What was supposed to be a straightforward, procedural exercise at a Portland City Council meeting Monday turned into something more like a tense congressional hearing when a transportation bureau staffer was unexpectedly grilled by several councilors.
The questioning — led by District 4 Council Eric Zimmerman — appeared to have caused the Portland Bureau of Transportation staffer to break down in tears. At several moments, the woman (who I’ve chosen to not name) was clearly upset and spoke through sobs as she attempted to maintain composure while no one in the room came to her aid.
The staffer was on the agenda of the Council Finance Committee to present an ordinance that would give PBOT authority to obtain property rights needed to move forward with the NE MLK Jr Blvd Safety and Access to Transit Project. This $5 million project has been in the works since 2022 and is funded through a mix of federal and local sources. It will lead to installation of new crossing treatments with pedestrian-activated signals at several intersections along with ADA curb ramps and sidewalk upgrades.
Since this is the Finance Committee and not the Transportation Committee and the ordinance is about right-of-way procurement, I doubt the PBOT staffer — a capital projects manager with eight years of experience at the bureau — expected to be grilled about the project’s scope and its relationship to unrelated programs and policies. But Councilor Zimmerman saw this as an opportunity to criticize PBOT and grind an axe about a program he wants the agency to pay more attention to.
During his questioning, Zimmerman took several jabs at PBOT that were beyond the pay grade of the staffer he was speaking to. He wanted to know why PBOT was spending so much of this project’s budget on sidewalk and ramp repairs when (according to his opinion) the crosswalks are the most important safety feature. Zimmerman made it clear he might not approve the ordinance because, because in his view, PBOT was building “Taj Mahal” sidewalks on MLK where they already exist when some areas of his district (Southwest, West, and Sellwood) have no sidewalks at all.
“We are once again going to invest in bumping [the sidewalk] out and making it look like we did Fourth Avenue [a reference to the recently completed SW 4th Avenue project],” Zimmerman shared with the PBOT staffer. “I’ve seen no work by PBOT with respect to the SIPP program that was about where projects can exist that don’t have a sidewalk.”
Zimmerman was a co-sponsor of the Sidewalk Improvement and Paving Program, or SIPP, that passed council last year. The idea with SIPP is to create a nest egg of funds through debt financing, then identify places in the districts 1 and 4 where new sidewalks should be built. But for reasons unknown to me at this point (likely related to a budget crisis at PBOT), the program hasn’t gotten off the ground yet.
Zimmerman is clearly annoyed by the lack of progress with SIPP and he used this unrelated project ordinance — and the unsuspecting PBOT staffer — as a platform to drive his points home. “I don’t feel like SIPP has landed with PBOT yet, and I’d like to get a sense before I authorize this, because from Finance, we only have a couple of widgets to be able to exercise some influence here.”
The PBOT staffer pointed out that the MLK project comes from a federal grant awarded in 2022, but Zimmerman continued to press her about why the city is paying for new sidewalks when the crosswalks are the more important element.
“I’m not understanding the sidewalk part here,” Zimmerman said.
“When we install a signal, a signal pole, or rectangular rapid flashing beacon, we’re also required to update the ADA ramps,” the staffer replied.
“Who requires it? Because our ADA staff have presented to us some discrepancies in terms of how PBOT interprets that and what’s actually required, versus our own standard. Because I’ll remind you, SIPP is about places where there’s literally just gravel or mud, so we have no ADA standards. So I’m trying to understand how this makes common sense.”
Zimmerman kept alluding to conversations he had with PBOT Director Millicent Williams that ADA curb ramp work could be done, “in a small fashion versus in a large fashion.” “Which seems to be the PBOT way these days — we can’t do anything in a more smaller sense.” he added.
“It’s in my interest and the whole team’s interest to deliver this project as affordably as possible,” the staffer replied. “If there was a way to get out to sort of cost cut in that space, I would be doing it.”
