Second in a two-part series by Laura Lance
August 6, 2024
Citizens Speak
In 1842, a citizen spoke to the Aiken Town Council, urging “immediate repairs” for the “dangerous condition” of the Laurens Street railroad bridge. History repeated some 180 years later, in 2022, when citizen Beatrice McGhee, speaking in the non-agenda portion of the meeting, spoke before City Council, urging the repairs or replacement necessary to get the long-neglected Fairfield Street bridge reopened. Soon after, the City Manager proposed using $3 million of the plutonium money for that purpose.
Since 2022, when Council reimplemented the non-agenda comment period in City Council meetings1, there have been numerous other important, and often impactful, non-agenda comments brought to Council. Here are but a few, in no particular order:
- Laverne Justice brought Council’s attention to the $2 fee being charged to children to go inside Smith Hazel Recreation Center to play a pick-up game of basketball. The fee was later removed. 2
- Julie Briggs Worley suggested that City Council consider hiring a City Attorney to be on staff, as many other cities do; a staff attorney who would avoid conflicts of interest and ensure all city and state laws are followed.
- Robert Leishear, PhD, a registered professional engineer and former research scientist at Savannah River National Laboratory, brought to Council an explanation of the root causes of the water main breaks. Mr. Leishear introduced innovative methods for addressing these causes toward the goal of reducing water main breaks and boil-water advisories. This history and the City’s lack of response are covered the post-election story, “Election Night: Teddy Milner is Next Mayor… and the Future of Brown Aiken Brown Water.”
- Jacob Ellis pointed out the lack of a public restroom in The Alley, to which he was advised that the City is studying options to address the matter.
- Tarsha Howell, actively involved in clean-up efforts on Aiken’s northside, brought to Council attention the numerous potholes on Union Street. The next day, SC-DOT was seen repairing the potholes.
- Becky Phillips, an Aiken citizen who is without a home, brought to Council a firsthand account of what it was like, the night before, to sleep outdoors in 15-degree weather; her plea, one of many made by Ms. Phillips, was for Council to address the issue of homelessness in Aiken.
- Jenn Stoker and a number of other citizens raised concerns about the City’s August 2022 decision to close 6 parks in the City. The City later gave verbal agreement to keeping these parks open, although the intention to close still exists on paper.3
- Luis Rinaldini brought Council’s attention to a stream of “mismanaged” property deals by the City and cited the City’s then-recent sale, without pubic bid and auction, of four properties which sold for $150k to an employee of the City Attorney’s office, and which afterward went on the market for $700k.4
- Bill McGhee brought the issue of the City’s DEMO 200 program that has been responsible for the destruction of historic homes on Aiken’s northside; the program is now on hold and being re-evaluated by the City.
- Jacob Ellis urged City Council to address the hazardous sidewalk conditions along the Richland Avenue corridor downtown, which are cracking and buckling up, and to urge SCDOT to address similar, hazardous conditions with the crosswalks.
- Don Moniak recently obtained answers pertaining to the status of two projects — Project Unicorn and the proposed Greenway trail from Generations Park to the City’s 2,500-acre watershed protection “Brunswick Tract” north of I-20. The latter is currently on hold due to difficulties in obtaining easements from some private property owners. The former appears to be on hold or canceled.
- Debbie Brown challenged City Council’s assertion that the opposition to Project Pascalis was “insignificant” and produced numbers from both the citizen’s “Do it Right” petition and from the City’s own comment cards to show that two-thirds of citizen comments expressed serious concerns or opposition to Project Pascalis and the demolition of the Hotel Aiken and the McGhee block.
- Williamsburg St/Farmers Market: Valerie Wrobel’s persistent questioning about the Farmer’s Market tree-cutting fiasco5 flushed out a new official response that it was not the contractor’s fault, but the conveyance of the wrong set of plans to the contractor. (The city later backtracked and claimed it was the overall plan that was the problem).
- LaShaun Ryans raised the issue of the hazardous design of the Hampton Avenue-Laurens Street intersection; the intersection is now on the list for a rework.
