Public Comment
If there are mistakes here
please let us know so we can correct anything that needs correcting.
 On
Dec 9th, 2021 at the Board Meeting they plan to vote
on a new set of Meeting Rules and Public Comment rules. This
is the 4th set of rules that has been imposed since Richard
Manfredi has been here and each set has been
worse than the last. This one takes that model to new heights
removing open comment - totally it appears, It is 23 pages
that anyone wanting to make a simple statement at a meeting would
have to "study " in order to understand where the
comment was supposed to be made . I have not seen it properly described in a
single Commissioner's newsletter.
It will be passed virtually without the public understanding at
all what's being done. What is completely ironic, of course, is
that all of the language in the document says that it is about
enabling informations on matters that impact residents and about
public participation . Yet it uses
none of the many methods it
outlines to inform residents of this Policy that it plans to
pass .
Don't allow that !!!
Demand that they inform you first -- before it passes via
information sessions / roundtables / and of Course the proper
Committee meeting that they skipped over. Demand they
distribute a summary. Have them put the information
about it on the channel and on Social Media and in January
we'll add OUR input - some of which you can see below.
This is NOT how business in the
Township is supposed to be done .
Here is the
actual document
first presented 11-10-21 at the Committee of the Whole .
It is up for passage on
12-9-21 Tell them you do not want it passed until you
have been fully informed about the poorly written and confusing
things in it --- so you can make informed
comments.
What IS so
concerning ABOUT THIS NEW POLICY ?
1) It is so
poorly written and so convoluted that no one could easily
understand just where their opportunities to speak were in any
given meeting . Every meeting has different
guidelines Such guidelines should be well written, simple
and succint. And the same rules should apply for every Township
meeting - except that certain meetings like EAC or Shade
Tree should clearly invite open participation by residents .
REQUEST : REWRITE THIS
ENTIRELY SO IT IS CLEAR AND SUCCINcT AND SO THE RULES ARE MUCH
SIMPLER
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
2) The robust comment
& the open opportunity to petition our legislators has not been
restored SINCE
THE RIGHT TO SKIP OVER COMMITTEE MEETINGS WAS GRANTED, NEARLY ALL
HAVE BEEN SKIPPED OVER
The way our government works, is that when there is a problem the
residents are supposed to petition their legislators in order to
create legislation that fixes the problem. When we first tried to
do this, we found there was no place allowed for residents to
speak openly to their Commissioners,staff, & employees that are
there to serve them. So we created a place at the Committee
meetings. At the end of each Committee, our legislators inserted
3 minutes of open comment to address that Committee Chair &
members. Without any warning, information meeting, or other alert,
the Board of Commissioners under Commissioners Spiegelman and
Hecker, created a plan to remove that by adding a "2nd layer" of
Committees called the Committee of the Whole where we did not have
any open comment, where
our comments were not informed because they came before the agenda
item was even presented, and where they allowed themselves
to completely skip over our Committee meetingd- taking our
speaking rights out of hte equation. In doing so they
removed our ability to petition our legislators for needed changes
in our government. In this new version, Dec 2021, they have
not fixed anything. They have simply used one of Mr. Manfredi's
favorite tricks---- renaming things to cause confusion ------ and
they renamed the Committee of the Whole the Board of Commissioners
"Working Session" ( which of course will cause great confusion
with a regular Board of Commissioners Meeting. People are likely
not to understand which one they are attending because they
have virtually the same name).
REQUEST :
Restore all Committee meetings
and require that everything be handled there.
ALLOW 3 MINUTES AFTER EACH ITEM IS PRESENTED AND BEFORE THE VOTE,
AND ALLOW 3 MINUTES OF OPEN COMMENT TO PETITION YOUR LEGISLATOR AT
THE END OF EACH COMMITTEE. If it's an item that doesn't need
a lot of discussion , it will just be sent on. If other
commissioners want to have a say they can certainly attend
and I feel certain that there opinions will be respected.
They should not be creating "Wrking Sessions" just to consolidate
control in the hands of the President and Vice President - at the
expense of hte rights of the residents
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
3)
TWO MEETINGS BACK TO BACK -
EACH WITH A WHOLE MONTH'S WORTH OF AGENDA ITEMS IS UNHEALTHY
Commissioners he new Working Sessions back to back with
another whole month's worth of meetings are against our
interests. They have already
proven to be too much for our health and welfare- (even for
Commissioners) . The speaking rights have not been adequate and do
not provide for informed comment
which is a form of deceit. You may use your 5 minutes up to
comment on an item they will table. No open comment period
is provided to petition our legislators. Skipping over
Committee meetings removes speaking rights . The meetings go
so long that people who waited hours finally give up. It is a
disrespect of the highest degree to the residents you keep
insisting are at the top of the heirarchal chart. They keep people
on their devices past a healthy hour. They require people to sit
for too long which is also unhealthy . It is
stunning that again and again the Commissioners have seen
and heard that the back to back sessions with 2 months worth
of business is highly problematic - and yet in the new
policy they propose to continue them.
REQUEST
: ELIMINATE THE NEW "WORKING SESSIONS " BACK TO BACK
THAT ARE A CONTINUATION OF THE PROBLEMS YOU HAVE SO
FREQUENTLY HEARD . One full month's meeting is more than
enough for one night. Handle the problems in Committee meetings .
