Friday, December 18, 2009
Where is the Openness?
3:17 AM | 
Posted by
Lance M. Gundersen, Sr.
A brand new Councilman-at-Large indicated as part of his campaign that he would pursue a more open government stance.
And since that election was held, the council that he is apart of has been questioned on the validity of executive sessions related to the Walmart Supercenter project, been caught meeting together with a quorum at McDonalds in the Town of Johnstown, denied the incoming mayor access to two other executive sessions, and now wants to interview candidates for elective office in closed door sessions.
This is not an auspicious start.
Back in 2005, when Councilman-at-Large Duke Caruso had to step down for personal reasons, candidates were sought as a replacement. They approached the podium and were each given the opportunity to address the council, and the citizens present, before being voted on in public session.
Again, in January 2006, the same thing was done to fill then-councilman James Handy's seat as he moved up to Councilman-at-Large. While I do not remember there being another candidate from that ward other than Lou Ann Warren , nevertheless, she was interviewed publicly.
This council has only one argument at its disposal. It is the idea that sub-section F of the New York State Open Meetings Law says they can:
"f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;"
I would argue they are wrong for two reasons.
First, the appointments being referred to in this legislation are not meant for elective positions. They are meant for appointees to department level positions, boards and so forth. While it is arguable that the people who will be interviewed are being appointed, not elected, the subtlety here is that they are being appointed to normally elected positions. It sends a very bad message to the citizenry when, for no obvious reason, the person being selected to represent them is done so behind closed doors.
Second, a lesson that took me years to learn is that there is a wide difference between being able to do a thing, and actually needing to do that thing. The Open Meetings Law states, "...a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only...." The operative word here is MAY. In other words, even if the appointee clause in sub-section F is applicable, it does not necessarily stand to reason that an executive session SHOULD be held for this particular appointment.
New York State Open Meetings Law: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/openmeetlaw.html#s105
I think the fact that this is an appointment to a normally elected position - one in which, potentially, the appointee might want to run for election at a future date - is a good indicator that closed door is the wrong way to go. In addition, one should consider that most of the people who have put their hat in the ring have already run for public office, so their information is already potentially in the public domain.
Therefore, if the intent of sub-section F is to prevent the release of sensitive personal information necessary for proper selection of a candidate, but not necessary to be divulged to the world, then it stands to reason it doesn't matter anymore since the information is already out there.
In closing, I'd like to suggest that any candidate for one of these two positions who willingly goes into an executive session should, at the very least, make it clear they are willing to conduct the interview in public - and they should do so before all of the citizens file out of the chamber. They should make themselves available to the press afterward to discuss the interview. In fact, I would really encourage any potential candidate for these offices to insist it be held in public, or you will not participate in the interview. After all, it hardly makes sense to start one's time on the council under the dark cloud of having already violated the spirit, if not the word, of the Open Meetings Law.
And since that election was held, the council that he is apart of has been questioned on the validity of executive sessions related to the Walmart Supercenter project, been caught meeting together with a quorum at McDonalds in the Town of Johnstown, denied the incoming mayor access to two other executive sessions, and now wants to interview candidates for elective office in closed door sessions.
This is not an auspicious start.
Back in 2005, when Councilman-at-Large Duke Caruso had to step down for personal reasons, candidates were sought as a replacement. They approached the podium and were each given the opportunity to address the council, and the citizens present, before being voted on in public session.
Again, in January 2006, the same thing was done to fill then-councilman James Handy's seat as he moved up to Councilman-at-Large. While I do not remember there being another candidate from that ward other than Lou Ann Warren , nevertheless, she was interviewed publicly.
This council has only one argument at its disposal. It is the idea that sub-section F of the New York State Open Meetings Law says they can:
"f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;"
I would argue they are wrong for two reasons.
First, the appointments being referred to in this legislation are not meant for elective positions. They are meant for appointees to department level positions, boards and so forth. While it is arguable that the people who will be interviewed are being appointed, not elected, the subtlety here is that they are being appointed to normally elected positions. It sends a very bad message to the citizenry when, for no obvious reason, the person being selected to represent them is done so behind closed doors.
Second, a lesson that took me years to learn is that there is a wide difference between being able to do a thing, and actually needing to do that thing. The Open Meetings Law states, "...a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only...." The operative word here is MAY. In other words, even if the appointee clause in sub-section F is applicable, it does not necessarily stand to reason that an executive session SHOULD be held for this particular appointment.
New York State Open Meetings Law: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/openmeetlaw.html#s105
I think the fact that this is an appointment to a normally elected position - one in which, potentially, the appointee might want to run for election at a future date - is a good indicator that closed door is the wrong way to go. In addition, one should consider that most of the people who have put their hat in the ring have already run for public office, so their information is already potentially in the public domain.
Therefore, if the intent of sub-section F is to prevent the release of sensitive personal information necessary for proper selection of a candidate, but not necessary to be divulged to the world, then it stands to reason it doesn't matter anymore since the information is already out there.
In closing, I'd like to suggest that any candidate for one of these two positions who willingly goes into an executive session should, at the very least, make it clear they are willing to conduct the interview in public - and they should do so before all of the citizens file out of the chamber. They should make themselves available to the press afterward to discuss the interview. In fact, I would really encourage any potential candidate for these offices to insist it be held in public, or you will not participate in the interview. After all, it hardly makes sense to start one's time on the council under the dark cloud of having already violated the spirit, if not the word, of the Open Meetings Law.
Labels:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
.jpeg)
- Lance M. Gundersen, Sr.
- A lot of authors and bloggers have written about living intentionally. Each define it differently, but the basic gist of the idea is to have a plan and do everything in one's power to make it a reality. My plan was to live debt-free, and then spend my time doing the things I want to do - like finishing at least a Master's in an area I can put to use in my community. I started this process with a Masters in Work and Labor Policy with an Advanced Certificate in City Administration, but then switched to a Master's in Urban Planning focusing on Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure (and learning a fair bit about environmental planning, Brownfield redevelopment, community planning and more). I have also begun accomplishing a whole basket of cycling, sailing, hiking and personal enrichment goals which are each in various states of accomplishment. Feel free to stop by and read my musings. Comment if you like. Please be respectful, and I apologize that it's even necessary to have to say that at this stage of our existence.
