I was one of the attendees at the Public Hearing about the proposed water rate increase as noticed by the City of Sonoma. It was not a positive experience. I felt that some City Council members were more interested in scolding those who attended this public hearing for not being involved at an earlier City Council study session and special meeting held in August and September. I was unaware of these meetings as they were not publicly noticed in a proactive manner.
There was minimal acknowledgment by City Council members of the concerns that were expressed about the water rate increase that will impact single-family residential units at a much higher level than the other water user groups. Through the statements made by some City Council members, they had already decided on the issue prior to the Public Hearing. So, was the Public Hearing mainly a legislative requirement vs. a genuine interest in listening to what those in attendance had to say? Was the Water Rate Study really a draft or an accomplished reality? Further, two new City Council members were criticized for not speaking on the issue. I was insulted for them. Could it be that they wanted to listen vs. expressing a view before they were seated?
If the City of Sonoma genuinely wants public input and participation, I strongly suggest that City staff and Council members have a more proactive approach to generate public input. If there is to be a Public Hearing, I believe that this Public Hearing should be held with action taken at a future meeting. Thus, it really would be a Public Hearing vs. just a meaningless process. One strategy for seeking public input at meetings could be to publish notices in our local newspapers; another would be to send e-mails to those people who have accounts with the City of Sonoma. City staff and/or City Council could also identify other initiatives. However, done, it needs to happen.
I am hopeful that the new City Council will take more seriously prioritizing an authentic and active outreach approach to public input. I care about our City as do all of us. To be chastised at a public meeting for not attending meetings that we did not know about and to have our input tolerated vs. encouraged is very discouraging.
Marilyn Kelly
Sonoma
Wouldn’t be nice if water was free . City council meetings ? Good luck to you .Hope you have the patience .
An unfortunate failing of public policy has left the public stranded outside of the deliberation process. Our city council care less about public participation than it does about simply conforming to the rules of public meetings, granting the public little space for actual participation that adds meaningfully to any discussion. Reduced to playing “beat the clock” with the Mayor, citizens are limited to three minutes of monologue, no opportunity for the exchange of ideas or discussion, and generally any opportunity to speak is wedged into only one moment of the consideration of any agenda item. Overall, it is disrespectful to the public; the body elected to serve the public ends ups served by it instead. The whole system of local democracy has been turned upside down and been transformed into what’s convenient and efficient for the city council, not what’s valuable to the citizenry.
I agree with Larry that the process is not stacked in the public’s favor. The 3 minute rule is a form of gerrymandering, but instead of space, it is time that is unfairly proscribed. The rule does serve to limit blowhards who get up there and rant on and on, you know, shut up and get to the point.
Instead of 3 minutes, the mayor should just encourage the citizen to make the point and consider the rest of the people waiting around to say something. It is ironic that limits are not placed on wine tasting, instead of encouraging the diversity and econ balance plainly stated in the General Plan, but limits are placed on democratic citizen participation?
Yes, the city could do a better job of announcing agendas, but you can get on an e-mail list and be notified of as much as you want, all commissions, etc. This gets down to how many people are interested anyway? The same people show up for every meeting in town, and this is a relatively small group. Most only come when the sewage has come in their front door.
The details for any issue are difficult to master, and they unfold in a changeable manner. It takes a lot of work to stay current on any given issue, the ground shifts, and the participating citizen puts much effort into the process. It is the invested public’s right to see deliberation of their input, and to have these inputs weighed and balanced, in public, by the council. This at least shows the council has read the comments and material and that they are conversant on the breadth of any issue.
Council members do appear to have decided many issues ahead of time: Montini for example, all three new members have telegraphed a hard position. This makes future public input a charade, unless they can backtrack and say that in spite of stating a position, they can still fairly hear other points and reach other conclusions.
I agree with Marilyn, issues appear decided ahead. Yet, a council member has to have some leanings, some ideas of where they stand, yet remain open? This stands counter to everything we now about politics and government, that politicians stand for things. Nowhere else would anyone expect a politician to actually be neutral until the final vote. Politicians are expected to run by ideology, and come down in predictable places. This is why constituents vote for them, to represent their interests. In Sonoma, council members are expected to play hide the ball rather than be clear on what they stand for.
For the water rates, my own feeling: tiered rates and paying more is fair enough. How are you going to get some pain into all the landscape irrigation and green lawns? If 56% of Sonoma water use is by single family households, the cost of a scarce resource has to be born proportionally here. My beef: tourism use of water appears to be a non-issue; residents appear to be subsidizing their own gentrifying demise.
In the end, the process is OK if you win, corrupt if you lose. The bottom line is to get the power and control, get the three votes up there that represent your interests in the first place.