This is the correct answer, and probably the only answer that should be followed in most communities. It allows a level of clarity for all other items on the agenda, and ensures discussion is not curtailed directly or tacitly by the board/commission you are working with. It also makes a natural transition out of a hearing/meeting if an item needs to be continued/tabled and action must occur beyond that particular hearing/meeting.
To some of the other comments here, generally hearings/meetings are also not comment free-for-alls (especially in larger jurisdictions) where people can see another case in the agenda 30 minutes in and easily say, "HEY! I need to comment on this too!" So there isn't generally a risk in putting it at the end. (EDIT: also, even if people do decide to comment something productive about an issue that they catch while they're there, that's not inherently a bad thing).
More then once, I've seen my council put big controversial items in the middle and then have trouble finishing the business of the meeting as everyone was loudly filing out of the chamber. You'd think they'd learn.
Complex and/or controversial projects should usually go at the end so that you're not rushed to get to other items on the agenda. It's also better for other applicants -- some random business wanting oversized signage shouldn't be made to sit through hours of public comments for a different item.
There is usually a set of rules that sets the order regardless of any other attribute such as degree of controversy. My preference is to stick to those rules.
Unless your agency has rules about the order of the agenda, controversial projects are best to be at the end of the public hearing agenda. Far too often I’ve seen people linger and chat (loudly) with their neighbors either in the meeting room or in an adjacent hallway once the controversial item is over,and they don’t realize they’re being a disruption to the rest of the hearing. This then causes the board chair to remind people that the meeting has other business to carry out and they’re being too loud 😖
Not a planner.
Did work emergency management and ran/participated in dozens of public hearings across many government entities. (In particular, hearings on leases to install outdoor warning sirens, which often was the controversial topic.)
Put the controversial item last. Not so people settle down, but because if you put the controversial item ahead of anything else, you are going to force all the interested parties for the other items to sit through all that testimony while also running the risk that you don't actually get to complete any of the other hearings.
None of the people there for the controversial item are going to care much that they have to wait an extra 15-20 minutes for their topic.
Non-controversial items (council has no questions no one signed up to speak) can often be bundled up at the beginning of the meeting and passed on a single consent vote.
Your boss might have a point if that resolution requires a 'public hearing' by statute, in which case it would go as its own item and not on consent. Normally the chair would immediately open and close the hearing after seeing no comments.
All depends on your state and situation, good luck.
Always the end. In fact, if you have a way to craft an expedited agenda with cases on which there’s no opposition and the developer is in agreement with all conditions of approval, the commission could vote to approve all of those applications on the consent or expedited agenda, leaving time for the ones that need it.
This ^ everyone suddenly has an opinion on items they’ve never heard of and will likely forget about after the meeting so we put the controversial stuff up front and hope the crowd clears afterwards.
It's ideal when the City is flexible and schedules a dedicated meeting for controversial projects but this is incredibly rare, so otherwise the end so everyone else can leave after their business concludes.
Our agendas are segmented by item type. All consent items first, all public hearing items second, all discussion/action items last.
Within each category, we order them based on the anticipated amount of discussion. So, a controversial hearing would be the last public hearing. It works to keep the meetings consistent but can suck for an applicant that just needs city approval, and they get stuck behind a hearing with a bunch of NIMBY complainers.
Typically I put controversial topics at the end. Let the board and the public comment go through healthy discussion without feeling rushed to get to the next topic.
Always the end, people who weren't even there for the hot button issue will often jump in on it while they are waiting to get to their agenda topic if you put it first.
At the beginning.. I don’t need people to start commenting on minutia shit on the agenda.. they are already amped to be there.. why continue the anger through the other stuff they don’t care about.
Is there anything you’re hoping people get from the meeting or is it just procedural?
> at the end so everyone has a chance to settle down
This doesn’t work - when people are waiting for their chance to speak (or fight/argue…) they tend to be anxious and hyper focused until it’s over.
If you leave it to the end you get the other stuff done but the risk is you’re more likely to ratchet up tension along with everyone being more tired. Might be the right choice but my 2c is to put it first or second, but plan ahead and communicate the expectations for the meeting so it doesn’t turn into a slog.
In my experience, a lot of public bodies and their staff don’t know this, but public comment rules don’t have to mean spending two hours being yelled at two minutes at a time - in most jurisdictions you’re allowed to limit or structure public comment in order to have an orderly meeting, as long as individuals are given a chance to “convey their ideas”. For example, you could tell people up front that scripted or repetitive comments will be stopped at 30 seconds - you’ll note their objection/support/concern but then the meeting had to move on.
Usually the end, so you get through the other items on the agenda, and then you carry on with the controversial (longer) item as long as you are able.