Then Zimmerman replied,
“I am challenged by that, given my conversation with the director of PBOT, and given the situation that happened with the ADA ramp program and the replacement of certain staff members because of the, I’ll just say, approach that was used… I am looking for a way to get any acknowledgement that PBOT recognizes that they are able to make improvements without always completely tearing down and replacing, and I can’t seem to get that indication.”
Zimmerman then wondered if the MLK project was taking money from other projects he feels are more important. “I am supportive of these crosswalks,” he continued. “I’m just not sure that I have full faith and credit to the PBOT way of implementing the crosswalks… And that this is coming directly from my conversations with with the director looking at some programs in my own district, and saying, ‘Yeah, that didn’t have to be that big.'”
The councilor appeared to be somewhat self-aware, saying repeatedly that he understands Finance Committee might not be the proper venue for this exchange, but said, “I only get a few stabs at transportation-related things, being on Finance.”
Zimmerman wasn’t the only councilor with input. Committee Chair Elana Pirtle-Guiney invited North Portland resident Keith Edwards to testify. Edwards, a Black man, told the committee that he and his neighbors want more crosswalks on MLK. He implied that PBOT hasn’t been racially equitable in past crossing investments when he said, “The traffic signal recently installed on N Going Street is not predominantly used by citizens that look like me.” (N Going is a major bike route and neighborhood greenway used by many bicycle riders.) Pirtle-Guiney echoed his testimony and urged the PBOT staffer to expand the scope of the project. “We’re only making upgrades to five intersections. And I’ve heard loud and clear from Keith Edwards and from others in my district, that there’s about 20 intersections on MLK that need some work,” Pirtle-Guiney said.
Councilor Steve Novick then asked one of those questions that he knew the answer to, but just wanted the staffer to get on the record. He asked whether PBOT did outreach beyond one business association mentioned in the presentation, “And can you tells us why you felt that they were reasonable representatives of people in the community?” I think the staffer heard that question as a criticism and it was at this moment that she appeared to finally break and give into her emotions (video here).
“We’ve done a lot of outreach through the planning phase of this project,” the staffer said through sobs.
It was hard to watch as no one mentioned the condition of the staffer or took time to apologize or check in with her. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney eventually acknowledged the situation by telling the staffer they could take a minute recess if needed.
When it came time for Councilor Mitch Green to speak, he said he regretted mentioning the SIPP program earlier in the meeting, “Because I think my colleague got focused on the SIPP aspect of this and not the thing that you’re actually presenting.”
“I apologize on behalf of this committee if your if your motives were impugned today… that’s really unfair.”
– Mitch Green, councilor
“I apologize on behalf of this committee if your if your motives were impugned today,” Green continued. “I think that’s really unfair, and we just need to keep it focused on the thing that’s being presented.”
Zimmerman couldn’t let that go. “I’m not sure why we’re talking about motives being impugned here,” he responded. “Those are fair questions. There’s certainly no impugning of the project here.”
But Zimmerman’s tone and comments said otherwise. And Councilor Green wasn’t the only person who felt that way.
I heard from several readers who were concerned about how the PBOT staffer was treated. One of them shared with me in an email that,
“I thought the exchange was pretty appalling and I’m disappointed that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney didn’t intervene at all. Zimmerman’s line of questioning wasn’t really germane to the topic at hand, and given the power imbalances, was really a discussion more suitable with PBOT Director Williams. And it came off as hypocritical, given he voted against an oversight resolution last week based on concerns that it would create a culture of fear if bureau staff got grilled by councilors in a public setting.”
It was difficult to watch this exchange. I feel bad for the PBOT staffer and I’m sure it’s sent a chill through the bureau.
Beyond the choices Councilor Zimmerman made, this incident might have something to do with the new form of government where councilors no longer have direct control of specific bureaus. This means there’s no buffer between elected officials and agency staff. In years past, the commissioner-in-charge of PBOT would have taken the brunt of Zimmerman’s questions. This new power dynamic isn’t inherently bad, but as the saying goes, “With great power comes great responsibility.”
