PUBLIC HEARING
TOWN MEETING RULES AND PROCEDURES
MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2008
I. CALL TO ORDER
Town Meeting Moderator, Joel Mandell, called the public hearing to order at 7:00 p.m. in Room 106 of the Simsbury Town Offices.
Mr. Mandell stated that the Town Clerk was provided a copy of the Rules & Procedures on December 10, 2007. On December 20, 2007, a press release was printed in the Hartford Courant in the "What's Happening" section. On December 21, 2007, the Rules & Regulations were posted on the Simsbury Town website. On December 21, 2007, the date of this public hearing was posted on the Town calendar. On December 28, 2007, there was a formal notice printed in the Hartford Courant. On December 29, 2007, Hartford Courant reporter, Lorretta Waldman, published a story about this hearing in the "Connecticut" section of the Hartford Courant. On January 4, 2008, a press release was printed in the Simsbury Post.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
Ashley Lane II, 135 Old Farms Road, West Simsbury, stated that he has gone through the current and proposed Rules & Procedures. He feels that the changes that were made were very extensive; some of the language in the deleted section had been condensed and incorporated into other sections. Also, some language has been changed extensively in meaning, which changed some statements from optional to required (i.e. "may" became "shall").
Mr. Lane stated that he has found some inconsistencies with the current Rules & Procedures. There is a Charter provision that states that the Moderator shall propose a procedure allowing a minimum amount of time for debate on each item. So far, he feels that this requirement has been handled on a meeting-by-meeting basis. He has observed that the rule in the past has been 3 minutes. Also, he stated that there were two opinion letters from the Town Attorney stating that the Town Meeting had no authority to reduce or reject the annual budget. He feels that this is also inconsistent with the current Rules & Procedures.
Regarding the proposed changes to the Rules and Procedures, Mr. Lane stated that there are a few things that stick out in his mind. One is the change from "may" to "shall" in the paragraph regarding the Pledge of Allegiance (Page 7). He feels that this could be considered that the Moderator is being forced to lead those assembled in the Pledge of Allegiance. He does not feel that the language should be changed in this section.
Mr. Lane stated that there is up to 5 minutes maximum per speaker with a limit of 45 minutes per call item. Mr. Mandell stated that Mr. Lane was incorrect. Mr. Lane stated that this could lead to a very long meeting because there might be a large number of speakers for a call item. He feels that up to 3 minutes would be more appropriate.
In summary, Mr. Lane stated that he does not feel that the old Rules & Procedures need to be re-written, although some of the rules may be inconsistent with the Charter. He feels that these slight changes could be modified by amendment.
In response to Mr. Lane's comments, Mr. Mandell stated that his philosophy is open government. He feels that 3 minutes is not enough time for some people; he has had several comments from people to increase the time. He feels 5 minutes would be an appropriate amount of time. With respect to the 45 minutes per call item, this is not a maximum amount of time. He stated that before anyone can move to call the item prior to the 45-minute time frame, all the speakers wishing to speak shall be granted the opportunity. The purpose of this change is to make sure that someone does not try to cut off debate with a premature motion to call the question. After 45 minutes, someone can stand up and call the question. At this point, they would have to act on that issue; if the Town Meeting defeats this, they can
keep going.
Barrett Lucas, 89 Old Farms Road, stated that the Town Meeting does not appear to be the kind of meeting that one would associate with a Town Meeting in New England. He feels that if someone has 3 minutes or 5 minutes to speak,
when they are done and turn to the Board, he does not feel that people receive a satisfactory rebuttal from the Board. He questioned if the Moderator could continue the challenge of a spokesperson. Mr. Mandell stated that he could not force any member of a Board to answer a question.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Mandell stated that he has received several comments by e-mail and one telephone call as follows:
> E-mail from Mary Mitchell on December 20, 2007 - She would like to see comments limited to less than 5 minutes and all speakers should use microphones. Mr. Mandell stated that he has proposed a 5-minute time limitation.
