Well, two residents turned up and there was a reported but undisclosed number of emails plus one or two off the record phone calls, so the commission at least could continue on hearsay. Which, of course, they did. And Red Bank Green ran the enigmatic headline, “… TURN OUT LIGHT FOR FORUM“. So it’s pretty much business as usual in Red Bank…
I suppose that maybe people have got bored with being stifled by the borough’s brand of virtual meetings. There’s only so much councillors’ and commissioners’ slurping, eye-rolling and blatantly aggressive body language one can take. Then there’s the feeling you’re the only guest at the Spanish Inquisition, not knowing the mood of the room or even if participants’ contributions are being called fairly instead of orchestrated in the interests of the panel or whichever political sect is “in control”, and many other features, one can only assume is by design. Hopefully, the boro’s working party into running hybrid meetings will be addressing these concerns.
Unfortunately, Red Bank Green’s report isn’t available for comment at the moment. Here Comment Is Free…
Did you do that chat last night? I opened the Chat window and it said, “Chat is closed.” At least that’s what I think I saw….
You know what’s surprising to me? 11 people ran for Commission, but none of the 6 losers chose to give their input at this meeting. But maybe, like me, they preferred to give their feedback in writing.
It’s also surprising that 2,108 people voted for the Commission, but only a dozen or so seem to be engaging in the process. I guess people want change, but want someone else to decide what.
Well “Chat” and the “Participants” list is always closed unless someone accidentally leaves them on at the start of the meeting. This occasionally happens but the barriers usually go down after a few minutes.
So why is that important?
Certain participants, usually council-, commission-, and board-members, plus “Hosts” and “Co-Hosts” do have access to this information.
“Participants“: If you can see this list you are able to see how many are present on the zoom, and can see those people who have their hands up. Usually, this means that speakers can be called, shall we say, “strategically”, so that awkward customers can be overlooked and dependable party apparatchiks called in to sum up how wonderful the panel is. Zoom actually shows “Hands Up” in order, so any shenanigans is evident. That’s why it’s important people like us can’t see it.
“Chat“: If you’re at an in-the-room meeting, you can look around, see who’s there, “chat” quietly to your neighbour while business is going on and even choreograph interventions at “Public Comment” so matters can be fully dealt with. But no. We sit on our devices, isolated, with no idea of who else other than the panel is present, and wondering if anyone’s going to ask a particular question, or if you’ll have an opportunity for a follow-up. Meanwhile, panel members are sharing “chat”, doing who knows what? Asking the host to choose a particular member of the public for comment? Or blocking someone? Or what? And while we’re on the topic, are council Zoom “chats” subject to OPRA requests? I wonder…
And yes, it’s disappointing that just two participants were at this meeting. I don’t think it’s a matter of residents letting someone else decide anything. It’s just the last few years of rigged and unrepresentative Zoom meetings leading people to vote with their mobile devices and do something else which might actually make a difference. Yes 2k+ people voted for a commission. I don’t think they expected this.