Scheduling of meetings causing concern
Open Letter To Mayor Jaggers,
This letter is to tell you how disappointed I am in the choices you made when you rescheduled and conducted the special meeting that was held Tuesday, August 28 at 4:30 p.m. at City Hall.
In June, I spent time with you in your office asking you to schedule meetings of importance to the citizens at a building large enough to hold all concerned, have a system so that all could hear, and have it air conditioned appropriately for the citizens in the audience. You responded favorably to this conversation and even said you would look into changing the meeting already posted and scheduled for that evening so that all concerned could be seated. When that did not happen, I understood because the City Administrator had informed me that a change in address was not allowed after the meeting was posted. However, after our lengthy conversation, I expected you would make such changes for important future meetings since you said you understood these changes were needed.
However, you continued to have meetings of citizen importance at the City Hall. In July, I read your Mayor’s Corner where you wrote that a Town Hall would be held at the Community Center prior to any action being taken by the council. I was pleased since this would allow all of the interested and effected peoples to voice their opinion, and/or be in the audience to listen. When you did not follow through, I was extremely disappointed. When I saw that the meeting scheduled for last Thursday was canceled, I spoke with the City Administrator by phone and sent out emails to you and all council members that in part stated the following:
“The meeting that was scheduled for today and canceled will eventually be rescheduled. It needs to be scheduled for a large air conditioned room with good acoustics and/or microphones. You cannot legitimately call a meeting where a vote could take place that directly effects about 100 people and only offer 54 or so seats. I am not one of those 100 but expect to be effected by any vote, and I expect a seat to be provided for me also. No council in good conscience should plan a meeting knowing that only a portion of the interested parties will be able to be seated inside - in August - in over 100 degree weather - unless the plan is to keep a large portion of those interested and attending o u t. I do not expect this of our city council.”
Late Tuesday afternoon, I was shocked to see that you had the rescheduled meeting and it was POSTED on Saturday and scheduled for 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, and it was again in the same meeting room with limited seating. As soon as I learned this, I drove to City Hall and stood outside with the majority of those in attendance. Since I could not enter, be seated or speak, I spent my time thinking. This is what I believe.
The Saturday POSTING that met the minimum required 72 hours had the effect of preventing people from attending due to lack of time to plan and/or knowledge of the meeting.
The choice of the meeting place had the effect of keeping most of those in attendance outside in the heat and sun for hours.
The choice of the early time of 4:30, effected those still at work or traveling back from work by preventing them from signing up to speak, sitting in the meeting or attending this meeting at all.
The choice of limiting the public comment time to 30 minutes had the effect of silencing the public; those directly effected and citizens of Wimberley.
The choice of arranging the speakers Pro followed by Con gave the impression that the citizens of Wimberley were equally divided on this topic.
I do not think these were ethical choices for a Mayor of a concerned and involved community. I am disappointed in your decisions.
Mary Mears Burke