Transparency takes a hit with private meeting
Transparency takes a hit with private meetingThe word “transparency” has been used around city council meetings, and the city itself, a lot recently. I have been impressed over the last several months with the transparency that is happening at Wellington City Hall. Documents of all kinds are readily available, and there have not been all that many executive sessions of late.
That surge in transparency took a pretty big hit last week when the city met with the hospital board and doctors for two hours behind closed doors.
Had they taken a 10-20 minute executive session for some legal matter, and then held an open discussion, I doubt anyone would have even noticed. There are legitimate reasons to have an executive session, and sometimes it is the right thing to do. But executive sessions are not ever required.
The city is dealing with some big issues, and the hospital is one of the main ones. There are issues that need worked out and discussions that need to be had. However, doing them in secret is not the way to get public support, or the way to develop trust between the city and citizens who foot the bill through their tax dollars.
The executive session was clearly a violation of the Kansas Open Meetings Act in my understanding of the law.
The executive session was called for attorney-client privilege. The law clearly states that under this reason, it may include only the council and its attorneys. It specifically says a third party may not be present because that destroys attorney-client privilege.
After the meeting, employee issues were also cited as a reason, and that too is a legitimate reason. However, the law clearly states the city may not meet in executive session to talk about employees other than its own.
I suppose it could be argued that since the hospital is owned by the city, it did not meet with a third party, but that would really be a stretch. Even if you could argue that as the letter of the law, it certainly violates the spirit of the law.
I will admit it is easier to hold discussions in private, where you can say things you might not say in public.
Council members have even bristled at the fact that media now attend their work sessions, which is where issues are actually discussed. The regular meetings are pretty much a formality. Votes on issues are rarely surprising if you have been paying attention to the work sessions.
But while it may be easier to call a private meeting, it is not the best thing to do when you want public support and trust.
Now while I do feel the meeting was illegal, I am not saying anything needs to be done. There’s no need to smack anyone’s wrist, which is about all Kansas would do anyway. I would just encourage the city council to consider its actions more carefully in the future.
The council members did discuss their utility rate issues publicly, and that was a positive thing for transparency. You may not like paying higher utility bills, but at least you know why they are going up.
It comes down to trust.
We have entrusted the council by electing them. We need to be able to trust them to do the right thing, even when the right thing is something we might not agree with.
The council also needs to trust us enough to be willing to talk about issues in open session.
It isn’t always easy, but it is the way to build trust among the citizenry.
