After three years as City Councilmembers, it has become clear that the period for public comment at City Council meetings, function like a suggestion box. Each person receives a maximum of three minutes to speak about any City matter or agenda item. However, that allowance is generally limited by the time the President chooses to spend on a specific topic. Thus, the time for public participation may be cut short; not everyone who desires to speak has been given the time to do so. For us, this lack of true discussion and engagement leaves communication with the public feeling impersonal, inefficient, and bureaucratic.
In Oberlin’s form of government, the City Council exists as the legislative body meant to make decisions and direct City staff based on what is best for our community. Our community includes all folks who reside in Oberlin and is inclusive of our college population. During all three readings of this particular ordinance, and at many other meetings throughout our tenure, students from Oberlin College and Conservatory have had the courage to come and speak about what their goals, needs, and desires are for our community and its future.
Sometimes, students are met with resistance from others in our town who do not support their representation. Thankfully, this does not seem to deter their engagement in City matters. At one of our recent general meetings, a former City Councilmember advised the current Council against listening to students who will be gone in a few years anyway. Perhaps this former Councilmember had forgotten that at least three of the sitting members of Council are former Oberlin College students, who now serve the public.
To any students reading this, you matter, and you should always exercise your right to participate in your local government. Anyone who discourages you is wrong to do so. The students, along with other community members who came to speak on the matter at hand — amending the Community Bill of Rights — drove us two to dive deeper into the question of what a proposed amendment to the Community Bill of Rights amendment would mean for our future.
The proposed amendment to the CBR (originally adopted by the Oberlin voters in 2013) was first brought before Council on March 16. The amendment’s stated purpose was to update the language to explicitly allow for gas infrastructure to retail end users — which includes buildings utilizing gas for power, thus paving a path for a natural gas pipeline to be extended to Oberlin’s new industrial park project. It will be no surprise to anyone in Oberlin that seemingly every seat in the Council chambers was filled at all three readings. In the final reading on April 20, we, Jessa and Libni, joined by Joe Waltzer, voted against the amendment. There was very little meaningful dialogue on the proposed amendment during the reading. A motion to postpone the third reading to allow for more discussion and community engagement was defeated 4–3. Our efforts to create an opportunity for both the Council and the public to understand the amendment’s potential consequences failed. Ultimately, the amendment to change the language in the ordinance passed 4–3, leaving us feeling defeated, confused, and frustrated.
As a Council, we cannot deliberate on agenda items except in compliance with our sunshine (open-meeting) laws. If we want to discuss an item as a group, we must publish the date and time so that the public has an opportunity to observe and participate. Thus, when you see City Councilmembers discussing items in public meetings, you are most likely witnessing the only time that an item is discussed by us prior to its official reading. Though this requirement maximizes transparency, it also constrains how and when we can deliberate. So how can we have meaningful conversations with each other and with the people in our community that we are meant to represent and serve?
Public participation at regular Council meetings exists, but rarely does it produce meaningful dialogue. As Councilmembers, we are expected to listen to the public’s comments, but we are highly discouraged from engaging in any sort of discussion or back-and-forth with those who come up to the microphone and speak to us. In fact, only the President of Council is allowed to even address the participant and, again, is bound by the unwritten rule of precedent that we do not engage in conversation. The speaker is thanked for their comment and returns to their seat. Though folks can approach individual Councilmembers or send emails and phone calls outside of formal meetings, the rules and procedures surrounding public commentary make dynamic and holistic engagement between the Council and community members difficult.
The motion to postpone the amendment was, at its core, an attempt to bridge this gap. Regardless of where anyone stands on any issue, intentional time for deliberation matters. Monday’s City Council meeting would have benefited from more time for intentional discussion. Holding dedicated public meetings that invite sustained participation on difficult topics should be a routine part of public service. During our tenure, we will continue to commit to working to bridge that gap and to be as open and transparent as possible, but how we will put procedures in place to bring those intentions to fruition remains to be seen.
