HomeMy WebLinkAbout101022 OPMA guidelines - clarification________________________________
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
________________________________
Mr. Hunsucker,
In my earlier email, I commented:
8. In Part VI, H -- I recommend replacing the word "comments" with "testimony"
9. Same in Part IX, B
The intent of that was not to replace "comments" with "testimony" thoughout the document, but only under the subject of Hearings. It’s been the practice of the BoCC to refer to "testimony"
during Hearings, and as part of that to require those speaking to identify themselves by name and residence.
The word “testimony” suggests that the speaker is being truthful and stating facts, not just offering an opinion or commentary, even though none of what’s said is under oath.
In Part VI, I’m suggesting to remove the words “or comment”.
In Part IX, I’m recommending that “public comment” be replaced with “testimony” for consistency.
Regarding the item in Appendix E to which my comment referred (Commissioner Brother saw it, right after I finished speaking).
As he noted, “persons” would include members of the public who happened to be in attendance (both in person and remotely); those people shouldn’t be listed in the minutes.
I agree that any person presenting information at the request of the Board/Commission/Committee (e.g., a subject matter expert) should be identified in the minutes by name, title, and
organization.
Thank you for all your work on this important subject.
Tom Thiersch