In the last four years, one of the more controversial decisions by Bloomington’s city council was the enactment of an ordinance to reinstall stop signs on 7th Street.
A measure of that controversy was Bloomington mayor John Hamilton’s veto of the decision. Of the three pieces of the legislation that have been vetoed by the mayor in the last eight years, the stop sign veto is the only one that was not overridden by the council.
The stop sign ordinance was a nice illustration of how the balance of power works, between the legislative and executive branches in local government.
But the ordinance was also a case study in the dysfunction that has plagued the internal workings of Bloomington’s city council for nearly the last four years—almost its entire term.
Just like better road design can lead to fewer collisions between vehicles, better city council meeting design might lead to fewer, and less damaging political collisions.
To see how, it’s worth reflecting on the legislative scheduling for the stop sign ordinance. Ordinance 23-23 was introduced at the council’s Sept. 20, 2023 meeting. On that occasion, nothing much happened.
Of course something happened. On Sept. 20, the council took its perfunctory vote on whether to ask the clerk to read the ordinance by title and synopsis only. But at that time, the council did not deliberate on the stop sign ordinance.
That’s because of a quirk unique to Bloomington’s local law—which prohibits deliberation on an ordinance when it is first introduced.
In the time between its first reading and the night of final enactment—complete with amendments first unveiled that same day—no public deliberations by the council took place on Ordinance 23-23.
Otherwise put, councilmembers gave residents exactly one opportunity to see them deliberate in public on Ordinance 23-23. And that means they gave residents exactly one chance to offer comments on it at a meeting.
In the adopted annual schedule for 2023, that one-time deliberation and comment for Ordinance 23-23 was a built-in feature. The regular legislative rhythm, which was laid out in the 2023 annual schedule, called for regular council meetings on the first three Wednesdays of the month, with no intervening or subsequent committee meeting slots.
In the 2023 annual schedule—in contrast to the plan for previous years—there were no scheduled opportunities for the council to deliberate a second time on an ordinance, at a committee meeting.
Historically, it was those intervening committee meetings—scheduled for weeks when the council did not have a regular meeting—that provided an extra chance for the council to deliberate in public on an ordinance, and for residents to weigh in at a public meeting.
From the time that the current set of nine councilmembers were sworn in at the start of 2020, there had been a clear consensus among them on one procedural issue. They agreed that it was an important benefit for residents to be able to watch the council deliberate at least twice on every ordinance, and for residents to be able to weigh in twice.
But they quarreled for three solid years about whether the intervening committee meetings on pending legislation should be ‘committee-of-the-whole’ meetings, or rather smaller four-member standing committee meetings.
So for 2023, the final year of the four-year term, the council adopted an annual schedule without a built-in provision for at least two occasions for deliberation in public. The 2023 schedule revealed something interesting about both sides of the council rift. Councilmembers apparently did not actually place that much value on deliberating twice in public. So the adopted 2023 annual schedule compromised away an agreed-upon public benefit.
It would be simple enough to engineer a different design for council meetings. Part of the blueprint would require scrapping the prohibition against any deliberations on the occasion of first readings.
Instead of voting on whether the clerk should read an ordinance by title and synopsis only, the president of the council could just read the title and synopsis. That reading would be performed based purely on the fact that an ordinance appears on the agenda.
What would a council’s first vote on an ordinance be about? Answer: The council’s first vote would determine whether an ordinance would be heard at a future meeting, for a second and final vote.
That would make the first vote substantive, and would give the council a chance to get its concerns out in the open early, before the final vote is taken, at least two weeks later.
If that kind of process had been in place for the stop sign ordinance, it’s possible that a veto could have been averted. The council could conceivably have arrived at a decision on stop sign reinstallation that had unanimous support.
The debate about what kind of committee should handle the intervening deliberations would become moot.
Of course, there is an obvious concern that might arise—about meeting length. For regular council meetings, all the legislation on an agenda would be up for discussion—first and second reading items alike.
One approach to the concern about meeting length would be to think hard about the architecture of agendas for regular meetings.
What if regular meeting agendas, for the first and third Wednesdays of the month, were confined purely to the council’s legislative business? Among the items that might be eliminated from regular meeting agendas would be: reports from the mayor’s office; and general public comment for items not on the agenda.
