to this one section.

The first was submitted by Tom Burns, Don Hurtubise, Charles Jones, Stella Schramm, and Bill Schramm specified two meetings per month but they would include rotating meeting places through each elementary school at least once per year.

The second was submitted by Commissioner Pat Postma and is probably the text that was adopted, "The council shall hold two meetings in Oak Ridge monthly at which the public is allowed to address the council. In addition to monthly meetings, Council will seek ways to provide access and engage the public to the greatest extent possible."

The third was submitted by Robert Humphries that presumes City Council members will be elected by district and states that neighborhood associations will be formed in each of those districts to meet with their district Councilman twice a month and that the whole Council will meet twice additionally, once to hear from the neighborhood associations and the final meeting will be to vote on stuff.

Commissioner Fain said that lots of folks tell her that one meeting per month isn't adequate. In fact, she says, "I think that's been a real source of agitation in the community."

Commissioner Caldwell thought that this proposal does not belong in the Charter, but the City Council should be free to set its own schedule.

Commissioner Abbatiello also thought that it restricts the City Council and that adopting it may be a dangerous precedent.

We do not know yet how the vote went other than it passed. Perhaps after the minutes for the June meeting are adopted during the July meeting...

Other facts that are missing includes data from MTAS, the organization that assigns supporting personnel to assist home rule Charter Commissions wade through their considerations. They could provide information about how other Charters in Tennessee address this issue.

Apparently, the City Council was also not asked to provide input, either. For had they, the Commission might have learned that there are already two meetings a month. The first is an agenda review session that shares the same agenda with the monthly Council Meeting with the difference being that there are no votes. The council members just discuss the items on the agenda among themselves, and the public can weigh in as well before everyone's minds are made up.

Other points that deserve consideration include the fact that these agenda setting meetings are usually very sparsely attended. Perhaps a newspaper reporter or two, a representative from the League of Women Voters who reports back to the League, but never speaks during a session, and those whose proposals are on the agenda for the discussion. Perhaps all those agitated citizens could be encouraged to attend those meetings.

But, regardless, the proposed change passed, apparently without critical (and I mean that in the sense, critical: characterized by careful evaluation and judgment) input that would be pertinent to this proposal.

The results, if this is finally forwarded to and passed by our citizens in referendum?

The Council will be in violation of the Charter if they need to skip a meeting due to the Thanksgiving or Christmas or... holidays, or if they cannot get a quorum during summer vacations. Our citizens will not get any more meetings than they get now. If they are agitated about that, this measure does not address their frustrations. And finally, a measure of discretion that the City Council is correctly applying will be taken from them and be embedded into acts of the Charter Commission.

In other words, it seems to me that this Charter Commission, in this instance, is misappropriating legislative authority from our city's duly elected legislative council, without seeking external opinion, with an act that does not solve any problem. It only creates problems of adhering to this new rule and increasing the difficulty of changing it. The only way of undoing this rule would be to seat another Charter Commission.

And who says local politics isn't fun?