Consider Moving the Board meeting to the 3rd Thursday instead of
the 2nd for more time between Committee and Board meeting.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
4) Violations of the
INTENT of the Sunshine Law. The
Sunshine Law Violations requires hte Commissioner to provide
a reasonable amount of time to speak on a matter before a vote. Sometimes
there are between 20 to 40 items onthe agenda - three
minutes is clearly not enough time tif several are important
to you and impact you. Even if you got 2 minutes per item --
or one full minute per item - something needs to be changed
to address the intent of that law
REQUEST
: ALLOW 2 MINUTES PER ITEM WHEN THERE ARE MULTIPLE
ITEMS THAT IMPACT A SPEAKER
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
SPEAKING AT THE OUTSET OF THE MEETING
SHOULD BE ALLOWED . Residents may have things
they have to tend at home, but whether or not they do, there
is no reason for them to sit through a 3 or 4 hour meeting that
they are not interested in sitting through, just so they can
address their Commissioners for 3 minutes. There is NO reason
whatsoever that they should not be allowed to address the
Commissioners for 3 minutes at the
beginning of the meeting on open topics. The
Commissioners will not be there any more or less time, but the
residents would not have to wait 3 - 4 hours for their
opportunity, It is the height of disrespect and it should
not be tolerated. It defies any notion that we are at the top of
some heirarchal chart.
If there
are a lot of speakers, time could be reduced to 2 minutes per
speaker or y the first 10 people could speak and then the
rest would perhaps have to wait till the end of the meeting
or until some other major business was done. But there are rarely
a lot of people there to speak, so requiring them to wait hours
is just unconscionable.
REQUEST
:
ALLOW OPEN PUBLIC
COMMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
all questions should be answered
Residents should never be denied the information that
they need to oversee their government. If they need to have a
question answer that question should be answered immediately if
the answer is known, and if not known it should be answered as
soon possible
REQUEST
: Commissioners should answer all
questions asked at a meeting. If the answer is unknown, they
should try and get the answer as soon as possible.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
all
DOCUMENTS NEED TO BE DELIVERED AT
LEAST 1 WEEK IN ADVANCE - not 7pm on Friday
when we cant get any answers to any questions til Mon- 3
days from the meeting date
REQUEST - RESIDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET DOCUMENT AT 7PM ON
THURSDAY NOT FRIDAY SO IF HTEY HAVE WUESTIONS BEFORE
THE WEEKEND THEY CAN ASK THEM AND NOT LOSE THE 2
WEEKEND DAYS
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
discussion is often important for understanding
Commissioners should allow discussion whenever possible as
discussion often leads to better understanding on both sides. The
most important thing that a Commissioner can do is to understand
what his constituents are trying to convey.
REQUEST
: COMMISSIONERS SHOULD ALLOW DISCUSSION IN ORDER TO INCREASE
UNDERSTANDING
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
No person shall be allowed
extended time while others are cut off at a strict 2 or 3 minutes
Except that all persons shall be permitted to briefly finish
therefore when their time is up..
If you lengthen for some – you must lengthen for others...
otherwise clearly some people will be favored because what they
are saying is accepted while what others are saying is deemed less
acceptable- that is contrary to Sunshine law.
REQUEST
: ALLOW ALL SPEAKERS THE SAME TIME TO SPEAK - DO NOT FAVOR SOME
OVER OTHERS
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ELIMINATE THE CONSENT AGENDA UNLESS YOU
ALLOW CITIZENS OF THE TOWNSHIP TO ALSO REMOVE ITEMS FROM THE
CONSENT AGENDA AND CALL FOR A PROPER DISCUSSION.
First of all, no one has consented to anything prior to
these items showing up to be voted as a block currently . If they
are to be transferred to a Consent Agenda that must be part of the
voting so that the public can see whether their Commissioner voted
that item to have no further discussion. If you do not allow
citizens to remove an item from the Consent Agenda, then
they should know that it is going on the Consent Agenda before
their remarks -so that they can ask Comrs not to proceed without
further discussion at the board meeting . Manager Manfredi does
not have the ear of the residents, and so cannot make the
decisions about which things are important to the residents and
which are not. Neither can he read the minds of the Commissioners
to know what is and is not important . - to them and he should not
be doing this kind of business out of the public purview. He chose
to put one of the most controversial isses we have ever had- the
economic development Corporation--- on the consent agenda. That is
a clear indication that the consent agenda should be eliminated
and if it is not then residents should be able to take items off
of it as well, and ask for a robust discussion.
vote things as a
block and remove the chance to see them a second time. Often at
the Committee meeting we learn about something for the first time,
and share it with fellow residents. Then the full Board meeting is
the first time those folks have a chance to say
anything. None of the items should be removed from the agenda. Nor
should our comments be removed. Manfredi tried to put
the Economic Development Corporation with blank By-Laws on the
“Consent Agenda”—even though he knew it was one of the most highly
controversial topics we have ever had.
REQUEST :
If you maintain the consent
agenda allow citizens also to remove items and call for a proper
discussion.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Allow residents to use the overhead projector
or other technical tools, just as you allow
developers and outsiders of every sort to use these taxpayer paid
resources. Items may be previewed first by staff if
you are worried about content - but it is not OK to deny taxpayers
the use of what they have bought to enhance communication
REQUEST :ALLOW USE OF ALL TECHNICAL RESOURCES THAT ARE EASY TO
USE, LIKE THE OVERHEAD PROJECTOR OR TO SHARE A SLIDE OR VIDEO
PRESENTATION.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Here's What We
Need ( Not
What We've Got)
FOLLOWING THAT IS A HISTORICAL CHRONICLING OF THIS ISSUE
1)
BE ON A MAIL-PUSH -OUT LIST
TO BE NOTIFIED ON A TOPIC NOT JUST A MEETING
THAT HAS 80 TOPICS
- if we want to know when the Mall Apartment proposal , or the Wawa
proposal or info on Fireworks or
the Economic Development Corporation is coming up at a
meeting agenda or when
new documents are posted on the topic, we want to
be alerted by email with a link to a single page where the issue
is chronicled. We
want there to be push out lists that you can sign up for.
2)
A SINGLE PAGE WITH ITS OWN LINK SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR EACH TOPIC
-
currently you can only direct people to some issues by referring
them to a page with 24 drop down choices and then a long
scrolling action. Each page, each issue, should have the documents
, meeting dates and all chronological information kept on a single
page. The link to that page can then be easily shared.
