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 }
