Will Harper,  Berkeley Voice, May 16, 1996

Council Pondering Hearing Restrictions
Is it democracy in action or public filibuster?

Following recent marathon public hearings, members of the city council are asking: At what point does so-called democratic participation become counter-productive?

Most recently after enduring a five-hour public hearing over the fate of a landmark building targeted for demolition last month, bleary-eyed council members wearily debated in the wee hours of morning. Only the most vigilant remained to witness the outcome.

Ultimately, after deciding to save the building at 2419 Haste St., the council was forced to schedule a special meeting to handle its unfinished business.

That was the last straw for some council members. In previous months they had already sat through mega-public hearings over the proposed Hollywood Video, People's Park, and an application to turn an old Safeway into a bargain retail store.

So now both sides of the fence want to do something to curtail the time allotted for certain public hearings. Councilmembers Polly Armstrong, Linda Maio, and Carla Woodworth are suggesting limiting public hearings for land-use matters and in cases where there are clearly two sides to 90 minutes.

Armstrong argues that the current system of allowing everyone a chance to speak is ultimately undemocratic when decisions are being after midnight and most people are in bed.

She added that many times speakers repeat points that have already been made numerous times before during the hearing. Limiting the hearing to 90 minutes, she said, will give both sides a chance to make their case and allow people to get home at a reasonable hour.

"I think it's something we need to do so real people with kids, jobs, and outside responsibilities can feel like they can come to a public hearing and then go on with their lives," said Armstrong. "Our current process shuts out all but the most organized and the most zealous participants.

"It just doesn't serve the process of good government. It gives the impression that quantity is a substitute for quality."

Terry Francke, the director of the First Amendment Coalition, agreed that 90 minutes provide ample time for the public to make its case.

"There does get to a point of diminishing returns if the very generosity of time accorded in one instance makes the wait longer for everyone else," he said. "It's more important that a variety of viewpoints be heard rather than every last person getting his two-cents in."

Francke said people can always write letter to their council members or submit petitions with signatures.

Local activist L A Wood, a regular speaker during public hearings, said limiting the time for hearings would inevitably limit the public's ability to participate.

"The public hearing is a guaranteed opportunity to address an issue as you get in line. That's very democratic," Wood said. "Berkeley acts like it wants public participation but it continues to do things to discourage it. I think some council members want less participation and less scrutiny."

The idea to limit the time for public hearing isn't new. For the past two years the Zoning Board has forced opponents and supporters of projects to split into camps and select a few speakers to represent their viewpoint.

The council proposal would work in a similar way. Each side would select up to ten speakers to be heard alternately. If there's any time remaining, speakers would be selected at random.

Ann Henderson, the president of the League of Women Voters, said the government watchdog didn't oppose limiting time allotted for zoning or land-use appeals where there's clearly two sides. But she said the League would have a difficult time supporting constraints on broader issues where there might be a wide range of viewpoints.

Armstrong, Maio and Woodworth were forced to withdraw the proposal last week when it appeared they didn't have the votes to pass it. Mayor Shirley Dean and others said they would never vote for the proposal.

But Armstrong insisted that the issue is not dead and added that she was willing to tinker with the proposal in order to get the necessary five votes. If she tinkers enough, she just might get the necessary political support.