The Worcester County Commissioners narrowly shot down a request last week to add public comments to their meetings.
The Worcester County Commissioners discuss incorporating public comments into their meetings at a meeting in January. On Feb. 6, a 4-3 majority voted against the measure.
File photo
Abbott, Fiori change positions one month after supporting
By Charlene Sharpe, Associate Editor
The Worcester County Commissioners narrowly shot down a request last week to add public comments to their meetings.
Though they instructed staff to find a vehicle for the practice last month, the commissioners voted 4-3 at their last meeting on Feb. 6 to deny a motion would have give speakers three minutes each at the end of commissioner meetings to speak. Commissioners Joe Mitrecic, Diana Purnell and Ted Elder voted in favor of the motion, while Commissioners Eric Fiori, Caryn Abbott and Jim Bunting, and Commission President Chip Bertino voted against it.
“It’s a dead issue, which is certainly a loss for the citizens of Worcester County, not being able to voice their issues with the full board of commissioners,” Mitrecic said after the meeting.
It was Mitrecic last month who made a motion to have staff find a way to work public comment into the commissioners’ meetings. Chief Administrative Officer Weston Young presented the recommendation this week to for the three-minute public comment session at the ends of meetings.
The memo Young provided to the commissioners said speakers would have to follow rules, which he pointed out in most jurisdictions included identifying their names and addresses, refraining from remarks unrelated to the business of the county, refraining from conduct that’s not civil, and understanding that the public comment period was “not a question-and-answer time.”
“As it is handled now, the emailing of questions and comments ahead of the meeting is always encouraged,” the memo reads. “The commissioners@co.worcester.md.us email address goes to all the commissioners.”
Mitrecic said he’d read the memo.
“I found no problem with any of the points made,” he said. “I’d make a motion we adopt a public comment period.”
Mitrecic said after the meeting that he didn’t expect the issue to come back up, as typically that only occurs when one of the commissioners who voted against a motion asks that it be reconsidered.
Fiori and Abbott, who both supported Mitrecic’s motion to find a method for public comment last month, said they were in opposition this week because the staff recommendation and the motion were too vague.
“The motion was too incomplete,” Fiori said. “What was documented was such a range of options there was nothing to vote on there.”
Abbott said the recommendation was basically a compilation of what other counties did and wasn’t a Worcester-specific concept.
“They didn’t present a way for Worcester County to do it,” she said. “There was nothing to vote on.”
Fiori said he expected staff to come back with concrete examples of how Worcester County could implement public comment effectively into meetings. Fiori referenced the public comments permitted at Worcester County Board of Education meetings.
“We solve problems differently than the board of education,” he said. “A two-minute comment with no action plan I feel is counterproductive. I don’t want to see a dozen people come up with all the problems they have with no action plan, no interaction.”
He said that until staff hammered down a specific template for Worcester, he didn’t think the commissioners should change the meeting format.
Abbott also referenced board of education meetings, as she has spoken during the public comment period there in the past.
“I find it very ineffective,” she said. “That got me nowhere with the board of education. I recognize that, and I think that format doesn’t work.”
Abbott prefers one-on-one communication with her constituents.
“The people most vocal about wanting public comments have never emailed me,” she said.
She added, however, that she would support incorporating public comment into the commissioners’ meetings if it could be done in a way that worked. In the meantime, she said citizens were welcome to call her or set up a meeting.
“If they have real issues, you’d think they’d want to speak to us directly,” she said.
Mitrecic, however, said the issue with one-on-one communication was that the whole board of commissioners might not be aware of an issue. Unless the commissioner shares the constituent’s concerns with the whole board, the rest of the commissioners won’t hear about it, he said. That’s why he wanted to offer the public the chance to speak at meetings.
“This would’ve been a chance for the citizens of Worcester County to come and address the entire board of commissioners,” Mitrecic said. “How can that be a bad thing? Most decisions are made behind closed doors by the four of them.”
Mitrecic pointed out that there was no discussion before Tuesday’s vote on the public comment motion.
“Look at their votes,” he said. “It’s very clear they don’t want any input from anybody. They’ve made up their minds before they walk through the door.”
Bishopville resident Kate Hulme, who attended Tuesday’s meeting hoping to see the commissioners approve the inclusion of public comment at meetings, said she was also upset by the lack of discussion. She noted that Abbott and Fiori last month voted for having staff find a vehicle for public comment.
“At no point during the motion did any commissioner in opposition to the recommendation offer feedback, concerns, or otherwise,” she said. “They had no discussion. The commissioners advocate for transparency and yet are in direct conflict of this initiative when it could negatively impact their motives.”
Hulme said she personally spoke with several of the commissioners in recent weeks to express her desire to see public comment at meetings and even shared links from other jurisdictions to show how they handled public input.
“Not once did any of the commissioners reference hearing from constituents in support of public comment,” she said. “They chose to disregard the voice of their constituents. They avoided allowing constituent concern to be publicly recorded. That is why we need public comment.”