The Recent Town Council Work Meeting

yet another op ed by E Cutler, but potentially the last, at least about TC. What’s the point?

Last week I wrote a little about the work meeting town council had held with the objective of potential revisions to meeting procedures and protocol. They talked about all of their current procedures and protocols, but the pertinent part for residents was: Will they make it so residents feel more listened to, more respected, more engaged? The answer is a resounding, “NO!”

They chose to continue to not respond to public comments made at meetings. They even chose to remove a time for the public to ask questions. They didn’t even consider having a time for public comment at a point during deliberations. That was a question Jack Burns had asked at the training held in February to which the response was that that could be done. Some municipalities do, some don’t. That gave hope that there was interest in, and concern for, public input by members of our council. They also decided to Not put a written submission by a member of the public unless a town council member said they could.

Their decisions were based on the most miserable situations that could occur: What if someone asks a gotcha question? What if we say something we shouldn’t? What if it takes too much time? Why should I be expected to know something on the spot? What if a lot more people come with a lot more questions, comments? What about the length of the meetings?

Never, how could we be more transparent? How could we make people feel heard?

Listen to it and see if you find their basic assumption about the citizens of Springdale was that we are not too bright, not to considerate, and, basically, out to get them?

To view the meeting: <https://www.youtube.com/@SpringdaleTownPublicMeetings> then click on 04/03/2026 Town Council Work Meeting

Let’s review some of their concerns. They get a gotcha question? Answer with, oh I don’t know, honesty and humor, “Hey that’s a gotcha question. I’m thinking the best answer is not to answer. What else have you got?“

If one member of council starts to speak for the whole body (which possibility seemed to completely unnerve them), their fellow council members could say, “Whoa, cowboy, hold up there. You can’t speak for the whole council.”

Knowing things on the spot??? Well, duh, they each have areas of expertise where they would absolutely shine, even on the spot. Mayor Bruno has said they make decisions, in part, based on things you know that we don’t. So…tell us what that is. And when you don’t know, no big, say so. We can handle it. We don’t expect omniscience, we do expect honesty and a willingness to engage.

Meetings might get too long? even though they also sadly opined that not enough people show up? That’s a bridge to be crossed if it happens regularly. Which, frankly, they should view as a happy problem to have.

I could go on, but won’t. I’m sure a reasoned mind would advise that my sadness about this meeting far exceeds the level of council disdain for community that was my primary takeaway. I just had such high and happy hopes.

NEWS FLASH! I just received an email from a TC member. Perhaps things are not as hopeless as I had thought. There is still dialogue to be had; there is still concern for community communication by the Town Council.

The communication reminded me of something I had thought to address in the next issue, but will mention now: the problem of rules for transparency. Sometimes they kind of work against the very thing they are trying to insure. For instance, there must be advance notice given if there is going to be a public hearing. Part of the concern of town council members is if they end up with too much dialogue in answering questions or responding to public comments, it might become a de facto public hearing which would have needed advance notice.

One can understand how they must be cautious about all the hoops through which they must legally jump. This is one of those situations where I have greater confidence in them than they have in themselves. I think they are all intelligent, and quite capable of answering without falling into problems of basically “over-communicating.” (Easy for me to say, I won’t be held accountable if they goof up.)

There’s the idea that council should make no response to public comments at all and not allow questions at all. There’s the possibility of, if those things are allowed, the ensuing dialogue may devolve into debates, unintentional public hearings, and/or other inappropriate, potentially illegal, communications. I am convinced there are better solutions than one based on fear of what might happen.

I welcome your ideas of what those solutions could be and will include them in the next issue.