CatsnDogs wrote:
I only attend council meetings that have an agenda item that is of strong interest to me because I find attending council meetings a complete turn off. You cannot hear the council members speak because of a poor or improperly used sound system, very late starts, and awards and recognitions at start of the meetings that delay business.

Wouldn't it be nice if the new council and mayor encouraged citizen attendance by making a few minor changes to address these issues.

by Yvonne on 2014/1/21 19:37:05

Matt, you cannot have it both ways. Mr. Byrne, the city clerk asks, does anyone want to speak? That question means if you have a question on the ordinance, feel free to speak up. The reason, Lavarro screamed at Jayson, the CarePoint employees were leaving. I am quite sure, the city told them to come. Lavarro, not Jayson controls what is on the agenda. Lavarro decided to spend one hour honoring different groups before the meeting begin. Matt, Democracy is messy, it is similar to childbirth. The process is hard but the baby is worth the price. I want to protect "Freedom of Speech," because I want to know where my tax dollars are going. Tell Lavarro and the city council to use the meetings for the city's business. It should not be used to honor every Tom, Dick, and Harry. They are looking for favors with different groups without spending their campaign dollars. It is also very common the year before an election. Almost everyone gets an award. Example - someone is retiring from city government, give that person an award; someone is turning 85, let's give that person an award. They, the city council, keep the meetings longer than it should be, they control everyone ordinance on the agenda.

Yvonne:
This thread is about First Amendment, you remember - Freedom of speech.

Matt Schapiro wrote:
When a few people choose to monopolize the public comment time, there is a cost. Sometimes that cost is the council members' and staffers' and reporters' and audience members' time.

And sometimes that cost is the right of their fellow citizens to express their opinion, as evidenced by the below anecdote.

In this case, where a fellow citizen is denied their right to speak, those who choose to monopolize council time in service of their own "1st Amendment rights", are actually trampling on the rights of others.

And they damage the function of our representative democracy in the process.

There will be about 20 council meetings this year. Let's conservatively assume that there are 5 opportunities for a single individual to speak at each meeting:

5 minutes x 5 opportunities x 20 meetings = over 8 hours of each of our elected representatives' time over the course of a year

Not all of that time is wasted as occasionally this person may have a salient point to make. But any way you shake it, if a person chooses to speak at EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY they can, simply because it is their right to do so, they are wasting too much of a lot of people's time, in my opinion.

And likely denying at least a few people their own right to speak in the process.

Quote:
Earlier this year, I attended a council meeting because there was an ordinance on the agenda for 2nd Reading on which I had an opinion. I have 3 children under 5yrs old and a finite amount of time to put toward this stuff.

As it turned out, there were six or seven other items on the 2nd Reading agenda before mine and certain persons got up to speak on each and every one of them: sometimes offering reasoned opinions, sometimes soliciting the Council members for information that was easily available by other means, sometimes repeating the same opinion during each of their 5min speaking periods.

Two hours after the start of the meeting, my time ran out and I had to go home, right before the ordinance in which I was interested came up to bat.

If folks spoke only when issues rose to a certain level of their interest - rather than every single ordinance no matter their level of interest - I would have had my chance to speak. My comments might have added value to the discussion and they might have affected the outcome of the legislation.

Yvonne wrote:
First who said I produced 2 videos on Candice? Second, you said I am clueless ? well, as first President of the Van Vorst Park Association, I got Green Acre Funding in early 1970s to redo the park. I also started the ?Meet Ball? which continued for many years. Finally, I helped the former Mayor of Secaucus sued JC over abatements. An agreement was reached in which abatements, except affordable, pay an extra 10% to the county. But politics being what it is in JC, it was reduced to 5%. So the County of Hudson has an extra 5% that it didn?t have before. Now tell me Joshua, what have you accomplished?

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
But as a resident who lived in the Van Vorst Park for over 40 years and was its first President, I never heard of Candice Osborne.

Which just goes to show that, when you talk too much and listen too little, you can be clueless of what goes around you no matter how long you live somewhere.

I recall that after the vote, your JCPAC produced a poor quality video showing Candice speaking two years ago at a council meeting, attempting to claim that she broke a campaign promise. So obviously she was involved.

Yvonne wrote:
But as a resident who lived in the Van Vorst Park for over 40 years and was its first President, I never heard of Candice Osborne.

