Is it getting more difficult to talk to city officials in Vancouver?

Vancouver Councilman Bart Hansen reflects on public comment changes and their impact on citizen engagement. File photo

The initiative process was recently used by a grassroots group, but the idea of having to go through that process has led City Council member Bart Hansen to wonder if he and his colleagues have made it too difficult to talk to them on a regular basis

Paul Valencia
ClarkCountyToday.com

The initiative process is not used frequently in the city of Vancouver.

That is why it was refreshing to at least once city council member to hear that a group called Save Vancouver Streets did turn in thousands of signatures during election week, in hopes of getting the city to adopt its proposal or, perhaps, get the proposal on the ballot box next year.

“I’m really supportive of the initiative process,” Bart Hansen said this week. “It’s a strong message to Council when someone is that willing to go out and get those signatures, and gets them.

“I say, ‘Hats off to them for going through this process.’ That’s their voice.”

This specific process also has Hansen wondering if this a symptom to a larger problem.

“Folks think they can’t talk to us,” Hansen said.

For about two years now, traditional public comment has been nixed at city council meetings. In its place, the mayor, the city manager, and council members have held a series of community forums.

At one forum in June, witnessed by a reporter at Clark County Today, there was not an official agenda but when people associated with Save Vancouver Streets brought up their issue, they were told they would have to wait until the end of the forum. Instead, city leaders held a long discussion on the city budget, homelessness, and the potential of the Interstate Bridge replacement.

Almost a third of the people in this room raised their hands when asked if they were there to talk about the city streets. They had to wait 70 minutes to get to their subject.

Some left that forum frustrated.

Hansen, who was not at that forum that night, understands.

“If I had it my way, I’d go back to the original citizens comment,” he said, referring to comments at city council meetings.

There is public comment at City Council meetings but those comments must be in reference to whatever is in that meeting’s agenda.

Hansen would prefer going back to public comment, where citizens can voice opinions on any matter. City Council originally changed its rules because there were so many off-topic discussions. It was getting difficult to work on city business. And, to be fair, many commenters seemed to want to bring up off-topic conversations just to get on TV or social media, in hopes of going viral.

Hansen said while that can be frustrating to the council members, it is the way of life of being an elected official.

“The thinking was, ‘We’re here to do business. This is a business meeting,’” Hansen said. “To the average citizen, when they see a City Council meeting, they think they can come down and talk to them. They’re not looking at it as a business meeting. They’re looking at it as a public meeting.

“As long as they can be courteous and respectful, let them have their three minutes.”

It can be difficult to get a council member on the phone. Or a council member might take too long to return an email. But citizens coming to a city council meeting should have their say, Hansen said.

“If you are going to stifle citizens’ opportunity to speak, what you’re really losing is the average citizen saying, ‘Hey, I’ve got a problem,’” Hansen said. “I want them to come down to city hall and talk about whatever’s on your mind for three minutes.”