Commission Packet - October 2016
Submitted by mwatkins on Thu, 10/13/2016 - 13:49
Release Type:
Commission Packet
Date: Thursday, October 20th, 2016
Time: 3:30 p.m.
Location: Southern Oaks Library
The Metropolitan Library System of Oklahoma County encourages participation from all patrons and citizens of Oklahoma County. If participation at any public meeting is not possible due to a disability, whether physical, hearing or speech related, please notify the office of the Executive Director (606-3726) at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the scheduled public meeting to allow the Library to make necessary accommodations.
- Call to Order and Roll Call to Establish Quorum.
- Introductions
- Comments from General Public
- Consent Docket
- Recommendations from Administration
- Staff Reports
- Executive Director's Report
- Comments from Commission Members
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Why was this policy rushed through without giving staff the opportunity to read and make comments? All of the other policies that are being reviewed have been presented in this fashion. Was there not already a policy in place to deal with public comments during Commission meetings?
Thanks for your comment Aaron. VG 120 is a new policy. We did not previously have a process for public comments during commission meetings and needed to draft one to accommodate the increase of public comment at recent meetings. It would have been posted to the intranet if we had had more time to draft it before including it in the packet. We certainly prefer to post the policies to the intranet first, not only because it is beneficial for staff, but because staff has helped edit these policies before taking them to the commission. I should also note that this policy was drafted due to an increase of public comment at previous meetings, and not because of expected comments at upcoming meetings.
Does the commission or the administration want the staff's comments about this Guiding Value? Will the commission or the administration use the possible staff's comments about this Guiding Value to change the policy when VG 120 is added to the intranet?
Thanks for helping clarify this, Gatlin. Yes, we do want feedback ... Although we prefer to have everything all perfect and planned out, we can always make adjustments to the wording of recommended policies during the meeting. So, if anyone has any suggestions for changes to VG120 - Public Comments during Regular Commission Meetings, let us know.
For easier comment, we will add an intranet entry for VG 120 on Monday -- I don't have permissions, or I'd do it now.
I should also mention that the reason this one was "rushed through without giving staff the opportunity to read and make comments" had nothing to do with the Family Talk issues that have arisen. Instead, it was due primarily to the fact that we had an individual who requested to make comments at our last meeting. While it was handled well by the Commission chair, and ultimately, it came off without incident, we did not and do not have a policy that governs public comment and I thought we should have a one. Ideally, we would have been able to get it done in time for all of you to review and comment in our normal fashion. Unfortunately, I didn't get it drafted soon enough for that, so it all got rushed at the end. The fact that the Family Talk collection has come into question is just a coincidence of timing. Hope that clears up some of the questions about this.
Thanks again.
--Tim
VG 120 has now been added as a separate intranet post. Staff, we welcome your comments!
Since the commission uses executive sessions the public really doesn't even have the information to be well informed to comment anyhow. Also, I have always found it striking that the public has to publicly disclose their domiciles to speak for less than 15 minutes while the commissioners don't - which probably warded against many in the public from speaking anyhow. It is weird how the lib. protects that information in the member's account until the member wants to say something at a meeting, then the lib. publishes it.
Also, it may be important to remember that someone who wants to speak about FAMILY TALK on the 20th and is disallowed can instead of filling the request to speak form, fill the Individual's Comments on Library Materials form to accomplish the same thing while not publicly disclosing his/her home and possibly his/her family's home who may for some reason not want their address in the Commission Meetings public Packet. In theory they are very similar approaches to the same thing except one doesn't inundate Janet, sorry. What is funny about the commentary form is that the second paragraph really goes to the heart of the issue with FAMILY TALK.
Hi Gatlin, and thanks for the thoughts. You mentioned a couple of things here -- some of which I have answers for, some I may not, and some I may not totally understand.
I'm not sure what you mean with regard to the Commission's use of executive sessions or the public not having information to be well informed, but I can say that they generally only employ executive sessions to discuss issues with their legal counsel or of a personnel nature. Since I've been here, the Commission has only had three executive sessions -- two relating to my appraisal/employment contract, and one relating to pending legal action.
By law, there are only a few things that can be done in executive session by public boards and commissions, and I'd encourage you and others to review the regulations: https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf
There's a section all about it in an attorney general's opinion here
or in an article provided by the Oklahoma Bar Association, here: http://www.okbar.org/members/BarJournal/archive2015/MarArchive15/OBJ8608...
As for requiring the address of speakers, I don't know the background for sure, but as we give preference to residents of the service area, this could simply be a way to help us determine their status. Also, this is a fairly standard process for public bodies, and it is practiced by cities, the county, and school boards (locally and across the country). The Commissioners are known within the community and their names and pictures are published on our site; while we don't publish their addresses (just as we don't publish staff addresses), we do receive communications for them at the Library's official address, and when we do it is passed along to them.
UPDATE
I could be wrong on this .... Well, it turns out I was wrong ... the request to provide public comment is supposed to be included in the minutes. Sorry for the mistake, but now we all know for sure! .....[but I don't think we include copies of the request for public comment in the packet that is publicly available. It is a part of the official minutes, and someone could request that information, but it's not posted as part of the packet. I'll double check on this, and let you know.]
Not sure what you mean about someone being disallowed to speak, but regardless, I don't really agree that speaking to the Commission is the same as filling out the comment on materials forms; certainly they both result in examination of the issue raised by the member, but the processes are very different. Public comments are made directly to the Commission, while the comment on materials forms are reviewed and responded to by staff. Also, anyone who wishes to make a comment to the Commission should be prepared for them to thank you, but in no other way respond to the subject of your comment. This too is a fairly common practice in public meetings.
One last comment I would make is that the Commission's job is to set policy. And while they can certainly set policy based on their own agenda, for the most part, they follow the staff's lead based on our research, analysis, and recommendations. We are all part of what enables the Library operate, but we have different roles. It is likely that the Commission will not act on anything relating to public comments until it has been fully assessed by staff and we make a formal recommendation.
I hope this clarifies some of the questions, and I look forward to additional questions and comments about this.
--Tim