At the recent City Council Retreat the council spent “A good deal of time was spent (without resolution) discussing small group meetings,” according to At-Large Councilwoman Nancy Vaughan. “I understand, and agree with, the desire to be more transparent.”
Vaughan continues by highlighting why she objects to the small meeting rule,
“My objection is that the ordinance/resolution that was passed during the last term was too vague and overly broad.”
It appears to be clear that the council is on board (at least they seem to say they are) with being transparent, but Vaughan provided an example as to how the small meeting rule can have a negative impact.
“For example, I have a constituent with a planning issue. He wants me and his district rep to meet with him and Dick Hails to discuss possible resolutions. According to Terry Wood whenever two council members and a staff person get together it is considered a small group meeting. Therefore I have to tell my constituent that I am “not allowed” to meet with him, another council member and staff to discuss his problem. That restriction inhibits my effectiveness and how I best serve my constituents. For that reason, I feel we need to better define small group meetings. I believe that we will be able to reach a mutually agreeable solution.”
I sent Vaughan a follow up asking, “To be clear, are you for changing the small group meeting rule so that the situation you described could take place?”
Her response,
“Yes, I don’t believe the original intent was to eliminate the type of meeting I described, but because the ordinance/resolution (not sure which) eliminated all small group meetings it did not provide for council member driven meetings.”
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Kudos on your post, Ryan. I hesitate to jump in on this discussion, but will all the same.
This is primarily a policy discussion for council to determine, and I expect and hope that my opinion will only be given only secondary consideration. I consider myself a champion of transparency, but I had no part in prodding the council to eliminate small group meetings. I know this will be perceived as taking sides, but from my perspective the change didn’t bring about more transparency. I found members of the last council to be more reluctant to comment on their various agendas and to provide information about governance than their predecessor. I can only surmise that this was a result of being uninformed, paranoid about each others’ intentions and embarrassed about their lack of information.
What transpired in open session with the press in attendance tended to be more potshots, personal attacks and other rhetorical static than substantive discussion or factual information. As a reporter, I would prefer to talk to council members who are informed. The risk of allowing more than one council member to talk to staff at the same time is that everyone else is at an informational disadvantage. No one in the politics or the media likes to be surprised, but it seems to me that we’re all in a chase for information, to some degree. We can all pick up the phone and call council members and staff members to find out what they’re up to.
The current policy seems to be supported by my competition at the Rhino Times, which endorsed most of the current council and has strong relationships with Rakestraw and Wade, the two members who most strongly oppose the small group meetings. That’s fine. All part of the process.
But the transparency argument only goes so far, from my limited vantage point.
I, personally, would be in favor of a solution that would allow council to have meetings like the one Nancy outlined. It’s more efficient. Transparency is very important though, and I’d never lose site of that.
Ryan