The current public meeting scenario goes something like this: The governing body, hereinafter rulers, assembles ensconced in their segregated area surrounded by staff. The public fidgets in their assigned area while first staff and then legal staff imparts data. Finally the public statements, limited in time, commence. Then the rulers deliver their ukase.
This is no better than an American version of Hyde Park Corner. Words delivered to the wind.
I propose that from now on all rulers must, 3 days before a hearing of public interest, post their tentative view of the issue along with their reasons for holding the view. Ideally they would also be required to post the contrary view and reasons. But that can wait another time.
Should a ruler not post her view, she is disqualified from voting on the issue. Should she miss 3 postings, she is recalled.
Now we can have a meeting where the public knows who stand where. Now the public can address pertinent issues rather than just orating with the hope that something will apply to some ruler’s hidden view. And this process will tell us something of the thought process,if any,of the particular ruler.
It is much more difficult to be a secret toady of a special interest if she must reason publicly.If she displays her opinion with reasons, it may be that she is just factually incorrect and this can be remedied. And argument, which just might be persuasive, can be brought to bear on a particular reason. But only if one knows the reason.
So let us have a much more involved public. Lets have a more open set of rulers.
James Jackson, Esq. firstname.lastname@example.org