- Teresa Callahan spoke to City Council about the plight of northside neighborhoods, describing the conditions of litter, drug activity, senior citizens afraid to leave their homes, and people with no place to live. She felt the City was neglecting them and asked for help. The City has since worked with Ms. Callahan and the group “Eyes on Aiken” that she and LaShaun Ryans helped organize to empower positive change in northside neighborhoods.
The Invisible Author
Given what seems to be a history of constructive, impactful nonagenda public comments, who in our City government thought to put pen to paper to propose the following changes to the non-agenda comment period in the City Code?
- Reduce by half the amount of time allotted for non-agenda citizen comments.
- Relegate non-agenda comments period to the end of the meeting.
- Limit the content of citizen input to the subjective “matters within the scope of the city’s business.”
- Require citizens to pre-register to speak.
After listening to the entirety of the hearing in the video, below, the question begs answering: Who put pen to paper?
And why?
BELOW: The entirety of the June 24, 2024 public hearing on Item #5 under New Business, “First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Section 2-64 of the Aiken City Code,” can be heard in the video starting at approx. minute 2:43:37.
Council Speaks
During Council’s June 24, 2024 public hearing on Item #5 under New Business, “First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Section 2-64 of the Aiken City Code,” two schools of thought emerged among the council members. One school recognized the value of the non-agenda comment period and of listening to what citizens have to say. The other seemed to, at best, tolerate non-agenda comments and, at worst, spoke of a need to “police” the process. One wanted to keep the comment period at the beginning of the meeting. The other wanted to remove the first comment period. One wanted to require pre-registration. The other did not.
The content of the statements made by Councilwoman Andrea Gregory, who was the sixth council member to speak, provided a clear contrast to some of the earlier speakers:
“When public comment started, at the beginning, I’ll be honest with you, at first I was like, oh my gosh, this is pretty brutal. It was during Pascalis. I mean, we got beat up to a pulp. Was it my favorite? No. Was it an avenue to give us perspective? Absolutely. Did I learn a lot of things? Yes. I was able to really gauge and understand my community a little bit better. And I think that’s evolved to such an asset in our community, to have that opportunity for the public to come up and, you know, give us a piece of their mind. It’s so important, I think, for all of us. “
At the same time, Gregory agreed with the other five council members that one of the comment periods should be dropped. She advocated for keeping the comment period near the start of the meeting. She was opposed to the signup sheet requiring citizens to pre-register to speak:
“If you came [to the meeting], you made the effort. You should be entitled to speak.”
Gregory’s comments more or less echoed those of Councilwomen Price and Diggs and stood in contrast to statements by Councilman Ed Woltz, who said, “Anybody that doesn’t want a sign-up sheet must have a reason,” while advocating for a signup sheet to prioritize those who live within the City limits and to ensure that the same person wasn’t coming in meeting after meeting and signing up. “We could police that and say ‘Hey, you can’t just come in every meeting just to sign up,”
Gregory’s statements also stood in contrast to Councilwoman Kay Brohl’s earlier statement that “The state law does not require there to be a public comment period in Council meetings.” According to Councilwoman Gregory:
“I now view public comment as a right. It’s our right as constituents. If I were out there, I would want to have that opportunity. We are doing the business of the city, but we are your messengers.”
Regarding the assertions by Girardeau and Brohl that those who do business with the City shouldn’t have to wait through the non-agenda comment period to bring their proposals, Councilwoman Gregory said:
“They’re asking for something; something from our community, not from us. They’re asking of the community. So if they’re here for three or four hours, so be it, because we are doing the business of the City; but we are strictly your messengers, and so I don’t mind them waiting now.”
Lessie Price, the fifth council member to speak, spoke at length. Below are a few excerpts from her statements:
The non-agenda item has done more for the African-American community than anything else.
Starting with the open agenda, as people came to listen to what was being said, they began to feel more of a part of this community, a part of the city. They built relationships with many of you, through the way you approached them, included them in wanting to hear the ideas.