— Watch video of the committee meeting on YouTube. This link takes you to the beginning of Zimmerman’s questions.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
What a bully
And we wonder why PBOT is afraid to ever do anything bold or visionary? I was hoping having a city administrator would insulate the bureaus from this kind of politicization of minutia, but evidently we are back to the same old meddlesome bullshit.
Yes I think that’s why this hit me so hard. For these councilors to not understand how low morale is at PBOT right now and perhaps it’s not the best time to brow-beat an innocent staffer just for your own politics was really unfortunate.
Asking questions about a project you are working on for the city is Brow beating? She is I assume, a pretty well paid staffer doing her job For the city of Portland. The councilor was doing his job.
What a snowflake,
You sound ridiculous.
If I were asking someone questions in a public meeting and they started being visibly upset and unable to respond well on account of crying, I would maybe take say “let’s take 5”. You can ask probing questions to get information about spending priorities without being an asshole, and why would a capital projects manager even have the answers to the question at hand?
If you have questions about budget priorities, that’s something for the director, not a staffer.
He was not an asshole, you obviously never watched it.
He was not even questioning her when she broke down,
It is incredibly condescending to make excuses for a person who has been a project manager for 8 years.
I don’t know what brought it on but if you watched you know it was not questioning.
You comment on her without even watching it.
What is Bold or visionary about this particular project.
Tell us what I am missing?
You’re missing the whole point. NOTHING is particularly bold or visionary about this project. In fact this was a presentation about a non-controversial, procedural issue on a non-controversial small project.
The point is that if this is the reception PBOT gets for presenting that type of project, why would PBOT want to expose itself to potentially far greater criticism by attempting to present a bold, visionary project?
What point did I miss? Did you watch it or just read the BP version.
Anyone who watched it saw a completely normal meeting as several people who DID watch it have commented.
The PBOT staffer was unprofessional, it was embarrassing.
Those were not hard questions.
Would you prefer PBOT be totally unaccountable?
The point you missed is what I wrote starting with, “The point is…”
Critical thinking or reading skills? They never claimed this was visionary, but you probably know that already. The implication is that it would be difficult to be visionary or bold if this is how they treat even minor policy issues.
Thank you for keeping an eye on these things Jonathan. I am so disappointed in that man.
Did you watch the session? What did he do wrong?
I watched the session on YouTube and thought Zimmerman was his usual polite, measured and thoughtful self. His questions were insightful. It’s fair game to want a deeper understanding of how PBOT decides how elaborate a given project should be. Does every ADA ramp need to be the Cadillac version? What’s the trade-off? Could PBOT have done more crossings if it had chosen to do fewer sidewalk bulb-outs?
And yeah, what is happening with the Sidewalk Improvement and Pavement Program (SIPP)?
As far as the staffer crying, there wasn’t any bullying or grilling going on by anybody. I’ve been questioned more pointedly by city commissioners during testimony as a member of the public. I was surprised that the staffer got choked up over pretty low-key questions.
(Oh, and remember, this is an election year for D4, so expect a bunch of politicized reactions to this. The DSA is feeling threatened by Eli Arnold’s re-entering the D4 race, so this will be a tight three-way between Zimmerman, Arnold and Green–the gloves have already come off. But watch the video yourself, pretty soft-spoken and no fireworks.)
Hi Lisa!
This is weird because we already exchanged so many texts about this story (I shared it with her before posting), but I want folks to know that you and I disagree about this.
The delivery isn’t the issue to me. Someone can be polite and measured, but I am more interested in what they are saying and the context they are saying it in. And I agree some of his points are definitely fair game, but again context matters. I don’t think this ordinance and this staffer and this meeting were the right place to ask these questions. And let’s not get it twisted, he was throwing out some pretty anti-PBOT messaging with the “Taj Mahal” and “common sense” and throwing in that part about how some PBOT staffers had been fired around this issue (of course a staffer — at an agency that is laying people off and facing job cuts — will hear that a certain way).