3) SPEAK AT THE BEGINNING IF WE CHOSE TO
: if we have children to get home to, or problems sitting
for 3 hours just to address the Board for a mere 3 minutes,
this allows us to address the Board and leave. We are happy to be
notified when we choose that option that if we wait til it comes up in the agenda, we might
learn more before we speak, but that should be
our choice not the
Commissioners or Managers choice.
3)
SPEAK ON EITHER AGENDA OR NON AGENDA
ITEMS -OUR CHOICE
whenever we speak : if we are speaking
at the beginning or the end of the meeting it should be our choice
whether we are choosing to speak on agenda items or non-agenda
items. After we have seen the action you took on an
agenda item, ( perhaps ignoring the pleas of doezens of people who
asked you to vote no, then watching you vote yes,for instance)
it is totally appropriate for us to want to comment on the action
you just took and for you to understand how your actions
affect us.
4)
THE SUNSHINE LAW AFFORDS
US A REASONABLE TIME TO SPEAK.
Generally three minutes is considered a reasonable time on one
agenda item.
However, our commissioners have
been giving us just three minutes on, for instance, 25 agenda
items, or an 856 page page budget (just as they did with the 4-500
page one .
Sometimes we do want to speak on
three or four of the 25, and we should be able to have the 3
minutes for each item you will vote on - but even if it were
reduced to 2 mins per item, that would be an improvement over the
3 min for all
My recommendation would be 2 minutes on up to four items. Or if
you have more than four items you want to speak on one minute per
item.
The sunshine law makes it clear
that for larger more complicated items like a budget, three
minutes is not sufficient time and far more time should be
provided depending only on the number of people that appear to
want to speak. That
is made plain on the Webpage of the Office of Open Records.
5) ALL DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE PROVIDED AT
LEAST A WEEK IN ADVANCE - if
they are not, any item that does not have a specific deadline it
must meet, should be off until the next meeting by the request of any
residents who felt they did not get
sufficient
advance notice. So an item like the August 2020 Public
Comment Policy Resolution, that did not have a deadline, would have been put off
for a month because residents had been given only three days notice.
6)
THE CONSENT AGENDA SHOULD BE ABOLISHED. IT IS CONTRARY TO
RESIDENT INTERESTS UNLESS RESIDENTS ARE ALSO GIVEN THE
OPTION OF REQUESTING AN ITEM TO COME OFF OF THE
CONSENT AGENDA
. Residents have a right for items to be fully explained. They may
first learn of them when they watch the Committee meeting video -
so their first opportunity to speak would be at the Board meeting. They also can require that an item go to a
committee meeting rather than be shuffled directly past the
committee and to the voting full board meeting .
7)
RESIDENTS CAN ADD ITEMS TO THE AGENDA BY PETITION OF 50
RESIDENTS, an item can be added to the agenda, so long as the
petition is received by the deadline
required to place items on the agenda
8)
COMMISSIONERS MUST ALSO STICK TO FAIR RULES THAT ARE WRITTEN
AND ADHERED TO REGARDING
PUBLIC COMMENT AND ENGAGEMENT Commissioners must
adhere to a proper and well described set of Rules, whether it be
Robert's Rules of Order or rules that hte residents help write for
them so we can helt them understand what works
and doesn't work for us .heir own Rules - but they must be fair
rules and they must be adhered to. .
Currently they have allowed themselves to officially "sort of "
follow some rules, meaning they don't have to follow any ( which
is exactly what they are doing) and the Chair is allowed to change
the rules at will. There are constant
violations of any proper public engagement - such as
Commissioners taking as much time as they want to "negate" the
comments of a speaker, or Commissioners giving one speaker ( that
they like ) more time and speakers whose comments they don't like,
less. This is neither fair nor legal. And it is detrimental to the
residents.
Please ask your Commissioner to get these basic speaking rights in
place
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
___________________________________________________________________________
PRIOR CHRONOLOGY OF THIS ISSUE
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
It
should be “For Discussion Only” at the 9-10-20 meeting.
Any
vote taken without proper public participation and input on a
matter this important is a violation of the public trust.
Public Comment
- 2018
2020
above appears to be a repeat of the devious tactics that removed
many of our our speaking
rights shortly after Mgr. Manfredi's arrival - again it ahppened
with a false claim of what was being done and without any proper notification.
It was a loss of many things we had worked hard to get.
In 2018
: I would dare to say
that literally no one knew the Commissioners were revamping your
speaking rights when they passed a measure 1-11-18 that took
away nearly every rule they were required to follow and
tightened restrictions on residents. They did this on a
packed meeting day with no prior Committee meeting, right after
the holidays and while everyone was focused on the YMCA and
BET's proposal to build on every inch of it . Manager Manfredi completely misrepresented what they were
doing ( knowing that the written details were well buried and
most people would'nt understand what was being removed. Those
kinds of actions are exactly why we need better speaking rules
---- and Commissioners that hear us and who are willing to
require that their Managers serve our interests!
Nearly every other Township has a far better method of
interacting with their residents ..... In Abington, we are still
fighting for very basic rights.
This is being hastily done - I will revise if I can find
time.... but here is an
idea of just a few of the things we are asking for --- and
have been...for a decade
PLEASE PUT UNDERSTANDING AS A PRIORITY OVER CLOCK WATCHING
" or other reasons for curtailment . Allow residents to
re-explain what may have been misunderstood or ask for
clarifications in a response .
If they did not know an earlier segment was the place to
address a concern, allow the concern or comment anyway, and help
them understand where it might better have been brought.