The fact that we have opened up the courage of people to come into these chambers and share what their communities are facing on a daily basis, on a monthly basis. That has been very good to build camaraderie and togetherness for this community. And I will tell you that many comments to me and Gail [Councilwoman Diggs] as well, how welcome they feel by many of you, because of the engagement, and the relationships they’ve built as a result of being in these Chambers. We don’t need to create anything rigid, because creating rigid criteria really makes folks skeptical of what they will say, but we need to hear from these individuals.
That is what builds strong communities —- when you can talk to each other and most of all not just talk, but listen.
On Listening
While the word “efficiency” was emphasized by Council members Girardeau and Brohl, the term was never described outright. Councilman Girardeau explained what efficiency isn’t, saying, “It’s not about “trying to go quicker,” nor about “excluding anyone from talking.”
Councilwoman Brohl said, “We want to hear you, but we want to do it in the right order, in the right manner, and with efficiency” and “There’s nothing in this that is bad, or we don’t want to hear from you.”
Girardeau and Brohl variously ascribed subjective values such as “pro or con” and “positive or negative” and “confrontational” to citizen comments — a perspective that is sometimes echoed in local social media threads, where terms such as do-nothings, naysayers, and CAVE (citizens againt virtually everything) are tossed like spitballs at anyone who gives critical input on local projects.
Is it a positive or a negative to expect officials to comply with points of law? Is it pro or con to ask the City to repair what is broken? Is it confrontational to oppose over-development and the destruction of trees, parks, and historic places? Is citizen participation merely something to be endured, or is it an integral part of a functioning City government?
Crunching Numbers
A running thread among all of the Council members in the June 24 public hearing was the concern over the time spent on nonagenda public comments. All members were in favor of “doing away” with one of the two non-agenda comment periods, as they felt these were causing the meetings to run long. Examination of the actual time spent on non-agenda comments over the past year, however, shows that Council members’ concerns were unfounded.
While citizens have been allotted two non-agenda speaking periods — one 30-minute period at the beginning of the meeting, and another 30-minutes near the end of the meeting, for a total of 60 minutes of non-agenda comments per meeting — this time has not once been used in full over the past year.
A review of the twenty-one City Council meeting videos from June 2023 through June 2024 found that the average total time spent on non-agenda comments was only 21 minutes per meeting out of the 60 minutes allotted. The most time spent was 51 minutes on September 25, 2023. The least was 3 minutes on June 10, 2024.
Over the past year, the average total time spent on non-agenda comments was only 21 minutes per meeting out of the 60 minutes allotted.
The prescribed remedy to this perceived problem, (as written by the unnamed hand that penned Item #5 in the June 24 agenda) was to abolish the first 30-minute non-agenda period, and keep the second non-agenda period.
There is a problem with this, however, which was well-described by citizen Linda Keener, who spoke at the hearing; a problem that the author of the “Ordinance to Amend Section 2-64 of the Aiken City Code,” knows if he or she crunched the numbers. The problem is that, by the arrival of the second non-agenda period at the end of the meeting, the room is nearly empty. Most everyone has usually gone home. And who could blame them? Most City Council meetings last over two hours, ending after 9:00 p.m. with some lasting until 10:30 p.m. and later.
This is likely the reason why, in over 50% of the meetings over the past year, zero citizens spoke during the second non-agenda comment period. The average time spent on this second period of non-agenda comments over the past year was only 3.5 minutes per meeting — about one speaker per meeting.
Is this what efficiency looks like?
Local citizens are urged to pay close attention to upcoming City Council agendas for notice of public hearings to amend Section 2.-64 of the Aiken City Code. Is the average of 21 minutes per meeting too much time to allow citizens to speak? Or is there an effort afoot to fix something that ain’t broke? And who is that invisible author? Let City Council know your thoughts.
_____________
See also:
The Citizens’ Voice at City Council Meetings (Part One)
Articles pertaining to issues cited in both articles:
- History of the “Open Mic” Public Comment on Nonagenda Items comment period, aka as “Open Mic,” September 2022 to June 2023.
- Youth Recreation Center Fees
- Divesting of Parks
- Property Deals
- Farmer’s Market