I also don’t think it’s our place to judge the staffer’s tolerance. The fact is she was clearly disturbed by the cascade of questions and allegations and criticisms is what matters. And the fact that they didn’t see her emotional state and catch themselves and/or apologize, or just opt to take the conversation out of the public eye was disturbing to me.
As for the SIPP. Yeah let’s talk about why that’s stalled. But what does Zimmerman think he’ll get out of a capital projects manager? He’s frustrated that SIPP isn’t moving faster. It says a lot about him that he took out that frustration on this PBOT staffer in this context and never once self-corrected. Instead when Green apologized for him, he just defended himself. Not great.
I also can see how you’d be biased looking at this conversation as a very very strong advocate for more sidewalks in District 4 and I think you are much more sympathetic to Zimmerman than I am as a result of that.
That’s the thing, JM, I didn’t hear anything like an allegation or criticism coming from anyone. BTW, I’m more than sympathetic to Zimmerman, I support him. As far as judging the staffer’s tolerance, Jonathan, come on, part of the job is being able to testify to council. The crying was bizarre.
I think you are misinterpreting the ADA question. Portland’s design parameters go beyond the Federal requirements. I don’t know exactly what Zimmerman was alluding to, but PBOT builds some really elaborate ramps, maybe that is being reconsidered. I didn’t hear a threat in the question.
I think Zimmerman had an interesting line of questioning: what are the trade-offs? how elaborate do projects need to be? can we bring more streets to an acceptably safe level if we do fewer showcase projects? It’s the type of thing that gets discussed all the time in BP comments sections, and I’m glad D4 has a representative who turns a critical eye to return on investment.
What specs constitute the “Cadillac version” for curb cuts, in your view? From a review of the project documents, the costliest segments of the project are the areas that require signalization. If the presence of bulb-outs (a fairly common treatment on streets with similar traffic levels to MLK, both in Portland and elsewhere) is enough to designate safety upgrades as a “Taj Mahal” expenditure, what other elements could be cut? What’s preventing the existing infrastructure from being considered “acceptably safe” right now, for that matter?
Crossing placement relies on completely separate traffic and safety thresholds/triggers from ADA compliance/ramp tolerances. This isn’t an either-or proposition; they’re different elements entirely.
If “elaborate ramps” are a sufficient enough sticking point to reconsider complexity, cost or placement for entire projects, I wouldn’t be surprised if slated projects in D4 bear the brunt of that. Should Zimmerman wait until the next Council meeting to ask those questions or do research?
“Fair questions” are very different from “appropriate questions”.
Agreed. I watched the hearing and didn’t see/hear comments that were especially harsh. I’ve also seen the staffer at other public events for other projects. My impression is that they are a consummate pro who has handled and managed other challenging projects. Perhaps they were just having a bad day. Glad that PBOT staffers are passionate about their projects.
None of those questions are things a staffer would reasonably be able to answer without some kind of specific preparation. They are policy questions, and it seems like the purpose of this meeting wasn’t to rescope the project being discussed. If Zimmerman wants answers to those questions, he should find a more productive time and place to ask them.
“Does every ADA ramp need to be the Cadillac version?” is just another way of saying can we make worse ADA infrastructure and not get sued over it. Maybe this staffer has an opinion on that, but if it’s not germane to the topic she’s presenting at city council, I don’t blame her for being cautious and ultimately upset about being put on the spot. Those are complicated questions to answer, and ones that you don’t want to give a wrong or misleading answer to a councilor about. Zimmerman should know this, and he should be directing questions like this to people who can give him a reasonable answer.