The idea would be to set aside the second and fourth Wednesdays of the month for some kind of combined city council working session and mayoral town hall.
Wednesday working sessions would be entire meetings specifically designed to hear from the public on general topics, and to hear from the mayor’s office on upcoming initiatives, or get updates on projects already underway.
Working sessions could even be occasions for the mayor to field general questions from councilmembers and residents.
The council’s annual schedule will be up for adoption at one of its two remaining meetings of the year (Dec. 6 and Dec. 13). Of the current nine councilmembers, five will not return in 2024.
So now would be a good time for the current council to reach out and consult with the five new incoming councilmembers, and mayor-elect Kerry Thomson, about the 2024 calendar.
It seems unlikely to me (and at least one council member) that any amount of public comment would have altered the result of the 7th street stop sign vote. We know from the upzoning debate that when idealogues are presented with overwhelming public comment against their position they merely posit the existence of vast numbers of supporters too busy to attend council meetings as justification for what they intended to do anyway.
Tinker with organizational structure all you want, attitudes of men and women in the organization will determine the outcome regardless.
Amen, Bill Coulter.
Dear Dave Askins-
If you had seen the up-zoning meetings held on Zoom during COVID where HUNDREDS of people -opposed to core neighborhoods being destroyed by predatory profit-driven student housing developers- and dozens of pro-development folks, who believe that a flood of building would lead to affordable housing… and the horrific incivility that ensued, mainly by the pros… yelling, at times, that it was racism and anti-the-poor attitudes (!) that WERE the anti-UPZONING people’s REAL INTENTIONS… extremely shocking behavior was exemplified.
Shocking. Mean. Until 3:00 am.
And that was just one of many ugly meetings but it was, by far, the worst.
At least three on city council who were for UPZONING appeared to relish it… because, as with the stop signs, anyone who does not agree 100 percent with their absolute fundamental, narrowly-researched approach for solving any problem… is their enemy and must be burnt to the ground.
I am not kidding.
Ask anyone who has witnessed these meetings.
One person who ran for city council, and did not win, was referred to by this group’s big political supporters and influencers-on social media, as using a white supremacist dog-whistle because he said “let’s return to civility”, referring to these
outrageous, insulting meetings…
and by this candidates using the word “civility”, was painted by said group and their ilk, as proving an implication of hidden racism in the candidate.
Let me be clear: by using the words, “return to civility” in REFERENCE TO THE YELLING at the city council meetings…
one word was used as justification to destroy the character and reputation of a person…one word.. and there was continued defamation of character that I will not list here.
It was shocking.
It was cruel.
It was untrue.
And this political approach destroys good faith in the democratic process…
This fundamentalist group will stop at NOTHING to get their absolute way.
They think they are saving the planet.
They think they are standing up for race relations and for people in poverty.
I deeply understand these HIGHLY important concerns of theirs -down to my bones…and I appreciate their intentions.
But this “political strategy”, this “take no prisoners” approach is destroying the common people’s ability to come TOGETHER and SAVE the planet and do the good work … very, very sad.
Can protocol at meetings help change this?
… perhaps it’s part of the solution.
My concerns… and hopes:
The connective tissue that holds our community has been damaged greatly and keeps being damaged by said group.
I pray that the newly elected leaders will lead from kindness, civility AND strength.
Bless them.
hahah there are a lot of falsehoods…i’m gonna go ahead and counter some of them.
the disorder at the meeting was almost entirely the anti-apartment crowd. it literally broke down by age. there’s no factual way to describe it other than: the boomers sure love to cheer and jeer! but don’t get me wrong: i believe your narrative that listening to younger people caused your feelings to be hurt.
you pointed out that more people showed up who were anti- than pro-duplex. i think that was true, but it was by a narrow margin. one thing i noticed is that the anti crowd was remarkably uniform. about half of them were Elm Heights residents. almost all of them owned houses, and many of them had owned houses for decades. almost all of them were over 60. the pro crowd was diverse. there was young and old, student and townie, homeowner and renter.
anyways i really appreciated your comment for this rather oblique line: “One person who ran for city council, and did not win, was referred to by this group’s big political supporters and influencers-on social media, as using a white supremacist dog-whistle because he said “let’s return to civility”” and did not win?? you don’t say.
by your own frame, the anti crowd brought more people to the city council but the pro crowd brought more people to the ballot box. i’m glad we can agree that the silent majority values housing growth, density, integration, and proximity. the loud group that shows up to complain any time the council does something good for students or renters is a minority.