> E-mail from Michael Goman on December 20, 2007 - He is concerned about disruptive and hostile behavior from people. He is concerned that this inhibits citizens from speaking. He suggests there should be a Town-wide code of conduct for all meetings including Boards and Commissions. Mr. Mandell responded by referring him to the proposed Rules on Page 4, paragraph 1, which gives the Moderator authority to remove someone from the Public Meeting who is being disorderly, although he cannot control the conduct at other meetings.
> E-mail from Joshua Storm on December 29, 2007 - He would like to delete the use of Robert's Rules of Order for the Town Meeting and replace them with Mason's Guide to Legislative Procedure. Mr. Mandell stated that he has done some research and also spoke with the Town Attorney regarding this issue. Mason's Guide is for use by the State Legislature, which have a much more complex make-up and hearing. This is not for Town governments. Robert's Rules are geared toward citizen participation.
> A telephone call from Michael Long on December 31, 2007 - He suggested that the procedure for amending the Town Budget at the Town Meeting should be examined. He recognized and admitted to Mr. Mandell that this is not within the authority of the Town Meeting Moderator, but is a Town Charter matter. He agreed that it should be examined by a future Charter Revision Commission. Mr. Mandell stated that he has no control over this issue.
> E-mail from Robert Dugay on January 1, 2008 - He suggested that a 5 minute time limitation on an important issue might not be sufficient. He suggested that the Moderator have discretion to allow additional time on an important issue. Mr. Dugay also would like all Boards and Commissions to allow public audience at all meetings. Mr. Mandell stated that he advised Mr. Dugay that the proposed rules provide that the Moderator can allow additional time for speakers after all speakers have had an opportunity to speak. Regarding public audience at all meetings, Mr. Mandell stated that the Moderator has no authority over the conduct of the meetings of other Boards and Commissions; they set their own rules.
> E-mail from Kirsten Griebel on January 5, 2008 - She suggested that the rules have a provision to allow non-voters to speak. She also suggested allowing a spokesperson for a group to have a larger block of time than 5 minutes in certain circumstances. Mr. Mandell stated that he did consult with the Town Attorney and that there is no prohibition against non-voters speaking at a Town Meeting. He stated that he would be adding a provision concerning this in the spirit of open government. He stated that he would also add a provision to allow a speaker to yield time to another speaker with the Moderator having discretion to prevent a monopoly of time.
> E-mail from Mary Glassman, First Selectman, on January 8, 2008 - She supports a procedure allowing non-voters to speak as long as there is some connection with the Town of Simsbury. She also supports a provision allowing a spokesperson for a group to use more than a 5-minute allotment.
Mr. Mandell stated that he did receive an e-mail from Michael Long at 6:19p.m. today, but did not have time to read the lengthy e-mail prior to coming to this meeting. After closing the meeting, he will read Mr. Long's e-mail and also take his comments into consideration.
Mr. Mandell stated that he would be taking into consideration all of the comments he has received and make revisions to the Rules & Procedures as appropriate. If these minor changes are made, according to the Town Attorney, there is no need to have another public hearing. He will do a minor revision and will review them with the Town Attorney. He stated that the revised Rules & Procedures will then be posted on the Town's website. At the Town Meeting, the first order of
business on May 6, 2008, will be a motion to adopt these Rules & Procedures. There will be a time for comment, then a vote will be held. Mr. Mandell stated that he is hopeful that these Rules will be adopted. He stated that many of the provisions of the existing Rules dealt with a time when the budget was voted on at a Town Meeting. This is no longer the case.
Mr. Lane stated that he understands Mr. Mandell has removed the entire section dealing with the budget (Sub-section 9 of the current Rules). Mr. Mandell stated that he has removed everything with respect to the budget. Mr. Mandell and Mr. Lane continued to discuss the budget and what the purpose of the Town Meeting was. Mr. Mandell stated that they have not voted on the budget at the Town Meeting since 1992, although they do vote on certain capital projects below a certain dollar amount. Town Meetings are also held to approve other types of things (i.e. the lease of the Town buildings).
Mr. Mandell thanked Mr. Lane and Mr. Lucas for attending and for their comments at this meeting and also for the people who e-mailed and phoned in their comments. He will be taking them all into consideration.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Mandell adjourned the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
| 
