Citizens are viewing with increasing concern the lack of information available as to the proceedings of our County Council. A major element of this concern arises from the failure of the council to provide adequate and timely information about its
Citizens are viewing with increasing concern the lack of information available as to the proceedings of our County Council.
A major element of this concern arises from the failure of the council to provide adequate and timely information about its operations and actions. While the council publishes its agenda, that document contains only a listing in outline or abbreviated form of the matters that will be considered.
The meetings are typically attended by only a very few residents. The council has no information office advising the actions taken and citizens can learn about actions of the council only through its minutes which are not available often until weeks after meetings occur.
And precious few of our residents take the time to read these minutes.
While The Garden Island newspaper normally covers council meetings, its deadlines frequently preclude the articles from mentioning discussions and actions occurring in extended meetings and typically the article includes discussion of only the one agenda item believed to be of the most interest. Also, The Garden Island does not reach all citizens and is not an official report on proceedings.
But the gravest blackout of information occurs with respect to executive sessions taken by the council to consider allegedly confidential matters. Despite the exhortation of the State Sunshine Law to conduct public meetings as openly as possible, our County Council resorts increasingly to the secrecy of the executive session from which the public is excluded to conduct its discussions. In 2013 there were 105 executive sessions held and this hectic pace is being maintained in 2014.
Until 2008, the council could lawfully only convene executive sessions to consider claims, but that was too restrictive in the view of our council members and in that year the County Charter was, at the council’s urging, amended to broaden the scope of matters that could be considered.
Under the current charter, the council can avoid an open discussion of virtually all matters by invoking the mantra that this “briefing and consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges of the council and the county as they relate to the agenda item” and entering an executive session. In addition, the council chair has been advising that he is informed by the Office of Information Practice that action taken by the council in executive session need not be reported following the session.
With these parameters, the council could circumvent the thoughtful concepts of the Sunshine Law and, by declaring an emergency, even adopt ordinances in executive sessions, and never inform the citizens what it had done. While this is quite unlikely, the door is open.
An aspect of the settlement of the recent Bynum case is illustrative of the penchant of the council toward secrecy and the consequences of its failure to provide information to the public.
In that situation, the county attorney had invoked the county’s liability insurance policy to effect the settlement. Although reviewed by the council in the budget process and its premium payment approved, the council seemed unaware of its terms. At one point, a member of the council declared that the public seemed to know more about the policy than the council members did.
At the April 23 council meeting the council chair stated he was asking for an executive session for authorization to retain special counsel at a cost of up to $15,000 to “advise the council concerning coverage under the county insurance policy” as it related to the Bynum case. This vague statement left the public in doubt as to what his concern was.
It was far from clear why it was necessary for the council to go into executive session to be taught about the terms of an insurance contract which had been approved and presumably reviewed by the council during budget proceedings.
Apparently, the council educates itself about smaller items, but feels it doesn’t need to trouble itself to learn the workings of the larger ones.
The council chair’s request also seems to reflect his low esteem of the county attorney as evidently the chair did not believe that the county attorney’s office was capable of providing such advice.
It seemed to the public that the council was happy to disregard the Sunshine Law and spend taxpayer money for closed sessions with special counsel rather than exploring openly their concerns.
In my view, it is fundamental to the successful workings of a democracy that the public receive suitably detailed information about operations of its government, and rather than endeavoring to make the communications needed to achieve this result, our council is retreating into greater secrecy.
The council must learn that its interests, as well as those of the people, are served by greater openness.