No it’s not. I’m a ramp user — I use a walker and sometimes a wheelchair. I wrote several articles a couple of years ago about ADA work near me that was a fiasco. It wasn’t PBOT work (it was BES work, IIRC), and PBOT had to step in to get it done to Portland specifications. But I left the whole episode with the impression that PBOT specs were more rigorous than federal specs — I could be remembering wrong, or I could have been just plain wrong, I’m not going to look into it again. Besides, that’s a side issue.
The point is that it is OK for a councilor to be politely asking these questions. It’s OK, really.
(Where was all this outrage when Hardesty harangued an apartment manager to tears a couple of years back? Wheeler had to step in to reprimand Hardesty. In the present instance, the staffer was not crying while Zimmerman was asking his questions. The tears came minutes later, after EPG and Novick’s questions.)
“Besides, that’s a side issue”
If we’re taking Zimmerman at his word, it’s one of the main issues.
We don’t need to engage in whataboutisms about incidents 5 years ago. I think it’s a problem if a staffer is frustrated to the point of tears in a public meeting; that’s not a good way to learn about issues that a bureau is facing or how they make decisions. To the extent that Zimmerman rather thanor Pirtle-Guiney or Novick are responsible for doing that is somewhat unclear to me.
I could see the testimony and words from Pirtle-Guiney as being more upsetting to be honest – the implication that PBOT isn’t trying hard enough to address racial disparities is probably stinging, and it can’t feel good to hear “you should’ve done 4x more, all my constituents are telling me they need more” along with pointed questions about if design standards for ramps can be changed to shift project priorities. And I think Novick’s question is particularly unfair. I wouldn’t want my work to be questioned in a way that implies I somehow don’t care about the people in the community who will use the facilities in the future. And I see presentation materials on the PBOT website that show staff tabling and events and that additional outreach is planned for 2026.
If council believes that PBOT standards are a root cause of projects not being delivered due to cost overruns, then they should be directing PBOT to overhaul some aspects of their project management. I think picking out one project isn’t all that useful, and that people who manage PBOT projects are constrained by the same PBOT policies that Zimmerman and the rest of council want to critique. Those policies can be changed, but not on the fly by one project manager.
And for me, the issue isn’t if a councilor is being outwardly rude, or about the specifics of the question, it’s that the result of the discussion is a staffer who is distraught and upset and the councilors don’t care. I would prefer if the Portland city council took a humanistic outlook towards people testifying, and asked questions in ways that promote good discussion and learning. If the result of a council session is a city staffer in tears, it’s safe to conclude that isn’t being accomplished.
A person who works for PBOT is asked questions about PBOT project by a city councilor.
He asked no personal questions, it was all job related and she cries.
She needs another line of work, it was not bullying in any context if you actually watch it.
Its part of the job.
I am surprised at all the defense of PBOT going on here.
Very interesting meeting and article. I think it’s good to bring attention to these little moments on council to get a sense of where these people are at.
PBOT coming to get the easements for a project is a reasonable time to ask why they need to have this project extent, which is what directly leads to the easements.
However, ramps are ADA-compliant or not. The picture shown in the presentation that he refers to is clearly not an ADA-compliant ramp. I design these things, and it’s not close. EPG refers to the fact that it’s a single directional ramp, but that’s not all – it’s the old curved style. It does not meet the slope requirements, and probably doesn’t have a full landing at the top. ADA (or PROWAG in this case if you’re fancy) would not even recognize it as a ramp.
So no, you can’t put in a crosswalk that isn’t ADA compliant. Especially with federal money, but even Portland-funded projects could be sued. Clearly people have kind of “yes”-ed him about some ideas about scaling back ADA projects, and it seems like he’s gotten an inaccurate impression of what’s possible. It’s actually pretty simple when you go to do these things, and you’re very boxed in by federal/state/city standards.
I fully share Zimmerman’s interest in wishing we could leave an old not-to-code ramp in place while improving an intersection, and use the extra money to infill sidewalks somewhere else. ADA has a lot of unintended consequences, which often lead to less accessible places in countless ways.
