Prepared Comments Made to
NORTH CANTON CITY COUNCIL
January 27, 2014
Accurate
and complete records are vital building blocks of our history. They should not
be filtered, interpreted, or summarized by any individual.
As an
example, I would like to quote from a General Affidavit submitted to the U.S.
Pension Office in support of a request for a pension for my great-grandmother,
Nancy Lindenberg, a widow of a veteran of the Civil War. It is dated June 26,
1910. The statement was submitted by Starling Marshall, a family friend who
served several terms as a Kentucky legislator in the early part of the
twentieth century. Mr. Marshall states:
“We were
well acquainted with Christian Lindenberg, alias Christian Linburg, and Nancy
Lindenberg living on adjoining farms, residences within hailing distance of
each other, and know that Claimant and the soldier lived together until his
death, and that they were never divorced, but lived and cohabited as man and
wife, up to date of his death, May 10, 1910. We also know that Soldier left no
other child or children claimed for by this or any other marriage, but Harry
Lindenberg who was under 16 years of age at time of Soldier’s death. On the
filing of her claim May 20, 1910, we know this from an intimate acquaintance,
seeing Claimant or Soldier almost daily for several years up to his death. We
also know that Claimant has not remarried since Soldiers [sic] death.”
What would we be left with today if
those words on this affidavit had been summarized or paraphrased? I am certainly
glad that the National Archives in Washington, D.C., has not summarized or
paraphrased records entrusted to its care.
A speaker’s words, spoken or
written, are his/her own and not for someone to interpret. Would anyone want his/her
words filtered or re-interpreted and then preserved in said manner for
posterity? I think not.
In actuality, the demands of summarizing
or paraphrasing someone’s words would require more time and effort than simply transcribing
those words verbatim, not to mention the risk of inaccuracies introduced by
restatement.
As public officials conducting the
public’s business, why would you even consider letting someone summarize or
paraphrase your words on public issues? Verbatim transcripts protect you. Why
would you want to open the door and let someone put words in your mouth?
Like the words of Starling Marshall
that I read to you, your words will be preserved for generations to read. I am
sure each of you would prefer that an accurate complete record of your words be
kept.
The proposal to eliminate transcribed
verbatim minutes of Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings, Zoning and
Building Board of Appeal meetings, and Appeals and Variances meetings is a
mistake and will diminish citizens’ oversight of the actions of public officials.
Ending the tried and true practice
of verbatim minutes does not bring about any cost savings for taxpayers as
acknowledged by Council President Jon Snyder in answer to a question asked by
Councilmember Peters.
How can cutting corners and
diminishing the historical account of the actions of North Canton City
government benefit citizens and taxpayers?
Last Tuesday, Law Director Fox
repeatedly said that audio recordings, which would be maintained in the “Cloud”
under the proposed elimination of verbatim transcripts, could be taken to a
transcriptionist and transcribed at a rate of $200 per hour.
Anyone who has observed a
transcriptionist transcribe a meeting would observe the transcriptionist using a
transcription machine, one that is pre-programmed with the names of expected
speakers at the meeting. The transcription machine works in tandem with the
transcriptionist’s own recording of a meeting.
I called Premier Court Reporting and talked to
a transcriptionist and was told in no uncertain terms that transcribing a
meeting which she had not attended and recorded would be extremely difficult.
Further, she could not certify such a transcript. In short, a citizen could not
obtain an accurate transcript as stated in this scenario, at any cost.
It is very disheartening to hear North
Canton’s Law Director claim that a citizen could simply take an audio recording
and have it transcribed verbatim when that is not really feasible.
North Canton City Council has kept verbatim
minutes of Council meetings for decades. It is a permanent, accurate record of
the action of public officials.
Yesterday I spoke to Daryl Revoldt,
former Mayor, past President of City Council and longtime member of North
Canton City Council regarding the proposal to discontinue the practice of
transcribing verbatim minutes of City officials at public meetings.
Mr. Revoldt was unequivocally
opposed to the proposal to end verbatim transcripts and told me that I had
permission to present his position against this proposal. He also gave me his
cell phone number to give to many of you on this Council body so each of you could
hear his position on why verbatim minutes have served North Canton and its
citizens well.
I ask that Ordinances No. 13-14,
14-14, 15-14, and 16-14 to end verbatim transcription of Council meetings,
Planning Commission meetings, Zoning and Building Board of Appeal meetings, and
Appeals and Variances meetings be tabled or voted down.
Without summarizing or paraphrasing
on my part, Mr. Revoldt’s last words to me on this proposal were: “Ending verbatim transcripts would be an unwise
decision.”
Thank you,
Chuck Osborne, Resident
City of North Canton