PLEASE AFFORD RESIDENTS A BRIEF ANSWER TO A QUESTION
WHENEVER ONE IS KNOWN
and
offer a longer or more thorough answer later
if
one cannot
be had during the meeting
PLEASE DO NOT INTERRUPT speakers
:Let them
speak as you would like to be allowed to speak- but if they
are timed they must be allowed to interrupt an official who
might be using up all their speaking time with a longer than
necessary answer
PLEASE
ELIMINATE THE "SIGN UP FORM"
IN THE LOBBY
- If someone doesn't sign up and then hears something
important - the sheet gives the false impression they can't
speak unless they signed up. Instead of the sign up,
have a sheet
instructing residents that there will be a place
where they will be asked for their comments and that they
have 3 minutes and that they may comment again at the end on any
topic. Let them know they have a guaranteed
right to speak
( Currently they often
don't even see the form, let alone know how to use it .
PLEASE ALLoW RESIDENTS TO COMMENT AT THE BEGINNING
OF A MEETING.
They should be allowed their 3 minutes on any, open
topic at the beginning, or at the end as they see fit.
Some have to leave early . If they wish to comment on an item
when it comes up for the vote, they can be asked to save theri
comment til then - but some may want to leave early. It is
a great disrespect to residents to require them to wait 3 hours
to speak to you for 3 minutes.
PLEASE ALLOW
DISCUSSION - IT IS OFTEN THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING
- most all other township engage in discussion freely with
residents. It is vital for understanding. Please stop calling it
"debate" and understand that it is part of a healty process.
PLEASE SHOW HOW EACH COMMISSIONER VOTED - a show of hands is the
only way we can tell
how
our Commissioners are representing us . They should leave them
up long enough to know who was aye and who was nay
PLEASE DO NOT require
residents to
sit
down once they ask a
question - allow them to
hear better by being closr, see the faces and the lips of
those they are dialoguing with and allow that they may
have a clarification if a question or comment has been
misunderstood. These things help prevent misunderstandings
PLEASE DO NOT shorten
the brief 3 minutes residents are afforded
in any other way
- such
as by interrupting
PLEASE DO NOT
comment in a
way that negates or changes speakers remarks at all
if you are the chair
PLEASE DO NOT allow anyone to negate speakers
remarks with out offer a brief 30 second rebuttal from the
speaker
to provide
clarity
PLEASE DO NOT discredit
the speaker - or "undo" their point after they have left the
podium and can no longer
speak or offer a rebuttal ( the chair should never be
entering the conversation - if he wants to enter the
conversation the co-chair or vice-chair should take the
leadership role. .
PLEASE ALLOW RESIDENTS AT A FULL BOARD
MEETING TO ALSO
SPEAK
3 MINUTES AFTER AN AGENDA ITEM IS PRESENTED
but before the vote. Residents often
first learn about an issue when they see it on tv or hear about
it after the Committee meeting. They should not be first hearing
about it AFTER their right to speak on it is exhausted.
PLEASE ALLOW
RESIDENTS TO RESERVE LEFT OVER TIME
-If they have not used their 3 minutes – please allow them
briefly back to the podium.
PLEASE ALLOW
RESIDENTS TO HAVE OTHER RESIDENTS REPRESENT THEM
by reading what they wrote if they are unable to be in
attendance.
PLEASE ALLOW A RESIDENT TO APPOINT ANOTHER ABINGTON RESIDENT TO
SPEAK FOR THEM
if they are also in attendance.
PLEASE GET RID OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
- residents have
never been asked if THEY consent to these items being dispensed
of with no sunlight on even what the topic is.
COMMISSIONERS & RESIDENTS SHOULD TREAT ONE ANOTHER POLITELY
Residents shall be treated with the same courtesy as staff and
Commissioners.
PLEASE
SEE THAT ANSWERS AND COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS shall not
be counted as part of a resident’s time allotment.
PLEASE ALLOW RESIDENTS TO COMPLETE THEIR SENTENCES OR THOUGHTS.
PLEASE
INCLUDE ON THE SPEAKING RULES SHEET
a link to the
Sunshine Laws, to Robert’s
Rules
Of Order, to the Right to Know Laws and information on how to
contact Commissioners and staff to obtain information about a
matter in the Township.
Please especially include the
paragraph that allows a resident the right to bring to the
Board’s attention a perceived violation of the Sunshine Act.
Please also include where they can find the video’s agendas and
other Public Comment information on the township website
Some History on the Development of the Current
Regulations ( incomplete - will try to find
time soon...)
In 2006, when I first began to come to the podium, we found
that meetings were run with barely a breath in between the "PW1"
and "all in favor say aye". residents who had come to a meeting
to express their views found that the topic had passed and was
voted on before they even knew what was happening, as they were
unfamiliar with the agenda and the process. We took a
great deal of time to get that sorted out and finally got them
slowed down to the point of asking after each item on the agenda
for comments from commissioners and then comments from staff and
audience.
Speaking time was reduced at 1point to only 3 min. if you
come well prepared and knopw that you have to squeeze everything
into 3 min. you might do OK . It is sometimes is sufficient to express
your view. But most residents are not prepared to
compactly present their case. And so
this has been at times problematic as they are cut off. Or also
problematic as some ( who bring up unhappy points ) are cut off
while others ( who praise the commissioners ) are given far more
time. . Also problematic has
been the fact that while residents are cut off from speaking
about important items that impact their lives, commissioners
give themselves great leeway to speak about nearly any topic
they desire including their children's sports events and yes,
even sorting socks. This while people are prevented from
discussing in depth flooding and fire safety violations and
other serious issues.
Eventually, the plan that was set allowed that residents
could speak at a Committee meeting for 3 min. after
any agenda item was introduced ( and before the vote ) and also for 3 min. at the end of each
Committee topic on any open issue that was not an agenda item
but related to that topic . At full Board Meetings, residents
could chose to have 3 minutes of open topic comments either at
the beginning or the end of the meeting as well as 3 min. after
any agenda item was introduced ( and before the vote ) At one
point they also could speak at full Board meetings at the end of
each section with 3 minutes of open comment -- but
that right was very soon removed. Again exceptions are made for some and not granted to others in regard
to these rules.
