Richland council too eager to hold meetings in secret (US)

Opinions

 
 

Richland council too eager to hold meetings in secret

 
 

 
 

Published Sunday, December 2nd, 2007

Great news for those Richland residents who'd rather not be bothered with details about their local government and what it costs.

If there's way to keep you in the dark, rest assured City Attorney Tom Lampson will find it.

He did it again last week, advising council members that they could review the terms for the city manager's contract behind closed doors.

Lampson's word succeeded in closing out the public. If secrecy is the goal, then mission accomplished.

Conveniently, Cindy Johnson's contract is on the council's consent agenda for Tuesday, which means it's slated for approval without any public discussion.

Richlanders get to pay the bill, but aren't allowed to know how the tab was derived.

So much for participatory democracy.

We're convinced Lampson gave bad advice -- and not for the first time -- about when council members can legally exclude the public from their deliberations.

In fact, the state's Open Public Meetings Act stipulates that discussions regarding "salaries, wages or other conditions of employment" be held in public.

Herald reporter Michelle Dupler's conversations with the state Attorney General's office seem to support that view.

And in an e-mail response, Mayor Rob Welch said he believed the Herald's challenge is correct and that the meeting should be open.

But let's say we're wrong and Lampson is right.

So what?

Just because a lawyer finds a loophole doesn't mean council members have to crawl through it.

The law is clear about it -- elected officials aren't compelled to conduct secret meetings just because there's an exemption to the open meetings act.

The question the council ought to ask isn't whether an executive session is allowed under the law, but whether secrecy is in the best interest of the citizens of Richland.

Sometimes it is. Disclosure of the city's legal strategy in a lawsuit, for example, could hurt its chances.

In that case, secrecy would be in the public interest, since the city's residents would ultimately bear the consequences of losing the suit.

That's why the open meetings act includes an unambiguous exemption for conversations between elected bodies and their attorneys regarding litigation.

But while discussing Johnson's pay in private might be more comfortable and convenient for her and the council, the public is left out.

This misguided decision to hold an executive session makes us wonder whether some folks at city hall have forgotten who they work for.

But we've railed on this topic before, making virtually the same case in July, after the council went into executive session to discuss its goals for Johnson.

It's tough to bring much pressure to bear. The penalty for breaking the state's open meetings law is $100, and only if someone pursues the issue in court and wins.

We have the ability to make a lot of noise in our print edition and on our website, but the power that matters is in the hands of voters.

Unless constituents complain, council members have little incentive to change their ways.

Apparently council members Bob Thompson, Edward Revell, Dave Rose, John Fox, Rita Mazur and Sheila Sullivan believe Richlanders aren't interested in how their money is spent.

If that's not true, they ought to hear about it. City hall's phone number is 942-7390.

Silence from voters can only encourage secrets from the council.

 
 

Pasted from <http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/opinions/story/9495771p-9406687c.html>