Keith Brown of Triad Watch posts a series of text messages from City Council representative Robbie Perkins to developer Roy Carrol, apparently sent during a city council meeting. Keith asks if this is proper. It is not. Not this way.
The purpose of public meetings is to have a transparent view of the workings of our government. Debate and discussion are to happen in the open so that we can evaluate the judgment of our elected officials. Text messages amount to secret whispers -- ideas and information shared away from public view. That is antithetical to democracy.
On the other hand, a council person might find it beneficial to use text or email to quickly reach out to an expert or authoritative source for some quick information that can inform the discussion underway. There would certainly be nothing wrong with checking Orbitz to see if someone's claim about hotel rates in Greensboro was accurate or not; similarly, it might make sense for a representative to seek some information from an informed individual in real time.
Not withstanding the possible distraction from the discussion in the room, if council people find it beneficial to have electronic communications during meetings, those communications should conform to the spirit of an open meeting, i.e. they should be public and the parties involved should be readily identifiable.
There are certainly ways to do that. A Twitter page or blog can accommodate the public access. It should happen that way or not at all.
How do you feel about those notes that get passed back and forth between council members and audience members by the courier during the meetings? I'm thinking those are pretty much the low-tech version. Should the council not have the courier serve that purpose?
ReplyDeleteFinally caught up with perkins. His comments here: http://www.news-record.com/blog/55399/entry/78476
ReplyDeleteI just read Perkins' comment at Amanda's blog.
ReplyDeleteWhy do Greensboro voters tolerate this smarmy weasel? His arguments are ridiculous and insulting, and they evade the issue.
Writing notes to another councilmember is one thing. Texting someone outside the meeting, especially a developer like Carroll, is quite another. And Robbie Perkins knows this. He thinks he's being cute and folksy. He's being a d***.
Bill Knight, as mayor, needs to lay down the law. Turn all electronic devices off at the start of the meeting. Call anyone who violates this rule out of order.
Perkins = schmuck.
Amanda, sorry to be late to reply, but you raise an interesting question. As they are written records produced in the course of city business, I would say that written notes are public records and should be available for the asking.
ReplyDeleteWould you not contact all your councilmen if your property was about to be taken by the government as payment for another man's property?
ReplyDeleteNo one has even commented on the fact that the government's taking of Carroll's land does not relate to sewage easements. The government can't come in and say the need my property for a road then pay me with "Smith's" land, instead of cash. If I want Smith's land for additional access, I need to pay for that convenience.
ReplyDeleteThe government's removal of Carroll's spite strip is entirely related to the sewer easement. Carroll needs access across the other property owner's land to get a sewer line to his property - a property that Perkins has listed. So both Perkins and Carroll will gain financially by the sewer easement. What other councilmen did Carroll contact during the meeting?
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not mistaken, Carroll already has sewer to his property. It's developed. What is wrong with contacting the people we elect to the council?!!!
ReplyDeleteYou can't bring in non-collateral cases/matters into another legal proceeding....So yes, the spite strip, which happened to be decided in finality by the city attorney, can not be brought up as an effort to bribe the city to give Kotis free access that is more convenient than the access he ALREADY HAS to that property. This is what this is really about--Kotis wants better access and is not willing to put up the cash for it, so he is trying any weazly way to get it. Wake up.
ReplyDeleteBob Dickenson--are you just assuming that Robbie has that land listed? I'd like to see proof of that. Also, I'm not sure that even matters so long as it is disclosed. I just don't see anything wrong with calling council for help from the government taking your property when your not even there. You can't say you wouldn't do the same if your home were being taken.
ReplyDeleteagree 100% roch and to gary just check out the city of greensboro web site and click on the may 6, 2008 city council meeting and it is agenda item #11 and #12 look who recuses at beginning of these items.
ReplyDeleteThank you everyone for your comments. Whether or not someone should be allowed to contact their representative is a red herring. It is not the issue. There are two issues that canard avoids:
ReplyDelete1. Should a council person be having secret electronic communications during a council meeting? The issue for me being the secrecy although others are concerned about such communications being a distraction as well.
and
2. Does the council person cheering a party in a dispute involving the City have financial ties to one of the parties?
Hey, Roch--The text messages are public information. If they were privileged, they would not have been produced for us to view. All public officials are subject to the freedom of information act as well as public disclosure laws. And, p.s. everyone has "financial ties" to councilmen and women. How strong a tie does their need to be may be a better question. Council member vote on how to use our money. That is a financial tie that can affect all of us positively or negatively. So, how would we measure the tie? Are you aware that we currently have a Code of Ethics and laws that deal extensively with these issues already? Our laws all uphold integrity as the foremost value. Only when an investigatory need arise or the freedom of information act is petitioned, do we look into records you and I would consider personal. When something is conveyed that is in violation of the statute or code, we take action against the member. Otherwise, when a conversation is being had that is outside the scope of the laws, the state makes it public information and you looney blogging fools make something outa nothing with it. It seems to me you are advocating for a ban on cell phone use during meetings...you'll never win this battle. You should just give up now. Until then, be more reasonable and hold the members to an adult standard whereby they are allowed to have their phone but not use it to communicate in violation of our code of ethics. As many other bloggers have pointed out, you also forget to ask the question of whether it is okay for Kotis to bribe the city to pay for the land the city is taking by forcing Carroll give his land to Kotis.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. I am not talking of banning anything and if you think "we all have financial ties" is a smart way to stake out ethical boundaries, then so be it.