In Spring 2012
, new Manager, Michael Lefevre, proposed that we move
all public comment to the beginning of the meeting and eliminate
comment during the rest of the meeting, including on agenda
items after Commissioners' discussion showed us what they were
intending to do. Citizens vehemently argued for their
right to continue to comment on agenda items before they were
voted on and after they learned what the pklan was. Citizens also
asked to have the right to speak before the meeting, but not in
conjunction with their other rights taken away as Manager
LeFevre was trying to do. The
Commissioners did not implement changes at this time
______________________
Some 2012 points as we
were formulating new rules
First and foremost - all citizens should know, NO they do not
have to SIGN UP to speak. The sign up sheet has led people
to believe that if they did not sign up, they cannot speak
- and it should be abolished altogether, since half of the
residents in a meeting don't even know they just walked past a
sign up sheet - or upon which page to write their name.
Public Comment has
been a real political football, with Commissioners actually
campaigning on the issue, but then later trying at nearly every
opportunity to reduce our rights to speak unless there is great citizen outcry.
Our speech, especially when televised into many of our fellow
residents homes or with a shareable computer link, is an incredibly valuable tool that each Abington resident
should seek to protect and to use.
As
of 9-12, although I have heard that everyone understands the
current plan for what is allowed a little differently, it is my understanding that residents
can speak in this manner:
They are encouraged to sign up on the sheets in
the hall outside the meeting-however
, as noted above, residents are not forbidden from speaking because they have not
signed up and, in fact, as noted above, the sheets frequently
make things more confusing and I believe they should be
abolished for that reason. The Commissioners or a clerk
could simply make understood by a "rule sheet" or orally what
the speaking rules are. They are required per the Sunshine Act
to provide for comment at public meetings.
THE RULES
Residents must state their name and address for the
record before speaking ---- Yes, every time they speak. Residents can speak at a Board of Commissioners
meeting for 3 min. after any agenda item as well as 3 min. at the
end of the meeting on any topic. At one point
they were also allowed to speak for 3 min. at the end of
each Committee section . That was then removed --- You will see that exceptions are made for some and
not granted to others in regard to these rules.
During Committee meetings, (as opposed
to the full Board meetings) residents
are able to speak for 3 min. on each agenda item and are able to
speak at the end of the particular Committee segment .
The Commissioners are not required to answer you (
which they like to call "debating" when they don't want to
answer, but which they gladly do, when they don't mind
answering. )
They have also been
known to hold up signs indicating how much of your time is
left. At times, they have done this so frequently during
the 3 min period of "selected" speakers that one could only
interpret the action as an attempt to "interrupt the speaker
". They continued the practice even when asked not to do so. Many
residents are quite nervous when
speaking in public, and Commissioners, generally are aware of
this
Given the above, it would be good for residents to hold small
group discussions on public speaking issues .
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
2014 More rights eroded
2016 Commissioners took away
more speaking rights . No more comment after each item at Full
Board meetings - Now, if you just learned about an issue
when you heard the issue at a Committee meeting on TV , your
ability to comment is largely gone
2017 THE ONEROUS CONSENT AGENA
IS BORN THANKS TO NEW MANAGER rICHARD MANFREDI
Manager Richardi Manfredi arrived in 2017 and began immediately
suggesting rules that cut the public out - like his " consent
agenda" - where many items that were first viewed at a
Committee meeting would not even be brought up again before
the vote - even though residents are just learning of it for the
first time at the Committee meeting and many might not even have
attended. Instead of a process where it is read and
Commissioners are encouraged to discuss it again at hte 2nd
meeting ( the full Board Meeting ) many items would instead
be packaged together into a falsely named "Consent Agenda"
--- and voted on as a block without another word of explanation or
discussion. He allowed that Commissioners could have it
removed from that "block vote" if they chose to - but residents
did not have the same ability. They would have to petition
their Commissioners to do that --- but no one really understood
the Consent agenda or that this is how it worked. And, in
fact, no one had actually "consented" to these items being removed
from the normal process. Manfredi later admitted that he, himself,
always chose which ones to remove from the regular review process
and make more difficult for the public to have input on.
No vote was taken to consent - no consent was given. It was a dupe
even to name it that. And in the short time this manager has been
here the number of dupes has been enormous . And just a
while down the road Manfredi would show us why he institued
this and how he was planning to use this to the disadvantage
of the residents he is supposed to be serving, when he put the
onerous and much protested Economic Development Corporation on the
consent agenda - after residents discoved that the ByLaws
were all blank and that they would be filled, once passed, with
any conditions the Commissioners wanted to insert . This, after
the impassioned protests of all the residents who became aware of
this debacle, which represented one of the most serious
conflicts of interest we have ever seen and which is totally
contrary to residents' interests .
2018
Jan 11, 2018 THE BIRTH OF THE CONSENT AGENDA Manager
Richard Manfredi is at it again - in concert
with the President and Vice President of the Board - and your own
Commissioner - some major speaking rights, that we had worked
years to get, were removed by a manager who only recently
arrived and who has spent no time learning the needs of the
residents he is supposed to be serving. He seems intent on
eroding puplic access to inforamtion and public speaking rights.
On January 11, literally 2 days before hte Board meeting, in a
month where there is no Committee meeting to vet new items
on the agenda before the full Board meeting, our new manager
Richard Manfredi gave the public just 2 days warning of a
project that was unbelieveable - the development of just about
every square inch of space at the YMCA with a 5 story high -rise
risght in the heart of Abington . All of us were scrambling to get
information on this - because there was no "vetting
meeting" . But meanshile - the agenda had another fiercely
onerous item -- one we barely took notice of Without
a proper explanation at all & buried in page 79 of an enormous
agenda ( without any summary at top as it usually is )
they passed new and despicable rules . For a year they heard me
saying that they had improperly printed speaking rules on the
agenda - and not a single Commissioner, manager, staff person or
other said to me, "no - they're correct. We changed them when no
one was paying attention-- those actually ARE the new rules.
