If you remember public meetings before they were televised, you can appreciate why boards desperately want to limit so-called "public" comment.
And why members of the South Florida Water Management District Board bit the bullet Thursday and launched a new policy to limit theirs.
Once upon a time -- in the 1980s and before -- only aggrieved homeowners, parents or stakeholders with a proposal or a beef came before a public commission, council, committee or board. Officials understood the importance of hearing them out.
For better and worse, television in the public meeting place changed everything.
Meetings grew longer and more repetitive.
The good news was, anybody with a television had access to every public meeting.
The bad news: Under the glare of TV lights, public meetings evolved into political demonstrations and sophisticated, histrionic-filled dramas, opportunities to publicly embarrass officials and affect community opinion by stacking the deck with lobbyists, lawyers and other paid participants -- so-called experts who show up week after week with prepared remarks.
What the SFWMD did on Thursday was to give every participant three minutes -- not three minutes on every issue on the agenda, as it was in the past, but three minutes total on a single issue of their choice.
The Miami Herald's "Naked Politics" took up the banner and wrote about it.
"(The new policy) did not go over well with regular attendees, mostly environmentalists, who often drive many miles to reach the West Palm Beach headquarters for a district spread over 16 counties," said the Jenny Staletovich story.
Well, OK.
Newspapers take protection of the First Amendment seriously, as indeed they should. But this story is noticeably one-sided, quoting appalled environmentalists on the attack -- Laura Reynolds from Tropical Audubon, Drew Martin from the Sierra Club and Tabitha Cale from National Audubon -- and leaving SFWMD Board Chairman Dan O'Keefe in a defensive posture at the end.
No explanation of why the new policy. The one line O'Keefe got? "Nothing is set in stone and I’m going to look at how our resources are managed and time is managed."
The story isn't over.
State Rep. Katie Edwards, D-Plantation, posted the Herald piece on her Facebook page. Which is all it took to attract a response from hot-to-trot SFWMD board member Melanie Peterson.
Peterson was not impressed with the story. She had something to say:
"THIS ...is what they write about ... not about projects completed under budget and on time ... not about successful BMP (Best Management Practices) programs ... not about the amazing results from the STAs (stormwater treatment areas) ... not about the hugely successful wildlife habitat and water-quality results from restoration efforts ...
"The people quoted in this article are PAID to attend our meetings. They say the exact same thing after each other at every chance at Public Comment.
"When we have had the 'actual' public there to comment, they of course have their due time. In addition, each of us can be reached via email should the public wish to share their thoughts and ideas with the board before the meeting.
"WE are volunteers who spend numerous hours each month with staff on issues that are before the board and we listen to the public who does reach out and who does attend meetings. I have said it before and I will say it again ... Journalism is DEAD."
Certainly the Herald isn't obligated to reach out to Peterson. But, be honest, she makes some points that beg to be addressed. If I were one of the Herald's editors, I would want to hear more of her side of the story, and take the opportunity to explain mine.
I really hope that happens.
Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at 228-282-2423. Twitter: NancyLBSmith