All that said, I don’t think he was out of line. He’s demonstrating his interests here, and PBOT will know what they’ll have to answer for when they bring things like this to them. He’s not a civil engineer. It seems like he needs to speak to one. If handled well, this will lead to better education for him as time goes on, and it could change design decisions as well when the manager is thinking “Can I justify this to council?” which isn’t such a bad thing either.
Thanks for the insight km. Could you link to the ramp you are referring to? I’m assuming we are all talking specifically about MLK NE Buffalo (here in the vid). Here is a better view of that crossing.
Personally, I have used crossings with a wheelchair and have found a lack of ADA compliance to be both frustrating, dangerous and almost entirely invisible to most people. Just as male is the default often when we think about a person in most contexts, fully-abled is similarly a default.
To Zimmerman’s point, certainly, there are many crossings much worse than this intersection. To Allan’s point below, 45 degree angle crossings are certainly more inconvenient. But this street (as is noted in the project site) is a stroad with systematic failures at almost every metric (e.g., speed, lane width, lack of signalized crossings, lack of speed/red light cameras, etc.).
To be clear if parking were added to MLK, that would mean the redesign of the intersections would include bulbouts and restrict MLK to one lane either way, an entirely different design that would make crossings astronomically more safe. My guess based on the project site is that option remains on the table, and Zimmerman doesn’t seem to understand that scenario. That is the part no one is saying out loud for obvious reasons. What is the likelihood that a PBOT engineer will explicitly say they’re decreasing auto capacity and potentially increasing congestion in this (already loaded) context despite the obvious safety and economic benefits?
I appreciate the perspective from a wheelchair user. And thanks for the link – it actually looks a little less bad in street view. However, it’s pointed only parallel to MLK, so it doesn’t provide a ramp to cross MLK at all. Hard to say for sure, but it also looks like it might be too steep in that lower section with a curved curb, and therefore have a major grade break that isn’t perpendicular to travel, which isn’t allowed. And I’m still skeptical that there’s a big enough <2% landing at the top. Anyway, looking across Buffalo, that diagonal ramp is a great example of a completely not-to-code “warped” style ramp.
It makes sense to me to complain about new ramps replacing existing ramps, because at least you have concrete here and you don’t have to drop off a 6″ curb to cross the street, unlike so many other locations in Portland. On the other hand, my point from an engineer’s perspective is that in a federal regulation context, these are not “ok” ramps or something. There’s no half credit. They fail. If I were redeveloping an adjacent lot and the project triggered frontage improvements, I would immediately know I have to replace these ramps, no question, no need to wait for the survey.
Agree with all your later points about the scope here – creating safe crossings almost definitely means reshaping the sidewalk, and that means new ramps. No getting around that. I think the PBOT rep could have explained that better without necessarily stating anything about auto capacity, and hopefully they’ll be better prepared next time knowing the conversation is coming.
Just one insight – MLK has a lot of the ‘diagonal ramps’ that force wheelchair users into the intersection at a 45 degree angle instead of 90. This puts them into the travel lane of MLK and the side street – even on the walk signal this is a problem.
Fixing these is $$$ – however my impression is that these mistakes from the past are really dangerous for the most vulnerable road users.
MLK will not be the Taj Mahal after this project but I have hopes that we can do something great there without using an 82nd avenue scale budget.
check out http://www.mlkpdx.org for a bit more detail
Appreciate the context and link. MLK needs a lot of attention and I’m glad folks are working on it. That said, I find the Glisan parking situation to be a nightmare — that is, the way people drive on the road zipping in, out and between traffic and parked cars. I don’t see much in the way of parking enforcement there either, for me the best case scenario is to convert our temporary parking lanes to permanent parking lanes. Whether that’s feasible for PBOT/ODOT level of service standards however..
Oh wow. I often hoped that MLK would get a road diet since it feels like it should be more of a neighborhood Main Street than a thoroughfare. How long has this push gone on? Have the organizers got any traction with the new council?