Mr Manfredi falsely
described what they were doing on 1-11-18 when they were
changing them . This was incredible deceit . I have yet to find a
single person who said his or her commissioner alerted them to
the upcoming change --- even though they knew we had petitions
and passionate testimony the last time they tried that.
In fact, what they did is ...they took
away all rules that they themselves had to
follow - and gave the chair of any meeting tthe right to change
any rules or procedures on the fly. That is the wequivalent of
have NO RULES at all for themselves - while they increased the
restrictions on resident somment . The only theing ethey
had to abide by was the Sunshine act and the Commonwealth
laws - which they are counting on NO RESIDENTS TO KNOW.
And in the first meeting that we learned about this 7-11-19
they violated the Sunshine act . Amazing.
Sept 10 (or 19th?) 2020 - Resolution 20-039 was
adopted
https://www.abingtonpa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/16343/637353514253570000
Once
again - with no vetting whatsoever before the public the
Commissioners have created brand new speaking rules which htey
falsely called and expansion of iour speaking rights . They
created the Committee of the Whole - and it was anything but an
expansion . It removed nearly all the rights we had -
allowing them to skip over the Commitee Meetings and to
provide that hte ONLY speaking time we had on an issue was BEFORE
it was presented and explained and before we knew what they were
going to do. After we learned what the item was - we had no
speaking rights left whatsoever. It was based on a lie and was a
removal of nearly all our rights . he most controversial of issues
were removed from Committee Meetings and it was done
in a way that the new proposal ITSELF was never vetted. The level
of corruption , lack of transparency and actions against the
interests of the residents has risen to crisis proportions .
There has been nearly a wholesale removal of citizen input at a
time when controversial and conflict of interest matters are a
regular affair .
9-19-21
The
Board
of
Commissioners
adopted
Resolution
20-039
setting
forth
agenda
policy
and
procedures
for
meetings
of
the
Board
of
Commissioners and
its
Committees.
Board of Commissioners to Consider
Policy to increase public Participation
Consideration of Resolution 20-039: A Resolution Setting Forth
Agenda Policy and
Procedures For Meetings of the Board of Commissioners and its
Committees
The Abington Township Board of Commissioners will be
considering a policy to increase public participation
tonight, September 10, 2020 at 7 PM at their regular meeting.
Resolution 20-039 is a resolution setting forth
agenda policy and procedures for meetings of the Board of
Commissioners and its Committees. This policy
seeks to increase public communications, education, and
engagement by and with the Township. This policy
exceeds the Township’s current requirements per the PA Sunshine
Act.
Residents are encouraged to read the policy in full at
www.abingtonpa.gov/proposedpublicpolicy. Below are
several key points for the establishment of this policy.
Resolution 20-039 seeks to:
• Establish a standard of operations for Township meetings to
provide consistency and transparency to the public;
• Increase public participation by creating a new Committee
consisting of all members of the Board to provide (3) three
additional weeks for the public to be made aware of and comment on
Township business that will be considered by the Board of
Commissioners at regular Board meetings;
• Increase citizens speaking time by five (5) minutes on any
matter their elected representatives will be voting upon through
the creation of a new Committee;
• Enable the creation of special, standing, or ad-hoc
committees to provide an additional forum for public discussion
and vetting of business to be considered by the Board;
• Increase two-way dialogue with the public and the Township
through the use of public information
meetings as a new standard of business on significant matters
of public interest that will come before
the Board. This informal meeting type will encourage and
increase the sharing of ideas and concerns
amongst the public, elected officials, and Township
administration. It will also result in the creation
of a comment and response document that will address submitted
resident questions in advance of a
Board vote and be publicly available for residents’ benefit;
• Establish administrative informal meetings as a new standard
of meetings that will afford the public
the opportunity to discuss proposed initiatives, projects, and
matters with Township administration
prior to Board consideration. Administrative informal meetings
will most often be used to address
concerns of residents who are most impacted by a proposed
project, initiative or matter, and will not
replace matters that warrant a public information meeting;
• Increase the opportunities for the public to comment and
receive
responses and be engaged inTownship affairs
9-10-20
A
Brand New Public Comment
"dupe the residents" Policy Resolution #20-039 came
unannounced right out of the blue just
3 days before it was
voted on at the 9-10-20 Board of Commissioners meeting.
Touted as an expansion of speaking rights - it was
quite the opposite.
This Public Comment Policy was formulated without any input
whatsover from the public and it undid years of what had been
worked on to advance public comment on behalf of the residents of
Abington Township.
Richard Manfredi became our manager in 2017, and in that short
time the has taken 2 stabs at removing our speaking rights ( both
times calling it an "advancement of our rights" to fool
those who did not understand our policies. ) In
January 2018, he said he was adding the consent agaenda - but
there were MANY more measures in there, including taking the rules
of away that Commissioners had to follow .
He passed all that without any proper announcement, and no
committee meeting to vet it. That has been a hallmark of Richard
Manfredi’s time at Abington, removing committee meetings and
opportunities to speak, and providing shorter than required notice
when posting meetings or providing documents.
It is a great disservice to the residents of Abington.
Another measure that was in this new resolution was that they were
allowed to dispose of or discard videos -- and that the minutes
alone would be kept as
the official copy of any
meeting. That is, of course, absurd especially given the fact that
in Abington there are numerous frequent complaints of the minutes
not being correct and of residents’
entire
appearances at meetings not even being mentioned let alone the
content of their comments.
