Wyomissing’s Council chamber looks better. The old arrangement put some officials’ backs toward the audience. The new layout opens the room toward residents. Council asked for a more open setting, and staff made it happen. That deserves credit. 1
Recording frame at 2:20
Recording frame at 2:10
But moving the furniture is the easy part. The harder change is treating residents with equal respect—whether they praise Council or challenge its decisions.
On October 13, the room looked different. The treatment felt familiar.
One meeting. Two different responses.
Angela Adler spoke immediately before me. She praised Council’s creativity and suggested selling the public works garage, describing the idea as a political win and a relatively simple way forward. She acknowledged logistics, but presented no developed replacement plan or comparison of the costs. 2
A political win for whom?
The Council President thanked her. There were no questions or substantive discussion of the proposal, and no reminder that Council represents 11,000 residents.
I spoke next. I asked when welcoming public comments turns into a decision. I challenged Council’s priorities, its purchasing practices, the progress of the interim arrangement and the lack of action on evening meetings. I also opposed the proposed records disposal.
After I finished, Kristen Gajewski disputed my comparison with Cumru and reminded me that Council represents upwards of 11,000 residents and must make decisions for everyone. 2
Watch my preceding comment and the response in full
That response was demeaning. It shifted attention from the decisions I questioned to how many people I supposedly represented.
A resident does not need to arrive with 11,000 signatures to ask a worthwhile question. A concern can be raised by one person and still deserve a substantive answer.
Council was entitled to question either speaker’s assumptions. Why did criticism draw a reminder about everyone else Council represents, while praise and a proposal to sell a major Borough facility did not?
Later that evening, Gajewski clarified that her response concerned my broader criticism of Council’s progress, rather than specifically records disposal. I pointed out that Angela had received no comparable response. 2
Only the speaker challenging Council’s decisions received that reminder. That is a double standard.
We have heard this response before
On August 9, 2022, I urged Council to reach beyond its existing circle and accept different ideas. The solicitor had acknowledged that allowing my comment at the earlier meeting would have been the better decision, and Council heard it. William S. Jenckes ended the exchange by thanking me for my opinion and moving on. 3
On April 27, 2020, I strongly challenged the rejection of a traffic-mirror request. During the exchange, Pat Brandenburg conceded the proposed location was in the right-of-way, while maintaining that a mirror was unnecessary. John Woodward then suggested that if I wanted to run the Borough, I should run for Council. 4
Watch the broader exchange, including my preceding criticism
These exchanges share a familiar move: attention turns from the issue to the resident’s opinion, standing or electoral support. Holding office carries the responsibility to answer criticism. It does not make a resident’s concern less worthy of an answer.
Calling a concern an opinion does not answer it. Invoking 11,000 residents does not explain a decision.
Hear the public before settling the agenda
The October 13 agenda puts approval of the agenda first, public comment next, and the consent vote afterward. Council approves the grouping of business before hearing residents who may explain why an item deserves separate discussion. 5
The consent items have not yet passed at that point. But residents should not have to ask Council to revisit an arrangement it has just approved.
Hear the comments first. Then approve the agenda and decide which items belong in a combined vote.
Welcoming comments should produce something residents can see: an answer to the concern, an explanation for rejecting it, a question assigned for follow-up, or a change in the proposed action. Otherwise, participation starts to look like a performance—residents speak, Council moves on, and nothing is explained.
Respect should not depend on whether a resident praises Council or challenges it. Answer the questions. Explain the decisions. Show what public input changes.
Sources, context and editing notes
- Room arrangement: original Council recordings, August 9, 2022 (still at 2:20), and October 13, 2026 (still at 2:10). The September 30, 2026 Council budget recording discusses the change at approximately 7:18–8:29, credits staff and describes Council’s request for a more open room. The photographs above are full frames, proportionally resized; they are not generated images.
- October 13, 2026 Council recording: Angela’s substantive proposal, 4:37.5–6:35.95; my substantive opening comment and the response, 6:44–14:27.1; later clarification and reply, approximately 1:55:51–1:56:37. Original camera chapters are retained by Real Wyomissing Boro. I was allowed to continue beyond five minutes. My spoken claims in the longer clip are arguments made at the meeting, not independent findings of this article. No conclusion about Council endorsing Angela’s proposal is drawn from the absence of a rebuttal.
- August 9, 2022 Council recording, 9:08–11:10; retained official minutes, pp.1–2, identify Jenckes as chair and record the subject. The earlier part of the recording includes the solicitor’s acknowledgement that allowing the prior comment would have been the better decision. Council heard the comment on August 9; the criticism here concerns the response to it.
- April 27, 2020 Fire & Police recording, focused excerpt 47:33.5–49:20; broader context 44:34–49:20. Retained official minutes identify the participants and the mirror proposal. The right-of-way correction did not settle whether a mirror was needed. The longer exchange preserves my accusations as spoken; those accusations are not findings.
- October 13 official agenda, p.1: item 4, approval or modification of the agenda; item 5, public comment; item 6, consent agenda. Agenda adoption was not the vote on the underlying disposal resolutions. Records disposal was subsequently discussed during the consent portion. This article advocates a different sequence; it does not claim that later changes or discussion were impossible.
- Editing: each video is a continuous excerpt from the identified recording. There are no concealed internal cuts, substituted words or reordered remarks. Dates and time ranges distinguish the excerpts. Videos are resized and compressed for viewing; October 13 audio levels are adjusted to make the quieter chair easier to hear. The longer October 13 and April 2020 exchanges are available above.
Real Wyomissing Boro is independent and is not affiliated with the Borough of Wyomissing.