The commission meeting included several items, but the bulk of the time they spent in handling requests related to specific applications either for zoning exceptions or development approvals.  Public participation was involved only as it related to these matters.  What participation there was was strictly regulated.  

President Martin provided the dominant voice to the proceedings.  Particularly at the beginning, most other commissioners said very little.  As time wore on, she retained the gatekeeping and coordination role, but other commissioners took significant part in the process.  The commission was operated largely as a court by well defined and regimented process.  It was a highly technical hearing which they attempted to process each case quickly yet completely.  Speakers frequently presented documentation and pictures of claims.  There were strict rules for participation.  An item was presented by the commission.  Staff then spoke to the issue.  After that, the floor was opened up on each case to anyone wishing to speak to the issue.  Speakers were to identify themselves by name and address.  Once given the floor, speakers were not interrupted until they finished.  All public speech was directed to the commission.  Redundancy was strongly discouraged.  The commission resisted allowing individuals to speak more than once to a given item.  They also explicitly forbade debate-style rebuttals offering competing forms of proof of claims.

The commission made sure that input complied with these specifications, and specifically rejected non-conforming input.  There were several times where these standards for behavior were reiterated.  Perhaps most surprisingly, on one occasion, when a developer asked if he could put a word in after the time for public input was closed, the information was welcomed.

The public participants generally brought emotional investment to the commission, even when their presentation came largely in the form of technical information.  

Many of the outcomes referred the expressed conflicts between parties to other, more appropriate venues.  Generally, the items brought before them recieved approval on their technical merits.  Occassionally alterations or variances in proposal were brought out through discussion.

Overall, it was a meeting of a highly technical and regimented nature, which allowed efficient flow of meeting progress, but did not allow for dynamic creative interaction.  Some decisions seemed like they were made prematurely, though the overall process was quite lengthy.  The rules, and the strict adherence was probably necessary to the orderly, efficient progression through the meeting.



The physical setting of the room was highly ornate, and comfortable.  Additionally, commissioners were seated higher, behind a desk/bench/wall structure, with permanent name tags in front, and display systems for the commissioners.  By contrast, the public participants were seated on chairs in an open layout, with a single podium, where all the tools to show the materials were also held.  All this served to indicate the official nature and importance of the proceedings, as well as the comparative permanence and power of the officials gathered, relative to the public.