Advertisement

Life in the Kalkaska County Board room has been rough lately. Arguments amongst the board members and those gathered to view the board have been prevalent as of late. Frustration has, understandably, begun to set in.

Frustration brews with those who are watch dogs of the board as a result of closing meetings that perhaps should not have been closed; frustration between the board members as a result of strong opinion differences and personality clashes; frustration between the board itself and those that govern it as a result of rules being stretched, or perhaps in some cases, broken, by the KCRC board. All of this frustration has begun to show through in the day-to-day business of the KCRC board.

Even a casual observer can see that there is more tension during these meetings than all of the other county board meetings combined. This is quite unfortunate for the public image of the KCRC as the in fighting can reflect upon it quite negatively.

Some of the disagreements are as simple as minute approval from other meetings. These simple disagreements can inadvertently come to dominate a meeting that actual KCRC business may have been better served by dominating.

A perfect example of business that needed to be done, but may have not required the amount of time that was spent upon it, was at a recent KCRC meeting and it involved public speaking times.

It is required by law that every government board allow for public speaking time. As this is a democracy that we live in, public input is not only encouraged, it is required. Each board will have, in its minutes, time set aside for public comments. The KCRC board has yet to set exact parameters for what kind of public speaking they will allow and for what duration that speaking may last. This issue began as a simple motion to clarify the language. It has now turned into an issue for which the KCRC has brought in their attorney to advise them on. This attorney also interpreted the Open Meeting's Act for the KCRC board as some members have, of late, been unclear on its meaning.

The latest go round for the board was at their April 14 8 a.m. meeting. Robert Dryden, someone who has kept a watchful eye on the KCRC for some time, asked whether the issue of how long one can speak, how many times one can speak and when one can speak will be resolved at that meeting or not. The KCRC attorney had recommended allowing public speaking twice during a meeting.

"Well, if you'd listened to him, he also said that we could have the public speak one time," Jacob Uitvlugt, board chairman, said.

The board was up against the issue of whether or not they wished to have the public speak once or twice and for how long. The issue of when the public would be allowed to speak was also raised.

"I would take the ÔÉat any timeÉ' out," Jim Green said, referring to the board's present policy, which would have to be amended if any changes were to be made.

Uitvlugt made the request that the board take advantage of the public input here and clarify their policy of public input.

"I still think that public speaking should be one time only. The attorney said up to five minutes in the beginning and up to three minutes at the end. He said that it would be permissible to do one time only and that it was also permissible to do away with this Ôanytime' language," Uitvlugt said.

"The Open Meetings Act also has a part in it that states that we can put into our policy a requirement that anyone that does address the board can not be negative. I would like to see that in there also," George Nice added. Proving to the nay sayers that he does have a working knowledge of the Open Meetings Act.

Uitvlugt and Campbell, another member of the board, slightly disagreed with Nice on this, stating that the public's opinion is their opinion and should not be stifled. Uitvlugt also added that there is no language that states that the board needs to respond to any public input as that can oftentimes lead to a debate.

"Sometimes it's good to just sit there and take a little negativity," Uitvlugt said.

A lot of confusion falls to the board's present policy. As it stood at the time of that meeting, one could speak at the beginning or end of the meeting, but not both. Language was not in place that clearly stated speaking was a one time affair.

At that point, Dryden became involved with the conversation again.

"Didn't you hear what your own attorney recommended? He recommended allowing the public to speak twice. If he recommended this to you why are you not listening? He said that he would recommend five minutes at the beginning and three minutes at the end. Do you really want to have speaking be just one time? Because then we may have some problems." Dryden states.

Uitvlugt states that, yes, he did recommend that, but he also stated that it would be permissible to allow one speaking time per public member wishing to speak.

George Nice, obviously frustrated with the meeting's direction, picked up his briefcase and walked out, as the clerk yelled after him that she needed a paper signed. Nice did not seem to acknowledge this. The meeting had not been adjourned, the public was still speaking, whether that speaking was in or out of turn, perhaps a lawyer could not even tell at this point. Nice gets to the door, waves a goodbye to the room, and leaves.

Campbell, Custer, and Green all seem to agree that allowing five minutes of speaking by the public at the beginning of the meeting and three minutes at the end seems like a good idea.

"That second speaking part was put in there because when I sat out there as public and complained that if I spoke at the beginning and then the board at the time brought something up I could have no comment. But, at the beginning you don't know what they are going to do for the rest of the meeting," Custer said.

"I would like them to be able to speak at both times. There is really not that many people who will want to speak at both times anyway. I would not let them speak in the middle of the meeting unless it was absolutely pertinent, like they lived on that road," Campbell said.

The motion was made by Custer that they make a temporary fix to the policy of a three minute speaking time per person at the beginning of the meeting and three minutes per person at the end of the meeting. Campbell seconded the motion, and it was tabled for their next gathering.

Jim Green summed up what a lot of people have been thinking lately.

"I think that one of these months we need to start talking about how well the pot holes are being filled and how well everything else is running instead of continuously doing this crap," Green said.

Brooks Vanderbush can be reached at bvanderbush@michigannewspapers.com.