MyWHaT

Weekly Occasional Poll

There’s no new poll this week, however, the results from last week’s poll are in and it’s conclusive…Traverse City supports roundabouts!

OK, I’m not that naive. There remains a lot of fear and misunderstanding about them, as well as some genuine dislike. Still, nothing has been presented as substantial evidence to discredit them. All we have is what’s to be expected: the unknown & change is unpopular; the human animal is like that.

Before we get to the MyWHaT poll, the Record Eagle also asked their readers about roundabouts. They asked, Would roundabouts make Traverse City a safer place to drive? The results were predictable: 63% No, 28% Yes.

There question isn’t all that useful.

Why ask the general public to make that call? Just ask them if they like or don’t like roundabouts, because that’s how people will answer that question. It is irrelevant whether people believe that roundies ‘would make Traverse City safer’ when they have little or no experience with them. If the Record Eagle wanted to ask about safety, they’d have been better to ask: Do you believe the professional data showing that roundabouts are safer than signalized intersections? It’s more significant knowing whether or not the public believes the data being presented than to ask them to make a technical call.

The numbers for MyWHaT’s poll are obviously not as reflective of the general public as the Record Eagle, although I think a case could be made that neither does the Record Eagle’s readers reflect the general public’s mood. Neither are scientific; the main exercise being entertainment. The early adapters and the early naysayers are all going to be more inclined to vote or comment than the general public.

Still, what I believe this BLOG’s poll can show is that there is a large number of people in the community who are ready for something different and who are willing to make it happen (the vast majority being within city limits).

click to enlarge

In addition to the above numbers, 25 people who answered the question expressed an interest to help advocate for this corridor by including an email address (we will be in touch).

So, where do we go from here?

Small groups are meeting to discuss the roundabout solution and some of them are random, some of them are organized. I’ve overheard discussions about them in the confines of the governmental center, on the street, over a beer at Right Brain and yesterday morning the Grand Vision transportation committee briefly discussed them (no real news there.)

It’s all part of the process; something this city loves.  Somehow a definitive choice will be made. I trust it will be made based on facts and information and not popularity polls that may or not be being answered by informed participants.

These scientific polling results from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ study of the public acceptance of roundabouts is a reminder that this is not a popularity context. Notice something compared to the RE poll?

Somehow, despite public resistance, they are being implemented in other places…

I will now try to shut-up about the roundies for a while…

___

Please subscribe to this BLOG’s feed and pass this link on to a friend.

Guest writer: Bill Palladino

Part II

Yesterday was about why public meetings suck. Today’s follow-up is about how to make them better, or at the least how to judge them.

Here are my 10 rules for providing valued public participation in government/municipal meetings (a future post will have lists for nonprofit organization meetings).

1. Public meetings should be public. This definition shouldn’t stop with the bare minimum requirements of the public meetings act.  Public officials should seriously reach out to their constituents and find ways to invite them into the meetings as equal partners. Doing this consistently will, over time, create meetings where all sides of a conversation are represented rather than the usual knee-jerk turnouts strongly leaning towards one side on an issue.  In the long run this solution serves the public officials too.
2. Meeting rooms should be comfortable for both officials and the audience. Too many public meetings are held in stale windowless rooms, with the audience as a second-thought.  It’s almost as if they’re based on some centuries-old image of British Parliament.  The audience should feel comfortable and welcome, and they should be encouraged to participate.
3. Public officials should make efforts to connect with audience members prior to and/or after the meeting. Being elected to office does not give anyone the right to ignore the people who put them there.  In fact, it is just the opposite in a true democracy. But it’s a lot easier for individuals to make decisions in a vacuum when they separate themselves from their people.  Officials should not enter and exit public meeting rooms through some rear entrance that keeps them away from citizenry.  It’s a simple act that sends a big message.
4. The physical set-up of the room should not separate officials from audience members. Furthering numbers 2 and 3 above, the design of meeting chambers should not put huge distances between officials and audience members. Next time you’re at a public meeting sit in the front row. If the desks of officials are more than eight feet away, that distance can be used to disengage from the public. Ask yourself why the room is set up that way.
5. Audience members should be treated with respect and encouraged to participate. Some entities seem to treat public participation in meetings as a nuisance.  Officials show this through body language, tone of voice or other forms of acting out displeasure.

___

6-10 continued below

Click through for full version

6. Public comment sections should include opportunity for Q&A. Many public entities see the “public comment” section of meetings as a one-way soapbox.  This is fine, but there should also be space for the public to ask questions directly of their elected officials at the meeting.  Not providing such a space holds the danger of creating frustrated community members.  Finding ways to engage and fully validate those who come to public meetings is critical.
7. Attorneys should not be seated at the same table as public officials. In an effort to provide a legal framework and guidance to public officials, attorneys are often seated among them. This is a mistake. It sends a message to the public that the public body values the word of a hired lawyer over that of the citizenry. Let’s face it, attorneys can be intimidating. If they are seated with the convening group this creates another layer of defense that officials can hide behind. Attorneys are necessary, but certainly not in the foreground of public discourse.  They should be in the background, ready to contribute when necessary, but should otherwise not play a large role.
8. All public officials should contribute to the discussion. Leaders, especially those voted into office, should lead.  Often officials take a highly 
passive approach in public, barely speaking up about important items.  This isn’t leadership, 
it’s control masquerading as shyness. Elected officials should be expected to chime in on every issue of importance that comes across the table.  Why else are they there?
9. The public should have at their disposal information about issues brought up at each meeting. Public officials often bring up items on an agenda without allowing the public access to the same information they hold.  This is one of the oldest methods of weakening a democratic process… keeping people in the dark. Public officials simply need to help members of the public educate themselves regarding the issues at hand.
10. Notes and official minutes of the meeting should be available quickly after the meeting, and leadership should make a point of telling the public where to access these documents. Full transparency includes the opportunity for the public to view the official record 
of meetings in a timely manner.  Minutes are typically the official legal documentation of all actions in public meetings. It’s important to ensure they represent reality, and it’s the public’s responsibility to do so.

What do you think? Make sense? Have additional criteria to suggest?

The scorecard below is your chance to be the Olympic judge mentioned yesterday.

Download it and print one out the next time you go to a public meeting. After you fill it out, let the world know what you think of public process via the MyWHaT online scorecard.

Keep us posted.

Download your scorecard here (PDF)

Online scorecard can be found at: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22ALF6LABFL

___

Please subscribe to this BLOG’s feed and pass this link on to a friend.