Perfect observation. For those of us my age, it can be difficult to turn over control to the ideas of younger folks, but we must.
Thank you for your thoughtful, kind and insightful words. I hope they made you feel stronger and better.
I actually do mean that even though I do not understand.
We can’t all understand these different experiences, but I try as best as I can.
Sincerely,
Bess Lee
i am torn about the process. i think there were some good results from the old ‘committee of the whole’ process, and i liked the topical committees even better. there were definitely cases where the first hearing was helpful to inspire amendments, and the amendments were ready and appreciated at the second hearing.
but when you start getting into matters that have already been heard before by commissions, the advantage becomes less clear. for example, this stop sign issue was already heard at the bike and ped safety commission and at the traffic commission. there was a lot of public comment at the BPSC meeting. both bodies came to the same recommendation, and staff ultimately agreed to support that recommendation to the council. and then 5 members of the council ignored the commissions.
that disconnect between the commissions and the council was a real failure. we didn’t need more meetings, we needed the meetings that had already happened to count. the council doesn’t have to agree with commissioners but it’s a disservice to all the people that showed up to comment. they council ignored the whole meeting, not just the commissioners. when i would ask a stupid question, my dad used to say “you get three guesses but the first two don’t count” — a tolerable dad joke but a shitty way to run public process!
i think that’s a big argument for the staff proposal that a new transportation committee should have a representative from the council on it. that personal bridge is not foolproof, though. the underlying problem is that Cms Sgambelluri and Sandberg exclusively represent people in car-bound neighborhoods who oppose any change that prioritizes localized transportation near downtown and campus. Cm Rollo represents a group of people who are explicitly opposed to the very existence of the overwhelming majority of the city (a shocking alignment!), and Cms Sims and Smith simply don’t listen, for their own different reasons. we can’t correct these alignments with process alone.
thank god for ballot boxes! and continuing shame on the democratic party that intentionally used Mayer’s retirement to allow the non-electoral appointment of Sims onto this “elected body”! he shoulda run his first election as a non-incumbent just like real elected members. campaigning is substantive public process.
but i want to give an anecdote…the 1800 N Walnut “Verve Apartments” project was pursued as a PUD (a kind of spot re-zone), which meant a truly excessive amount of public process. *at least* two hearings at the plan commission, one hearing at the council land use committee, and one hearing at the common council. and it was contentious, so extras at at least one of those bodies. i think maybe as many as 7 meetings by the time it was done??
the contention centered around a quid pro quo / administrative capture / payment in lieu / “pay to play” arrangement whereby the mayor’s office had negotiated with the developer to write a check for “affordable housing” in exchange for greasing the wheels through this process. accordingly, the mayor put inappropriate pressure on planning staff to make the proposal look good. this led to a severe ethical breach where one of the planning staff lied to the plan commission and the council, telling them that there was a robust sidewalk network already. but there wasn’t! i couldn’t believe it!
so i went to every dang one of those meetings (maybe i missed one?), and at every meeting i gave some variant of the “there’s no sidewalk and people are walking in the street” that you heard if you ever went to any of these bodies in 2019-2020. i’m still mad about the huge waste of time on my part. the reason we have certified professional staff is to avoid this kind of blatant misconduct. my job as an advocate should be to tell the council that they should prioritize the sidewalk…there should not be a debate between lies and truth about whether the sidewalk even exists!!!
so anyways all that public process meant some jetset suit (an “executive”) was required to physically sit in the same room as some john q public asshole screaming about sidewalks. so they got to what was supposed to be the last meeting and the suit could tell he needed to pull a rabbit out of his hat. this was a really remarkable moment to me, at 1h44m into the Sep 4, 2019 council meeting, he said “currently, we’re providing almost 200 feet of linear sidewalk as part of the plan and … [scratches face] … um … if it gets the project approved, i’ll complete the whole sidewalk. if it means getting the project approved or not, i think i’d be open to, you know, everyone behind me is probably saying we can’t afford it but [looks over his shoulder to underlings with on-the-spot grins] we’d be happy to, we just don’t know how much linear feet it is. we understand the importance of it. and i think it’s something that we can definitely commit ourselves to.” he was thinking on his feet!! a decision was made at the public comment podium! and today we have that sidewalk!
