School Board Considering Revision to Public Commenting Policy

The Ridgewood Board of Education has in the past been criticized for the perception that its public meetings aren't fostering a dialogue with the community, and members spent last Monday night hashing out ideas to foster better relations.

"It's something we need to look at," said member Sheila Brogan, who's pushed for a change. "How do we encourage public comment and welcome it and yet still be able to do our board business," which is the focus of the meetings.

The district's guidelines allow for two opportunities to address the board, at the beginning and end of the meeting. It's been over five years since revisions made, when the time speakers are allotted jumped from two to four minutes.

"I'd like to see the time per speaker, four minutes, is eliminated and that we set aside a specific amount of time, maybe no more than 15 minutes when there's not much of an audience, or 30 minutes if there's more of an audience," Brogan recommended, saying she'd prefer it be evaluated after six months.

But very often speakers' comments are not addressed by the board, leaving a poor taste in the mouths of some.

"I think the problem with public comment is not public comment," said member Charlie Reilly, who announced his pending departure from the board recently. "The problem is that people want to get feedback from the board and you can't really do that very well when you need to get business done."

He suggested for "hot issues" a meeting be wedged between the two typical board business meetings, and it would be something of a "circular discussion" devoid of voting. Brogan also endorsed the concept, further stating she would prefer that if an answer cannot be provided at the meeting, it be espoused at the next meeting.

But Board President Michele Lenhard expressed hesitancy. Lenhard remarked that members can only express their own individual opinions but not reflect board decisions, opening up potential structural challenges.

"I think the answers are the challenge," Lenhard said. With "some of the questions that are posed, sometimes the board isn't aware of the answers or need administrative support for some of those answers. I think that's something to consider."

Arguing the board is already "very patient" in listening to speakers, Lenhard advocated for "keeping the structure" of the business meetings.

"I think not having any parameters is a challenge," she said. As the presiding officer, Lenhard has discretion as to when to extend or cut off public commenting. Brogan remarked that could send a mixed message if the board abruptly cut discussions of a controversial issue, which happens from time to time.

"By having an undetermined amount of time, we are inviting a preacher to talk," Board Vice President Bob Hutton said. "Unlimited time is not the way to go."

Yet the public commenting section of the meeting remains needlessly frustrating, according to one resident.

"One of the most unsatisfying features of this way of doing it is the public doesn't really feel it's being listened to," said Ridgewood High School Neighborhood Association (RHSNA) spokesman Jim Morgan. Morgan said he liked Reilly's ideas and "appreciated" Lenhard's point that the board doesn't always immediately have the answers.

Still, Morgan contrasted the school board to the council meetings, which are more free-wheeling discussions between members of the public and the council and top officials. The council frequently answers questions without perceived challenges of speaking as one, he remarked. Further, he said, there have been very few instances in which the board has been burdened by the public speaking.

Bottom line, he said, "I think the public needs more interplay."

In a moment of levity, Hutton had the most interesting suggestion, joking that perhaps the board should install a trap door.

The board will continue to discuss possible changes at its Communications Committee meeting.