“….Keith Edwards to testify. Edwards, a Black man, told the committee that he and his neighbors want more crosswalks on MLK. He implied that PBOT hasn’t been racially equitable in past crossing investments when he said, “The traffic signal recently installed on N Going Street is not predominantly used by citizens that look like me.” (N Going is a major bike route and neighborhood greenway used by many bicycle riders.)”
I’m confused…so according to Mr Edwards we should only have traffic improvements that will predominantly be used by people that look like him? Given the racial makeup of Portland (~6% African American) that seems absurd.
The questions Zimmerman brought were technical and not anything like an ad Hominem aspersion onto her. Even if indirectly related to the matter presented on hand, its not unreasonable to expect a capital projects manager would have awareness of another related capital project. The staffers emotional response strongly suggests she could use some public speaking training. There can be pressure to provide comment in the moment a question is asked but its always okay (when a matter isn’t on the agenda) to inform the official in question that you will look into the matter and get back to them when you have all the relevant resources amd materials more accessible.
“The questions Zimmerman brought were technical”
They were also only tangentially related to the topic of the Council Session.
Hey Jonathan, just a thought — you’ve really turned Zimmerman asking reasonable, centrist questions into a full-on drama about crying staffers and ‘Taj Mahal’ sidewalks. Even Lisa Caballero thinks you’re reading way too much into it. Maybe take a breath before assigning villain roles next time?
I’m not surprised people would see this differently. That’s OK. I saw it one way. You (and Lisa and some other folks) saw it another way. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you’re wrong. Maybe no one is wrong. That’s life and we talk about it and then we take something from it and we move on. Thanks for the feedback!
Some people who are normally vey composed have there “moments”. Who knows if that is the case here, and who knows what may have caused this person to become emotional. It makes no sense to draw the conclusions that I see in these comments without knowing the person and knowing what may have been going on in her life at this particular time.
100% agreed. I think there was nothing wrong with the questioning, but I do not agree with anyone ridiculing this person over her emotional response to a stressful situation. People are allowed to have feelings. She did not say anything unprofessional.
So, I have watched the video through the end of the exchange with Zimmerman and don’t actually think he did anything wrong? Like, obviously that was sort of an annoying line of questioning inasmuch as it was irrelevant to the project at hand and sort of ignored the realities of project funding and planning timelines, but it was respectfully articulated and he was clear that basically he was only bringing it up in this context because it is the only venue he has to press for progress on SIPP.
Sure, but it was Zimmerman who said it, so of course it was bad.
As someone with public speaking anxiety, I certainly understand that the unexpected line of questioning on a project you feel strongly about could bring up some unexpected emotions. I really hate how my body makes it difficult to think through questions and answers on the spot and it makes me disappointed in myself because I care about my work. I learned this early on and I will occasionally take beta-blockers to suppress my anxiety-ridden responses when I expect a situation to require a greater spot light on me than usual.
All that said, I think the councilors were within their right to ask questions about the ADA ramp replacements. We’ve all seen perfectly good ramps get torn out and replaced and it seems insane to most people I know. I thought the PBOT staffer was very professional in her responses and sufficiently answered the questions – namely this is a federally-funded project and thus, we are required to meet federal standards. It probably wasn’t the right venue for the discussion, but I don’t think anyone did anything wrong or mean, on purpose.
From the video, I got the impression she was having an allergic reaction, not crying, nothing particularly emotional, just a lot of sniffles at exactly the wrong time (during an open mic Q&A.)
Zimmerman talked about staff on the ADA program having been “replaced” because they weren’t administering the program correctly. Sounds like this was done in response to a conversation that he had with pbot director Williams. I think if I was in the position of the pbot project manager in that hearing, I might look at that as being a veiled threat that he was going to get me fired if I didn’t find a way to remove project elements that Zimmerman found objectionable.