Yvonne wrote:
With the exceptions of Boggiano and Yun, the rest of the council got elected on coattails. If anyone of them ran as independent they would not be there. I totally disagree with you. Boggiano and Yun have a long term relationships with their communities. But as a resident who lived in the Van Vorst Park for over 40 years and was its first President, I never heard of Candice Osborne. She never attended meetings and did not become visible until she was announced by the Fulop Team. I personally never saw her at a council meetings especially budget hearings asking tough questions. But I have seen Jayson Burg at meetings since 2005.

Yvonne wrote:
So I guess, it doesn't bother you the city counsel plays with the time by starting late, and then spend as much as a hour giving out awards before they go the city's business. All of the present council members are new to city government. They do not have the reference on matters that have appeared before. The people who speak have that experience. I have been attending meetings since the 1970s when the budget was $90 million now it is over $515 million. The council might be good people but they are clueless on many matters.

Yvonne wrote:
On page 2 - Jersey City Reporter- Jayson Berg: Jersey City's own Ted Cruz? After making the 7th or 8th trip up to the microphone, Donnelly yelled, "Jayson, your are horrendous. You are worse than Ted Cruz filibustering the Senate." The problem is not Jayson, the problem is there are too many items on the agenda. The council meetings are for the public, if you don't want the public to speak, then reduce the items on the agenda.

Earlier this year, I attended a council meeting because there was an ordinance on the agenda for 2nd Reading on which I had an opinion. I have 3 children under 5yrs old and a finite amount of time to put toward this stuff.

As it turned out, there were six or seven other items on the 2nd Reading agenda before mine and certain persons got up to speak on each and every one of them: sometimes offering reasoned opinions, sometimes soliciting the Council members for information that was easily available by other means, sometimes repeating the same opinion during each of their 5min speaking periods.

Two hours after the start of the meeting, my time ran out and I had to go home, right before the ordinance in which I was interested came up to bat.

If folks spoke only when issues rose to a certain level of their interest - rather than every single ordinance no matter their level of interest - I would have had my chance to speak. My comments might have added value to the discussion and they might have affected the outcome of the legislation.

Yvonne wrote:
At least Jayson uses his real name, unlike some people here who likes to throw mud and hide behind phony names. No one knows the details of his work life, but I personally witnessed Dave Donnelly screaming at him. How did Jayson react? He did not scream back. He acted like a gentleman. Jayson remained calm.

Yvonne wrote:
I am not going to comment about another person's experience in the classroom. I will comment on the fact, whether you like Jayson or not, he has the right to speak on all ordinances. If the council did not want the public to speak then they shouldn't add all of those items. Robert Byrne, city clerk and Sean Gallagher, deputy clerk always call out and says, "Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak?" And Jayson walks to the microphone. That is his constitutional right. Personally, I believe he is owed an apology.

MattSchapiro wrote:
Quote:

The fact remains that [this individual] gets up there and...wastes everyones time AND money. This does not happen occasionally, this is EVERY damn council meeting. What's even sadder is that the day he actually says something no one will hear him cause they all will have tuned him out.

This point is well made.

We can all agree that public comments are a means to an end. They are a method by which a person might make a difference in the legislative process and improve our city. That's the purpose as I understand it.

We can further agree that it is wrong if a person is unfairly denied their right to make their opinion heard.

Earlier this year, I attended a council meeting because there was an ordinance on the agenda for 2nd Reading on which I had an opinion. I have 3 children under 5yrs old and a finite amount of time to put toward this stuff.

As it turned out, there were six or seven other items on the 2nd Reading agenda before mine and certain persons got up to speak on each and every one of them: sometimes offering reasoned opinions, sometimes soliciting the Council members for information that was easily available by other means, sometimes repeating the same opinion during each of their 5min speaking periods.

Two hours after the start of the meeting, my time ran out and I had to go home, right before the ordinance in which I was interested came up to bat.

If folks spoke only when issues rose to a certain level of their interest - rather than every single ordinance no matter their level of interest - I would have had my chance to speak. My comments might have added value to the discussion and they might have affected the outcome of the legislation.

So to be clear, every individual absolutely should have their right to speak for the full 5 minutes on each 2nd Reading ordinance, but it might be the wrong thing to do if it denies another individual their right to speak.

Which is to say that while others shouldn't plan their public speaking schedule around my diaper-changing schedule, it might be more courteous of them to hold their comments until an issue arises that is of genuine interest and/or for which pertinent information is not otherwise available.

Representative democracy works best if conditions allow for a substantive discussion of the issues with a diversity of opinions represented.