Dorr adopts public meeting policies

At its March 8th regular monthly meeting the Trustees adopted new Dorr Township Public Meeting Policies.

In the public comment portion of the meeting, before the agenda item came up, I asked whether the public comment period was the proper place to comment on the Policies. I was concerned that, if comments were not made during the public comment period, the Supervisor would not allow comments when the agenda item was discussed. I was told that the public comment period was the correct time for comment on agenda items, although the reason given wasn't the right reason. (Later, another resident asked at the meeting and elicited clarification from the Township Attorney, Mark Saladin, that public comments would be allowed when an agenda item was discussed.)

I skimmed the new Policies before the meeting began, and my immediate feeling was one of insult. And it takes a lot to insult me. They are designed to be a muzzle for the township residents who show up at monthly meeting and who are not happy with how business is being done in the Township. If such a resident doesn't word himself so as fit within the restraints of the Policies, he might just find himself out on his ear - or worse.

There hasn't been any problem at Dorr Township meetings that would have resulted in spending the money that the Township did to craft these rules. My guess is they were written by the Township Attorney; what did that cost? Not to blame the attorney, of course, because he only performs work he is asked to do and for which he will be paid. I imagine he might "suggest" certain work, but it has to be ordered.

The Woodstock City Council does not limit the length of residents' comments; if a speaker gets too wordy or unnecessarily repeats himself too often, Mayor Sager will call "Time", but he seldom does that. The McHenry County Board gives a speaker three minutes and has a light system to alert speakers to remaining time.

Dorr Township? The new Policies say, "Ordinarily, such comments shall be limited to 2 minutes."

And, "The Supervisor may shorten or lengthen a person's opportunity to speak." And here's the kicker, "The Supervisor may also deny the opportunity to speak to a person who has previously addressed the Board on the same subject within the past 2 months."

So, if I rag on the Board that the Minutes do not include public comments from the previous meeting or have too many typos or grammatical errors, and if I say that at meeting after meeting (because it's true), will I lose the opportunity to speak?

"Speakers shall not make charges or level complaints against individual employees or officers of the Township."

"The Clerk shall record public comments in summary form only in the minutes of the meeting."

Why would that directive to the Clerk be there? The word "shall" is commanding. The Clerk is supposed to do that, anyway. Maybe it's because the Clerk hasn't been doing so. Well, maybe it's not the Clerk at all who is actually writing the Minutes.

I almost missed the part in the Policies about recording of meetings, because it was printed on the back side of the sheet of paper. The Open Meetings Act is sufficient to spell out rights and limitations on recording. Expanding it into the Dorr Township Straitjacket was unnecessary. That paragraph alone probably cost $200-300 to craft.

Jane Collins asked the Supervisor if the public would have the right to suggest changes in these Policies and whether the Trustees would consider amending the Policies based on resident input. She also suggested, if I heard correctly, that the public should have had input to the proposed Policies, before they were presented to the Trustees.

I'd love to know whether any of the Trustees read the proposed Policies before the meeting. Did they read, understand, and ponder these Policies before the meeting?