What say you?

When constituents — that is, the folks who are supposed to have representation in government, not just taxation from government — have something on their minds, they’re often drawn to the public comment period of government meetings as an appropriate opportunity to share their concerns.

They don’t often leave feeling satisfied, unless their only goal was to hear themselves talk.

We’re not talking about the public comments that follow specific agenda items. It varies a lot from town to town, but generally speaking local officials and a guy named Robert and his Rules of Order establish an orderly process for discussion of those proposals.

A lot of public meetings, though not all, feature a brief period dedicated to general citizen comments, i.e., ideas and concerns that haven’t made it so far as a formal agenda item. Citizens addressing their representatives sounds like a pretty down-to-earth, all-American idea.

We’ve covered a lot of government meetings, and in many of them, the response to a citizen comment period from elected officials reminds us of Mount Rushmore. The officials sit stone-faced. The citizen’s time expires and nobody reacts in the least. When the comment period ends, the elected officials move on to other business.

For the speakers, the message can feel a bit like “Thank you, and don’t let the door hit you on the back side when you leave.”

Granted, public meetings are about conducting business and that has to be the priority. But it’s a shame citizens who go to the trouble of attending a public meeting — sometimes traveling many miles — often leave feeling as though the concerns they have don’t matter. Maybe they’ve been advised by a city or county attorney not to engage the public. Attorneys tend to be conservative with such advice. No legal trouble ever got worse from keeping one’s mouth shut, right?

So we were interested the other day, in the Benton County Committee of the Whole, when Justice of the Peace Joseph Bollinger suggested he and his fellow justices of the peace should get a chance to respond after the public comment portion of their committee meetings.

We’re not entirely sure what Bollinger has in mind. Maybe he’s disliked something that was said about

him and didn’t care to leave it unchallenged. Or maybe he’s heard something he felt deserved some kind of exploration or affirmation. Or it could be he just thought a resident willing to step up to the microphone deserved some kind of acknowledgment.

Especially in committee meetings, the formality some public officials appear to hide behind can be relaxed a little if it means citizens can offer a few thoughts and their elected officials might (egads!) carry on a brief conversation with them. Believe it or not, the citizens they represent sometimes have a good idea or two.

If a justice of the peace, for example, heard a public comment that particularly piqued his interest, why not seek recognition for the chair to perhaps ask a question or two? Or maybe just speak up to say “I’m interested in what you’ve brought forward. Would you mind speaking with me after the meeting?”

The prevailing thought process seems to accept that if you give someone an inch, they’ll take a mile, meaning they’ll grandstand and carry on. But that’s why committees and councils have someone chairing them, perhaps even holding a gavel. A conscientious chair can always respectfully rein in a conversation that threatens to derail the meeting.

The folks who show up for public comment at every meeting should get their allotted time. But when a rank-and-file citizen steps up to engage in conversation about a topic of importance, there’s nothing wrong with making them feel valued, if indeed they are.

Trust us: We’ve seen some town council meetings — mostly in smaller communities — where the word “order” falls far short of describing the proceedings. Nobody is served by disorder. But in any meeting in which the public and the public body operate with an eye toward decorum and respect, there’s no reason a regular opening for citizen-initiated public feedback — and room for an occasional response from elected officials — isn’t appropriate.

We’re not saying every public comment needs a response, but panels deciding public policies ought not bar the very idea of one of its members engaging the public when the subject calls for clarity, correction or advice on how the constituent can pursue a deeper exchange after the meeting.

There’s already a Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. There’s no need for any in northwest Arkansas. Relax, listen and engage.