Apparently, however, it was not clear what exactly was prohibited or allowed by this policy. The News & Record's Amanda Lehmert brings to our attention council's attempt on Tuesday to clarify this policy. They have raised more questions than they answered. From Amanda's Small groups: educational or skirting open meetings law?:
Councilman Zack Matheny offered a solution to the debate, allowing small meetings as long as the events are recorded and the media is invited. His colleagues -- except Perkins and T. Dianne Bellamy-Small -- agreed to his proposal.Amanda asks the right questions. Council needs to think this through further and better define this policy; making sure it aligns with the law is probably not a bad idea either.
But it raised other questions. Who, for instance, is the media? Council members invoked the names of three local print reporters in their debate. But what about TV folks? Radio? Bloggers? And why make a special exception for the media? If a citizen wanted to attend, could they? Or would they only be allowed to review the recording afterward?
City counsel Jemiah Waterman also raised the issue that this type of meeting could qualify as a kind of council subcommittee, which would require it to be advertised and open to the public. He asked for more time to review the issue, but the council didn't grant him it.
I can't think of an instance when reporters of any kind have had a special status in municipal ordinance. Nor should they. In a legal sense, I consider myself a member of the public when I attend a city council meeting. There is either a public notification requirement or there isn't. There can't be a special requirement that all small group meetings be exclusively noticed to Amanda Lehmert, John Hammer and Jordan Green.
ReplyDeleteI can't think of any reason why a recording should be made of any meeting of council members that is not a quorum. Council members should have the right to discuss issues among themselves without having their every concern and utterance displayed in public. In today's world of "secret recordings", it is becoming far more difficult for honest an open discussions to catually take place because "hot button" words are so often used to mischaracterize what is actually said. The public has a responsibility to follow closely the machinations of government or suffer the consequences.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting, Jordan.
ReplyDeleteJon, it appears as if the recording provision was offered as a substitute for public access, which is kind of necessary for the public to meet their "responsibility to follow closely the machinations of government."