What
do you think?
Every
Tuesday there is a Board of Supervisors meeting. During these meetings each
member of the public is entitled to three minutes of public comment in order to
speak about issues the board is addressing. The Aug. 21, 2007 meeting was led
by Chairman and Third District Supervisor,
I
was disturbed by what I had witnessed during the meeting on Aug. 21. As
mentioned above, the topic was the state housing mandate and at the request of
Firestone, The Santa Barbara County Council was making a presentation on the
consequences of defying the mandate. Throughout the presentation Firestone
cheered our county attorneys on, while constantly interrupting and chastising
those in the public that spoke against adhering to or questioning the validity
of the mandate. These episodes were repeated over and over during this meeting
and have become a progressively regular pattern now being displayed by some of
our county leaders. Sitting there it seemed that the public was on trial and
the chairman was unwilling to hear any points from the citizens that were in
opposition to his viewpoint, no matter how valid or reasonable they were.
Leaving
this meeting, I thought, “What a waste of time for so many concerned
citizens to have come to speak. Why should they take time out in the middle of
the day and drive down here only to be demeaned? Why am I leaving with such a
sinking feeling?”
I
am personally interested in voicing my opinion regarding issues that will
affect the quality of life for me and my family and the future of our county
and valley. I am also grateful that there are others who feel compelled to do
the same and will continue to do so, regardless of how they are treated.
I
think our elected and appointed officials need to be reminded of what a public
hearing is and that their constituents are not on trial. We rely on them to act
on our behalf in a transparent fashion and to make sound decisions based on
what is best for the people that they represent; one way for them to acquire
that information is to sincerely listen to us during our public comment period.
I also think that the chairman needs to rise to even a higher level in setting
an example of professionalism and leadership by fully supporting the
public’s right to freedom of speech and to respect that right with the
highest regard without intimidation or threat.
What
do you think?
A
copy of the