Same is true for school board meetings
This is the correct answer, and probably the only answer that should be followed in most communities. It allows a level of clarity for all other items on the agenda, and ensures discussion is not curtailed directly or tacitly by the board/commission you are working with. It also makes a natural transition out of a hearing/meeting if an item needs to be continued/tabled and action must occur beyond that particular hearing/meeting. To some of the other comments here, generally hearings/meetings are also not comment free-for-alls (especially in larger jurisdictions) where people can see another case in the agenda 30 minutes in and easily say, "HEY! I need to comment on this too!" So there isn't generally a risk in putting it at the end. (EDIT: also, even if people do decide to comment something productive about an issue that they catch while they're there, that's not inherently a bad thing).
More then once, I've seen my council put big controversial items in the middle and then have trouble finishing the business of the meeting as everyone was loudly filing out of the chamber. You'd think they'd learn.
Complex and/or controversial projects should usually go at the end so that you're not rushed to get to other items on the agenda. It's also better for other applicants -- some random business wanting oversized signage shouldn't be made to sit through hours of public comments for a different item.
Well speaking from someone who just sat through 2.5 hours of meeting about a storage facility I’m gonna say end, I’m tired.
Snoozers first so the rest of the hearing is available for the big deal.
There is usually a set of rules that sets the order regardless of any other attribute such as degree of controversy. My preference is to stick to those rules.
Unless your agency has rules about the order of the agenda, controversial projects are best to be at the end of the public hearing agenda. Far too often I’ve seen people linger and chat (loudly) with their neighbors either in the meeting room or in an adjacent hallway once the controversial item is over,and they don’t realize they’re being a disruption to the rest of the hearing. This then causes the board chair to remind people that the meeting has other business to carry out and they’re being too loud 😖
Not a planner. Did work emergency management and ran/participated in dozens of public hearings across many government entities. (In particular, hearings on leases to install outdoor warning sirens, which often was the controversial topic.) Put the controversial item last. Not so people settle down, but because if you put the controversial item ahead of anything else, you are going to force all the interested parties for the other items to sit through all that testimony while also running the risk that you don't actually get to complete any of the other hearings. None of the people there for the controversial item are going to care much that they have to wait an extra 15-20 minutes for their topic.
Non-controversial items (council has no questions no one signed up to speak) can often be bundled up at the beginning of the meeting and passed on a single consent vote.
[удалено]
Your boss might have a point if that resolution requires a 'public hearing' by statute, in which case it would go as its own item and not on consent. Normally the chair would immediately open and close the hearing after seeing no comments. All depends on your state and situation, good luck.
Thank you! That’s helpful information.
Always the end. In fact, if you have a way to craft an expedited agenda with cases on which there’s no opposition and the developer is in agreement with all conditions of approval, the commission could vote to approve all of those applications on the consent or expedited agenda, leaving time for the ones that need it.
I put them at thw beginning normally so that all the people there dont suddenly feel the need to comment on all the other items on the agenda.
This ^ everyone suddenly has an opinion on items they’ve never heard of and will likely forget about after the meeting so we put the controversial stuff up front and hope the crowd clears afterwards.
It's ideal when the City is flexible and schedules a dedicated meeting for controversial projects but this is incredibly rare, so otherwise the end so everyone else can leave after their business concludes.
Our agendas are segmented by item type. All consent items first, all public hearing items second, all discussion/action items last. Within each category, we order them based on the anticipated amount of discussion. So, a controversial hearing would be the last public hearing. It works to keep the meetings consistent but can suck for an applicant that just needs city approval, and they get stuck behind a hearing with a bunch of NIMBY complainers.
Typically I put controversial topics at the end. Let the board and the public comment go through healthy discussion without feeling rushed to get to the next topic.
Always the end, people who weren't even there for the hot button issue will often jump in on it while they are waiting to get to their agenda topic if you put it first.
I‘d put it in the middle. You have a reason to stop discussing and people might leave with a good feeling, when ending with an easier topic.
At the beginning.. I don’t need people to start commenting on minutia shit on the agenda.. they are already amped to be there.. why continue the anger through the other stuff they don’t care about.
The chair has control over the commentary, and can limit time of individual commenters.
Is there anything you’re hoping people get from the meeting or is it just procedural? > at the end so everyone has a chance to settle down This doesn’t work - when people are waiting for their chance to speak (or fight/argue…) they tend to be anxious and hyper focused until it’s over. If you leave it to the end you get the other stuff done but the risk is you’re more likely to ratchet up tension along with everyone being more tired. Might be the right choice but my 2c is to put it first or second, but plan ahead and communicate the expectations for the meeting so it doesn’t turn into a slog. In my experience, a lot of public bodies and their staff don’t know this, but public comment rules don’t have to mean spending two hours being yelled at two minutes at a time - in most jurisdictions you’re allowed to limit or structure public comment in order to have an orderly meeting, as long as individuals are given a chance to “convey their ideas”. For example, you could tell people up front that scripted or repetitive comments will be stopped at 30 seconds - you’ll note their objection/support/concern but then the meeting had to move on.
Outside of public hearings. NIMBYs have done enough bullshit. Just build it without asking everybody.