i’m personally so glad that the zoning code has been amended so this sort of project won’t require such ridiculous public process anymore. to approve something like this today, the developer would probably only have to go to the plan commission once, and not go to the council at all. it’s good for developers, and it’s good for residents. but in this one instance, the excessive public process enabled one citizen to simply invest the hours and get a sidewalk, which exists today.
more meetings should not be a substitute for substantive investments in crucial infrastructure. simply because the council passed a comprehensive plan and transportation plan that say pedestrian safety and convenience is a priority (a priority! explicitly more important than cars!), staff should do their jobs and work towards this goal. and council should allocate funds for the things they ask staff to do! we shouldn’t structure our public bodies around the assumption that members of the public will skip dinner and use up precious spouse-babysitting-credits to do a job that a professional is being paid to do.
I hope Dave’s idea is considered
When meetings go until the early morning hours I don’t understand how public accessibility is maintained. It is honestly ridiculous–neither Bloomington’s size nor its activity level dictate an inability to narrow down the important, that is locally important, issues on an agenda. Stop grandstanding with prolific resolutions about the country, state, or political hot topic of the day and govern this freaking City. The residents deserve it.
I like Dave’s ideas, but The Peoples Republic of Bloomington as manifest by their newly voted council may indeed have a chance to better the growing city– or not– through rules changes.
The Prince of Wails, Don Griffin, heir anointed, was soundly defeated. Other incumbents were pushed off the dock, too. Bloomington voters voted their disgust with the council and mayoralty.
Will the newly seated council kick ass and take names? Will they deliberate over stunningly bad traffic management choices endlessly? Will the developers continue to hoodwink them and wrench the character of the city away into meaningless cubes of tawdry flats?
Already every major shopping area intersection has become fouled with the good intentions of developer proposals with bad traffic design, amplifying minor road rages and dramas from Liberty Drive and Bloomfield Road to any intersection on College Mall. How much worse can it get? I know– let’s put quieting and narrow the number of lanes, and add confusing (for cyclists and motorists) widened bike lanes!
I wonder which parking garage, substandard concrete poured years ago, will be the next one to be dropped to the ground and replaced? Perhaps there might be a restaurant connected to it.
But we have only the new madness of amalgamating the police into the Showers, and facing another 100 year rainstorm to flood other parts of the downtown as inattention to storm water management for decades causes that burbling sound in basements through the downtown.
And all of these will doggle into boon as somehow, a convention center re-do occurs, all when the prices for non-profits to use city or county facilities has either been banned or is at an all-time high cost to those non-profits. OK, we don’t need those stinking do-gooders making a stinking nickel after all, do we?
I want to believe your ideas will help, Dave. History tells us not to hold our breath.
I’ve attended council meetings as both a citizen, a commission member and a council member for more than 45 years. The two meeting process worked for forty years. It hadn’t stopped working when it was scrapped for small subcommittee meetings that were not easily accessible to the public like the predictable two-meeting system had been with a warning meeting before the process where the issue was publicly introduced. The system wasn’t broken but someone tried to fix it. This has resulted in a truly broken process if you are a fan of local and real democracy. The discussion by council during the meetings also used to be more orderly and systematic but that has also broken down into so called “debate” instead of simple comment. This has extended meeting time exponentially. We might find our way back some day when the people who have all the answers realize that our world is more complicated than that and understand that we can find our way forward only by working together and listening to each other.
when you were a councilmember, you often sounded like a progressive member. but when you passed plans which called for change — which you did, thank you very much — you followed up by complaining any time staff implemented those changes. you didn’t want the progress, you just wanted to talk about it.
it wasn’t just you. your tenure covered an era where divisions were almost invisible, where arch-conservatives like cm Rollo managed to pass themselves off as agents of change *for decades at a time*. councilmembers who had some genuine interest in change wound up carrying water for a democratic party that fundamentally just wanted to hang onto power without changing anything.
one of the refrains of the greenways project — which you and Rollo supported and now oppose — is that somehow it was on the books for almost 20 years before it picked up even a pittance of funding.
that council that oversaw almost 20 years of delay sucked. it’s right to question their procedural choices. they do not exemplify success.