Are public meetings too late for community impact?
Original post made by CDSI Research on Nov 13, 2011
This morning news service researchers circulated a study of public meetings in Contra Costa County that provided clear evidence that government decisions are fully documented and decided before such meetings. Using many examples including recent redistricting of the county, researchers' discovery of documentation repeatedly defined decisions brought to public meetings for "rubber stamp" approvals.
As part of a feature on how to engage and communicate with governments, news service researchers pointed to the need by residents, neighborhoods and communities to gain direct meetings with their elected officials very early in consideration of issues to insure that their interests and positions are considered in the final decisions brought to public meetings for approval. "If it is on a public meeting agenda it is too late to change the decision."
As you consider publication of a story on this decision process, you might define how this contrasts with various public meeting laws and requirements. "Is the public served when public government meetings only exist for public approval of already-made decisions?"
As a CDSI Research courtesy to media editors
on Nov 13, 2011 at 10:55 am
You clearly fail to comprehend public meeting law. Just because you don't agree with established rules and practices which public agencies and public officials must follow doesn't mean that decisions have been "already-made" or are rubber stamped.
Try being productive rather than trying to re-invent the wheel, just because it does not suit your vision of what is important. Look in the mirror; perhaps it is not about the issue, maybe it is more about the individual. Continuing with nothing but critisism about anything and everything related to the County lost it's lustre a long time ago.
on Nov 13, 2011 at 12:34 pm
As campaigns enlist commentators to attack comments on your forum that provide study references and news services research, including BANG, such campaign strategies become apparent to your readers as they discuss, in private exchanges, the volume of such campaign commentary appearing on the Express Forum. The result is exposure of such campaign commentary without any study resources to validate such defamation as Swift-Boating.
We are seeing district 2 and 3 campaigns ramping their swift-boating and avoiding any references that will allow your readers to qualify such campaign dogma. It remains your opportunity to provide fair and balanced presentation of the issues of these campaigns including the histories of the candidates to your readers so they are more informed voters. It is more an opportunity to actually validate the interests of our elected officials to have direct conversations with residents, neighborhoods and community groups to better understand the will and interests of those communities such officials serve.
In does seem quite simple to ask elected officials about their meetings with such groups and to publish the advantages of such direct, interactive discussions early in the considerations of community issues.
on Nov 13, 2011 at 8:51 pm
There you go again, the minute someone disagrees with you, you cry foul! Swift boating? How many posts have you used that in today? C'mon be a little more original.
I think you need to study up a little bit on what constitutes defamation. Disagreeing with you or negating your odd opinions doesn't quite qualify. Your "private exchanges" are not really helping you sort fact from fiction, as they are helping you build false conspiracy theories.
I am at a loss as why you believe being challenge is campaign related? That makes little sense to someone concerned about community issues in general. Postings usually have better results when the content gets right to the point. I don't see that taking place in the volley of innuendo that you constantly post. Let's keep things factual, shall we?