The Lengthy Meetings Myth

Yes, it is true that some meetings of the Oshkosh Common Council have gone on too long. Yes, it is also true that each member of the Council (myself included) could do a better job of making their questions and remarks more concise. As I said at an Oshkosh Northwestern forum a few weeks ago, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing our Tuesday night meetings end early because I am a full-time teacher who teaches on Wednesdays from 9 a.m. until 8 p.m. (I teach from 9:10 - 10:10, 11:30 - 12:30, 1:50 - 2:50 and 5:00 - 8:00 on Wednesdays. On that day I also hold an office hour from 10:20 - 11:20 and usually have a faculty meeting from 12:40 - 1:40). So believe me, when the Council meetings go on a long time on Tuesdays, I'm not always the happiest of campers.

(For those who may not know, the Common Council meets on the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of every month. Meetings begin at 6 p.m.).

Listening to those for whom the length of meetings is a big issue, you'd think that the Council always or even a majority of the time goes on for 4 or more hours. It ain't so folks. I just looked up the minutes of all of the regular meetings from the time I joined the Council (April of 2007) until now. Here's what I found:

45 Regular Meetings From April 24, 2007 - March 10, 2009

• Number of Meetings Less Than 2 hours: 13 (29%)
• Number of Meetings 2-3 Hours: 8 (18%)
• Number of Meetings 3-4 Hours: 11 (24%)
• Number of Meetings 4-5 Hours: 8 (18%)
• Number of Meetings Over 5 Hours: 5 (11%)
  

That means that just under half of the meetings over the last 2 years (47%) have ended before 9 p.m., and almost three-quarters (71%) have ended before 10 p.m.

Are the 13 meetings (29%) that have gone on after 10 p.m. bothersome? Yes, but even those need to be placed in context. The majority of members on this Council have openly encouraged citizen participation at the meetings (not just in citizen statements but also on agenda items), and that does tend to lengthen meetings. I think citizen participation is a good thing so I would not support any effort to shorten the meetings that would limit it.

But I think the major reason we have had somewhat longer meetings than in the past is because, given the fact that we are often divided 4-3 without advance knowledge of which way that vote will go, for the first time in many years argument actually seems to matter on the Common Council. In the "old days" (let's say from about 1957 - 2007), the council so frequently featured 5-2 and 6-1 votes that it almost did not matter what anyone said.

Take, for example, the Council's discussion on whether or not to purchase the Chamber of Commerce building. Everyone had a sense that that was going to be a 4-3 vote, but since it was not a "done deal," lots of citizens came to speak and Councilors made substantive arguments for their positions. The same happened on votes related to compensating residents for water main damage, single-stream recycling and, yes, sidewalks on River Mill. Numerous other examples could be found.

Do I think we can do a better job of making the meetings shorter? Yes. Can I do a better job of keeping my own questions and comments more concise? Yes. But do I think our lengthier meetings are the result of excess babbling or time-wasting on the part of the majority of councilors? No. I think the reality is that we've had more small-d democracy in the last two years (not nearly enough it's true), and that takes time. But even with that, the fact is that majority of our meetings still end before 10 p.m.