Editorial | Bueller? Bueller?
The first member-of-the-public speaker called to the podium for public comment at the tail end of Wednesday night’s Cape Coral City Council meeting failed to step up.
He had left the meeting that ultimately ran just over three and a half hours, a pretty typical session length when there’s no hot-button item that has drawn public ire.
His absence, which he confirmed was due to the wait, seemed to be a precursor of public-input-yet to come.
But maybe not.
During Council Reports, Councilmember Rachel Kaduk, who had voted with the 6-2 majority that moved public input from the beginning of Council meetings before the elected board’s vote on its Consent Agenda to spot No. 10 right before Council Reports, brought the meeting rules change back for reconsideration as those on the prevailing side of a vote may do.
Ms. Kaduk said she had received a lot of input from those who 1) now had to sit through a meeting before they were allowed to offer input and 2) had to wait until after Council had voted on multiple resolutions, bid awards and “routine” matters presented as a package “Consent Agenda” vote. Consent item matters are not discussed by Council members unless pulled from the grouped items to be voted on separately.
Either way, the change to public input time means that any citizen comment would come after the fact, a point cited by those who voted against the change.
The change, in fact, failed at first vote 4-4 as did the compromise that Ms. Kaduk brought back Wednesday — that there be two scheduled opportunities for public input — a 30-minute period before the Consent Agenda and a 60-minute period at the end, as was previously proposed by Councilmember Jennifer Nelson-Lastra.
Ms. Kaduk was one of two members who swung to the majority on what was the third and final vote on the matter on June 4, giving her the right to bring the rules change back for reconsideration which she did, bringing Ms. Nelson-Lastra’s compromise back to the table.
City Council will now discuss the comprise as its next meeting on July 23.
We were among those who thought the move was ill-conceived, pointing out in an earlier editorial that “The purported logic that those voicing opinions on Council actions after Council votes could prompt a revote with a different outcome fails the sniff test which is still tainted with stench of a little-noticed, no-discussion-by-Council consent agenda item that gave the mayor and Council members a Christmas present of a respective $5,000 and $3,300 hike in monthly renumeration in 2023.”
We also point out that it took voters ousting five incumbents in November 2024 — including one who had not even been on the board when the stipend was approved — to overturn the controversial increase that was a public input topic for months.
We thank Councilmember Dr. Derrick Donnell for his “no” vote the first go around and we thank Ms. Kaduk as well as Ms. Nelson-Lastra Councilmember Laurie Lehmann for their jostle for the motion’s second.
We count four votes as the change comes back to Council en route to possible reconsideration.
As we stated previously, the question is simply how important is citizen input to our elected board?
The answer comes down to how it is prioritized.
In terms of Council’s agenda, the determining factor is should it come last?
Breeze editorial