I left the Hall early because all I could see were the backs of Haney, Hague, Marchione, and staff -- much better to watch from the couch at home with strong cup of coffee!
Last year during the elections, a campaigner raised a big stink about a supposed "open meeting act violation". That's the only time I can remember it being a significant issue. Political banter and vitriol is about all that came of it.
The Act requires that the public and all council members be invited and/or present at "meetings" when any city business is transacted or discussed. To bring the law into perspective, a $100 personal fine is charged to violators....the equivalent of a speeding ticket. KUDOS to council and mayor for holding this meeting to lay the ground rules for legislative civility!
Several compliance issues were discovered during council's meeting that were lacking during the previous Administration (Ives).
>> Linda, the Information Officer, informed council/mayor that council emails were not being archived by the city. Thus, email research cannot be conducted during a violation claim. But, do taxpayers want to pay for the extra labor and computer storage to archive emails just to enforce a violation that's on par with the cost of a traffic ticket? And, what is the standard of practice in neighborhing cities?
>> Council Committees (for Safety, Public Works, Parks, etc.) are composed of 3 councilmembers. When a 4th councilmember shows up, the meeting becomes -- by letter of law -- a bonafide Council Meeting and "advertisement to the public" is required. Even if the visiting councilmember just listens, it's considered a council meeting, according to Haney. As I see it, the inclusion of "listening" as active participation hinders the legislative process and penalizes councilmembers and commissioners who want to be involved.
This Act is loaded with holes and gray areas. "Telephone calls in series" mixed with "emails" to transact business can never be fully documented. Hey, anyone can open a blind email address to communicate in confidence with another. Finally, a councilmember can phone/email others with "intentions to deliberate" but at what point does "intention" become "discussion"?
Councilman Myers was rightly concerned the Act - by letter of law - could interfere with a well-meaning, productive legislative process. I believe the Act should be upheld for the public as a precautionary measure and guidline to encourage the council's awareness and discussion of timely issues of city importance. Any comments on this?
Mayor Marchione and council are to be commended for devoting hours of their time to understanding an Act that benefits citizens and guides our representatives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Factoids:
The state legislature is not bound by this Act! State agencies, local governments, and boards & commissions are bound by it. WAC 42.30.010 - .920
It takes only 4 councilmembers actively participating in an unadvertised "meeting" to violate the Open Meetings Act. "Meetings" include emails, phone trees, and informal chats where city business is discussed or transacted.
Exclusions to the Open Meeting Act are: 1) real estate transactions, 2) litigation, 3) collective bargaining. These items are transacted behind the closed doors of an "executive session".
Violations can result in a recall election if misfeasance or malfeasance is involved. I compare a recall to being thrown in jail for drunken driving and having your licence removed. Actually, recall would less punishing for most?
The Act was initiated by a citizen in 1971 (before emailing was used - according to Haney) .
Hi Bob:
ReplyDeletePlease understand that my concern is not with the concept of open meetings or government in the sunshine, it is that Councilmembers may avoid a very valid and useful communications tool, email, out of concern over potential OPMA violations. Voters elect us because of our experience and philosophy (I hope), but should have access to all of the factual information we use to make decisions. To that extent I think an open, real time link to Councilmembers' email strings and history should be available to the public. At the same time, that open and public access should be rewarded by considering it as part of the open meeting record. If Councilmembers opt in to use the system, they should not be punished later for a comment made out in the sunshine. Remember, the Open Public Meetings Act says that interested parties must be able to witness the process, not participate directly. At Council meetings the pubic gets to witness the deliberations and presentations. In fact, open emails are even better because they give interested parties real time access any time they want.
As we know, no good deed goes unpunished, so use of open emails may be viewed with doubt if the only benefit is a bigger record for people to complain about unannounced meetings.
I view this as an opt in program where Council members and other legislators covered by the Act would be given protection on email communications made on an open system.
Best wishes-
Hank Myers
Does this mean no emails are being archived by the city? I would hope emails concerning council/city business are being archived. Not for catching OPMA violators, but for historical reference for council business. I am very surprised to hear emails are not being archived in some fashion.
ReplyDelete