Two-minute rule

Anyone who's suffered through the five-plus hour meetings of the Hillsborough School Board will appreciate a rule change:

Board member Candy Olson (left) proposed at Tuesday's meeting a new procedure: She and the other board members should observe a two-minute time limit on routine agenda items.

Not surprising, it generated talk. (Eight minutes, 50 seconds, to be exact.)

Other board members were concerned about not being able to respond to comments. So April Griffin proposed an amendment that would allow one-minute response time. It proved rather divisive, passing on a 4-3 vote, with the support of Griffin, Carol Kurdell, Doretha Edgecomb and Susan Valdes.

Now the question is who's keeping time? Anyone want to loan the Gradebook a stopwatch for the next meeting?

Comments

[RIck]

Carol Kurdell is up for reelection. Suddenly, we're hearing from her (however off-base she is) and she's voting for the "other" side.

I predict it's too late and pray that someone with money will run opposite her.

[More than what meets the eye]

The discussion and strategies to address rambling in a Board meeting could have been held in one of their "workshops".

If it is such a concern, why didn't they own it and act on it without having to set a policy? And why now, after all of these years?

The Bureacratic mindset of setting a "policy" for these types of issues is counter productive in the majority of cases.

Setting a policy is about control of others and having power over that control. And this is where the abuse of power and control has it's way.

Time will tell.

[Chris W]

Or, maybe the time limit will force the more rambling-prone members to become a bit more succinct?

Of course, I didn't see a definition anywhere of what constitutes "routine" agenda items. Who gets to make that classification?

[Selective Enforcement of rules are the norm]

I believe one could study the past school board meetings and make a case that they never cut off a speaker that has good things to say. But if the speaker is saying things that makes the District look bad, snide comments are made and attempts are made to disuade further speaking.

When it comes to speakers at the podium, the rules are enforced, the microphone is cut and a few years ago, they stopped the TV coverage when really bad things were being said by a really good man.

It is interesting that now that the Board meetings have ahown an increase in attempts to have real discussion in the sun shine, the thought police are scheming on how to limit such negativity for the world to see.

What is interesting is that the very person who made the motion has a habit of not being succinct. The question must be asked - why did "they" pick her to make the motion? Or did she volunteer and no one said "wait a minute, it will be noticably uncharacteristic for you to propose this".

These strategies remind me of the Bowmer, Kotvas and Anderson days over in the zoning group.

Along with a stop watch, someone needs to keep a score board on who gets cut off the most and who is "respectfully" let speak past their time.

Maybe a little gong should be placed along side of the gavel.

If it were truly about time management, they would find another forum for all of the proclamations, recognition parades and the warm and fuzzies that makes the world know they have our best interest at heart. No need for serious stuff in front of the public.