此内容暂无简体中文译文，以下为英文原文。
Historical signed letter. Descriptions of Council procedures, community divisions and proposed redevelopment reflect the writers’ period views and claims; they are not independent findings.
Before the Director of the Community Council left, he presented a plan for streamlining Skinker-DeBaliviere Board Meetings.
Many of the points suggested, like arriving on time (No. 3) and attending them (No.2), certainly merit attention.
However, I take strong issue with No. 1, quoted below from a Memorandum to the Executive Committee from Skip Coburn: “While our meetings are open to the public, they are not public hearings. Therefore, it is appropriate to restrict open debate in order to assure that a business-like decorum is maintained.
In the future it is suggested that anyone who is not a Board member and wishes to address the Council about a particular matter should call the Council by the Friday before the Board meeting to get on the agenda.” The idea that Community Council meetings may be closed to comments, or complaints, or suggestions, or important information, startles me. I had thought the Council was established to respond to community needs and pressures.
For many years it did depend on strong involvement from neighbors to initiate and implement programs.
The Council actively sought that support.
The tone of the suggestion also startles me: Am I to feel grateful that Council meetings are even open? What business is it that merits the decorum and silence of the audience? Indeed, how will I know what topics are listed on which I might want to speak?
If procedural rules need strengthening, if more, or different, channels of communication need to be opened into the community, if goals for the Council need clarifying, let these be the issues addressed and debated. Patricia Kohn
Originally published in The Paper, December 1981.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times1981_12.pdf, printed page(s) 2; PDF page(s) 2.
