New Council. New Ideas. New Approach?

How many council members does it take to change a light bulb? Seven. One to change the bulb and six to recall how great the old light bulb was.

Change. It’s not easy. A new mayor and two new council members will almost assuredly mean some changes for how the Bemidji city council conducts meetings and carries out business. Here are my ideas for some changes.

Agenda
One change I will promote (and have already suggested to the Mayor-elect) is to move the time for citizen comments to the beginning of the meeting. The current agenda has “citizens with business before this council not on the agenda” as the last item, requiring residents to wait an entire meeting to make a brief comment. Moving the comment time to the beginning of the meeting sends the message that we value the ideas and thoughts of community members. More importantly, it provides them an opportunity to comment on agenda items before official action is taken and gives council members more information for decision making.

Shorter is not always better.
Parents often talk about wanting quality time versus quantity time when discussing parenting. I think the same is true for governing. If you could choose fewer productive, quality meetings or lots of short, perfunctory meetings, which would you choose? For me, I want to get some work done at a meeting and would opt for having fewer meetings, but investing that time wisely.

The current council schedule includes a meeting every Monday night. The first and third Mondays are the regular meeting and the second and fourth Mondays are work sessions. The bulk of their discussions and “work” take place during the off-week, hour and a half work session, leaving little work to be done on the regular Council meeting night. This routine has meant that several regular meetings in the past six months have been completed in 30 minutes or less. What’s wrong with this picture?

First, there is no video camera at the work session and generally, no citizen audience. Second, there are often added agenda items that are discussed and even voted on without (in my opinion) proper public notice. Third, this adds to community feelings that the city council is less than transparent when carrying out city business. Although the less formal format of the work sessions is a positive aspect, I would support having the discussions and “work” at the regular meetings so the public has the opportunity to be fully informed.

Committees (current committee list)
Too many committees, not enough committees or the wrong ones? There was a time when our city council did not meet on every alternate Monday for a work session. They generally managed their work at regular meetings, met in an occasional work session, or worked within a committee structure and reported back at regular council meetings for full council decision making. The standing committees provided an opportunity for citizen-staff-council interaction and collaboration to find solutions to issues.

The current council has scrapped the standing committee structure in favor of a regular work session. While it works, with this format council members have few opportunities to interact with staff except through occasional calls for information or to report a citizen complaint. Could council members and staff working side-by-side make better decisions than members working without benefit of their staffs’ advice? Maybe we should revisit the committees. Of course, using a committee structure requires letting go of some control, which can be difficult, but using the committee structure for research, review and problem solving seems like a good idea.

Ultimately, good governance serves the public by providing information that is accessible via a process that is transparent. If changing our routine better meets that goal, let’s change.

What changes would you make?