We have many issues that last
over years and even over decades where it is important to go back
and see what was actually promised Word for Word not in some
generalization.
Mr. Manfredi tried to explain that only videos that would be made
specially and used just to create the minutes could actually be
discarded in this manner,
however he has, as of this writing,
refused to show us where
the policy is for retention of the main videos, because after a
certain time they can be discarded as well, despite the fact that
residents want them kept and accessible. But more troubling is the
fact that Mr. Manfredi refused to amend the wording even a little
bit in order to eliminate the confusion. He seems almost to
delight in making things more difficult and more obtuse.
And his wording and renaming of things in the Township has been
more than slightly problematic.
He often uses two or three different names for the same
concept so one is not sure what he is talking about. These are
small things but they are all things that are among the traits
that make for a good manager, as opposed to one who lets problems
persist. Mr. Manfredi
could change this if he wanted to, but he seems to have no desire
to do so.
To have a manager
who chooses the least accurate, and often,
tragically, false re-creation of a meeting as the "official copy" is
also problematic.
The minutes
should be offered only as a helpful summary of a long video,and
both versions would be appreciated
I am still seeking the answer as
to whether Mr Manfredi, or his stenograher, Liz Vile, or someone
else altered a recent meeting and eliminated one speaker entirely. That is one instance of many
in this Township. Mr. Manfredi said that this was a "personnel matter" and
we would not learn anything about how it was handled. But because
it might have been him who altered it - or asked
her to, it is
important that we follow up further on this. If it is an employee
altering it, they should be dismissed. We cannot allow corruption
and complete non transparency to be the way our Township
does business.
SO HERE IS A LIST OF PROBLEMS WITH THIS RESOLUTION:
This Resolution offers
no increased
opportunity for participation.
That is how it was billed - to fool
you. Our rights in this new Resolution are reduced, plain & simple
The Committee of the Whole was
"invented", with absolutely no explanation.
Who would put out a document referring to an entity that is
completely unknown &
not explain it? No resident could cogently comment about
it until they have had time to
ask questions and fully understand its function . No vote
should have taken place until residents had a chance to ask
questions and get answers. They were given 3 minutes for 16
items - this huge issue being one of them. This never should
have passed in this fashion with no proper notification, no
proper opportunity to understand it , and with NO changes
even made that were suggested. Even rewording the disposal policy
that was so poorly worded it did NOT describe what the Manager
said he intended. It is ironic that the policy that was said to
INCREASE our public comment rights was actually passed by reducing
them improperly down to nearly nothing.
It is completely unclear how
the expanded written comment periods are to work and what
the downsides might be. Will all residents be able to see the
comments of their fellow residents, for instance? Why has Mr
Manfredi ( and Commissioners John Spiegelman, Tom Hecker et al)
decided residents should have no right to understand these things
before their comments are made. The one used for the
Economic Development Committe was surely not ideal. How will it be
fixed?
Rules of Order are not rules at all –
they can be broken at any time at the whim of the presiding officer.
It a farcical attempt at
pretending there are actual rules to protect residents from
improper behavior. The
first statement of Manfredi's "additional information is
that he is establishing a standard for operations to provide
consistency and transparency to the public . Seriously? Where is
the consistency when each presiding officer can make up his own
rules depending on which side of the bed he woke up on and whom he
likes and dislikes and what he likes to hear and doesn't want to
hear? He MAY refer to Robert's Rules of Order - Meh. Unless he
doesn't want to.
Residents
are forbidden to use the overhead projector
to present documents that both the commissioners and the
audience would be able to see, while developers or others with
views contrary to the taxpayers who paid for that equipment are
allowed free access to it
Residents
are not guaranteed answers to questions that they have
- a right that we fought years to get and which was removed
without any discussion or consultation. The inability to have
truthful answers about the operations of our Township is
guaranteed to promote corruption …. In a Township that recently
endured (at great, great taxpayer expense), a Grand Jury
investigation with disturbing results and which currently also
has a whistleblower suit in full swing, making oversight harder
to do can only be imagined is “for a reason”.
Residents are able to be banned from
Administrative
Information sessions at will…
without cause …. whether or not tax monies are used to hold the
sessions. In the past residents who were banned were the
only residents that had the documents and had communicated , for
instance with EPA and done the work. Residents were told things
that were not true. No residents should be banned from an
informational or government run session. We have a right to
see how our tax monies are used and have a right to all have a
hand in forming our communities.
Some residents
will be allowed to speak longer than the 3 minutes, while others
won’t. Others will be strictly
held to the 3 minute “rule” – meaning there is no rule at all.
The decision is at the whim of the Presiding Officer who may
decide if he likes what you are saying or doesn’t.
Regular
Sunshine Law violations have been the hallmark of this Board
and this Administration .
Not allowing a reasonable
amount of time to comment, refusing to recognize residents
rights to interrupt to note a
perceived violation of the law, etc.
This suppression of speech is
purposeful and intended to prevent citizens
from hearing other citizens or
exposing “uncomfortable” facts.
We cannot expect our
government to work properly under these circumstances.
A pattern of purposeful egregious
behavior to quickly vote
on measures that
residents would object to -- like the budget that was
decided in five days of having been seen by residents in Nov
2019 … and the Economic Development Corporation that they tried
to pass before anyone understood what it even was – and then
tried to do again during Covid times. There is a clear pattern
in this administration with this manager, this Board and this solicitor.
No adequate time to
comment -- a violation
of the Sunshine Law. Our comments are
limited to three minutes for this lengthy and complicated
resolution and also for 16 other items at the same time -violation
of the sunshine law that requires a reasonable amount of time to
comment
Comment is
required before any explanation of terms like "Committee of the
Whole" can be had or before the
consequences of destroying records can be properly discussed.
Comment is at the beginning of the meeting with no option to
understand what you are commenting on. And our
committee meetings where such matters are to be fully vetted were again cancelled for no reason. It
is fully ironic that what they were passing was supposedly an
increased opportunity to comment and increased information
in issues........ their choice here was to violate all
their own rules and give LESS opportunity for that - so they could
jam this through.
NIRI
The Resolution
should never
have been crafted without input from residents.
Residents were never made aware that this was underway nor asked
for their concerns about public comment issues.
And the Commissioners and Mgr
Manfredi are aware that we have MANY. The
effort to bully this through so quickly shows us the
little regard they hold for our concerns
NIRI
Notification was inappropriate
– residents normally
can see agenda items on Friday this was not available til
Mon afternoon. Literally three days before the vote
. They violated even the scant courtesy of their own rules
in order to bully this through quickly.
NIRI
No time for residents to look up the
laws or to alert their fellow residents
--- 20 pages worth to digest in three
days. On a holiday weekend where families are away
and come back to for school.
NIRI
If any issue deserved an information session before any
vote, it is this issue ….this resolution
NIRI
(5-13-21) and then
JUNE 10 2021 AT THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
New Public Comment Rules were to
be presented and it looked like they were acknowledgintg
that we had NO OPPORTUNITY to be informed and then speak and that
they might correct that - That was not to be . Tom hecker
personally sabotaged it in multiple ways so by October we still
have the same onerous conditions ....
First let me tell you what was being proposed on June 10, 2021
................ they were proposing that instead of 5 useless
minutes to expound on something we know nothing about at the
Committee of the Whole - that they will allow us instead to speak
for 3 minutes after each item is presented and before the vote ,
So, yes - it is an improvement - but still less than
we had even a year ago -- before Mr Manfredi's
multiple efforts ( and successes) at removing our rights.
They still are jamming 2 months worth of
meetings together that would once upon a time have taken 3 full
evenings and items would have been vetted thoroughly, This is
unacceptable - and even they themselves are so exhausted they
couldn't even properly fuction at the last one. It is
detrimental to the health of everyone not just senior citizens but
it is particularly detrimental to senior citizens or to those who
have to get up early.
The consent agenda should
be eliminated. It is being done quite improperly because the
motion does not originally come with a directive to put it on the
consent agenda. Mr. Manfredi told me he was deciding that himself
which is quite inappropriate for the manager to take away the
public's right to have an issue presented at the full Board
meeting and hear the discussion on
it. And especially concerning when the manager took several very
important issues such as the "Economic Development Corporation"
and put it quickly onto the consent agenda ,,, with the By Laws
still blank , trying to get it passed before anybody noticed it
was there and that it would get no further discussion - a
subject that needed LOTS of it .
Rather than the
3 minutes at the Committee of the Whole, residents should ask to
have the committee of the whole abolished and have just plain
regular committee meetings reinstated. It is not okay to have them
taken away. Our most robust speaking rights are there including
the right to address each department head on matters of our own
choosing ( when our commissioners, for instance, refuse to put in
a certain matter on the agenda. Residents are then still able to
bring it up.
If they are not going to restore the
Committee meetings on any given occasion, they should allow open
comment at the Committee of the Whole. A trade off of our rights
to address 4 dept chairs whittled down to one 3 minute open slot .
But ONE would be better than none
This issue should have been passed
through at the last Committee of the Whole (5-13-21) - but
Commissioner Tom Hecker violated every principal of good
parliamentary procedure and prevented it. He first
decided unilaterally to put this agenda item at the end of
the meeting, Then he allowed someone who was NOT on the
agenda at all to make a long presentation in what was already a
VERY long evening, then, when the issue DID finally come up he did
everything in his power to overcome everyone's efforts to try to
have it decided before the night ended. It is improper
for the Chair of a meeting to interrupt or override the sugestions
of the Board members. He is instead supposed to decide who speaks
first, second, third and what motions etc are made ,
organize the vote, etc . But they took away your right to
proper parliamentary procedure in an earlier "removal of rights"
In the end they spent more time discussing whether it was too late
to discuss it, than they would've spent actually discussing and
voting on it .
But you should also know, that besides
these shenanigans. They did NOT have to wait for this item
to be passed --- any Chair person could have allowed us to speak
...because they allowed themselves the right to do almost
anything.
VP Tom Hecker admitted pretty much that he
thought it was unfair that only the committee got to vote on
certain items (like perhaps the Willow Grove Mall that might leave
him out ) and so he wanted to use the Committee of the
Whole instead of, for instance, the Land Use Committee to vet it -
so he could participate. He
wanted all of them to be voters on every topic ( like maybe, for
instance, the Willow Grove Mall? ) He was afraid the
Committee might have a different opinion --- All the commissioners are
able to attend any committee meetings they like - and they
are even able to have input - but Hecker
wanted to make sure they had a vote, too - which is not how
government works. In order to assure that, he didn't mind pushing
2 months of meetings together - so 20, 30 or even 40 agenda items
in one single night so that Tom Hecker and John Spiegelman can
have a vote. So Comr Hecker
has a selfish interest here and is willing to remove our rights to
increase his - with no regard for our welfare or fair process. I find tit
particularly egregious that our rights were taken away just as the
Willow Grove Mall district ordinance was being crafted.......
I would not want to think that this might appear as though they
want to make sure they know how the votes will line up for any
particular issue, but it is hard not to imagine that , isn't it?
June 10, 2021
- The
Committee of
the Whole tabled
the agenda
item until
the July
8, 2021
Committee of
the Whole
meeting.
7-8-21 again Hecker kept it from being passed - byu
allowing PSU Dean to speak - making hte meeting go late and
then spending the time they would be deciding it arguing
over whether it was too late to decide it . It was clear Hecker
was sabotaging it.
_________
We
welcome your comments
to share either anonymously or with your name attached with
your fellow Abington residents. Send
any
updated
information, comments or questions to:
lel@abingtoncitizens.com
|
