No Secret Sessions, Please
Back to Chicago Heights
Thursday, June 16, 2011
CLOSED DOORS: As a young reporter, I covered a small city that was as corrupt as its big brother just to the north, namely Chicago.
While Chicago was run by a Democratic machine, Chicago Heights was dominated by Republican politicians. No one got elected to the city council or anything else without their say-so.
Each Monday night, shortly before the council session, councilmembers would retire to a closed room where they went over the agenda and decided how to vote on each item.
Barney Brantingham
Then they’d emerge, call the meeting to order, and vote to approve the stuff they’d agreed on earlier in private. There was very little debate, as you might imagine, unless someone in the audience had something to say.
This didn’t count for much, since all decisions had already been okayed in advance. One night I decided to crash the private session and listen in. They all looked at me, shrugged, made small talk for a while, and walked out to open the meeting. Not surprisingly, no major issues came up.
I was reminded of all this by the Santa Barbara City Council majority last week coming out against open meetings. The public’s right to know and all that — passé, I guess.
Councilmember Dale Francisco allowed as how California’s Brown Act open-meetings law is just too darn strict, saying that a quorum of the council should be able to discuss matters in private as long as the final vote is done in public later.
Sounds like Chicago Heights all over again to me. And since conservative councilmembers Francisco, Michael Self, Frank Hotchkiss, and Randy Rowse are in the majority, guess what quorum would be sitting around in private making those decisions?
Later, of course, to be confirmed on a perfunctory vote in public. As things now stand, the accursed Brown Act prevents any public body from doing this.
But just in case someone got the harebrained idea to expand the public’s right to know, participate in decisions, and make things more transparent, Francisco, Self, Hotchkiss, and Rowse voted to add this to the city’s legislative platform reflecting its stand on federal and state legislation: that it would “oppose legislation that would impose further restrictions on the action that a governing body can take in closed sessions.”
I suppose this could be interpreted as a slap in face of the electorate that put them in office and no doubt prefers to hear their deliberations right out there in public. And with an election coming in November, it might have been unwise for candidates Francisco, Self, and Rowse (if he decides to run) to reveal their undemocratic thinking (Hotchkiss is safe until the 2013 election). Mayor Helene Schneider and councilmembers Bendy White and Grant House were outvoted on the Brown Act issue, with Schneider pointing out that the Brown Act is aimed at preventing closed-door decisions. Deliberations “need the full light of day,” she argued.
The Brown Act also bans trying to get around the law by round-robin phone calls or other gimmicks to corral votes. You know there are always litigious folk who’d just love to catch council folks pulling monkey business like that.
The Ralph M. Brown open-meeting act was passed in 1953. I recall when covering Santa Barbara City Hall in the 1960s that after the morning council meeting adjourned for lunch, the entire council, along with top city officials, would adjourn to break bread together at a restaurant or hotel. (At the taxpayers’ expense, of course. I put my lunch on the News-Press tab since I was working.)
It gave me a chance to interview some of the officials about agenda items. These were basically relaxed lunches, however, and I never caught anyone lining up votes. Heck, the city attorney was right there.
Francisco said he found California’s open-meeting law so restrictive that “the U.S. Constitution could not have happened under the Brown Act.” Well, I checked on whether it was whomped up in some back room by six Founding Fathers in ruffled pants in three hours, then slapped surprise! down on a beer-stained table as a fait accompli.
In reality, some 55 representatives from the various states met in Philadelphia for months, debating various scenarios to guide the new nation. They did it behind closed doors, however, and the Brown Act would have nixed that. But I feel sure that the result would have been much the same even with ye olde publik present and commenting.
When they finally came up with a consensus, the document was presented to the states to adopt or turn down. Fortunately, they okayed it. I left a message at City Hall for Francisco, but he didn’t reply.
WRITE ON!: The 39th Santa Barbara Writers Conference (sbwriters.com), back after a two-year hiatus, runs Saturday, June 18, through Thursday, June 23, at the Mar Monte Hotel. Speakers include keynoter Ray Bradbury, Santa Barbara’s T.C. Boyle, and thriller author Clive Cussler. The conference was rescued from bankruptcy by author Monte Schulz, son of the late Peanuts cartoonist Charles Schulz, a longtime conference speaker.
Related Links
Comments
I am not so sure this is true Neo-Confederism, but instead this cigar is just a cigar that Francisco, Rowse, Self, and Hotchkiss want to decide stuff in private because if the public knew what they were doing then the public would hate them and they would not get reelected.
However, voters can do that anyway and vote for any candidate except for Francisco, Rowse, and Self.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2011 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Or they would just like to have a rational discussion without the constant weeping and wailing of special interest groups and self-appointed guardians of liberty (who tend to be anything but...). They're not trying to eliminate all open meetings, just trying to close some of the overthetop rules in the Brown act.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2011 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
True, they're not hoping (well, maybe they are hoping!) to eliminate all open meetings. They did urge the city support a relaxation on the quorum requirement. Then, after discussing amongst themselves, the councilmembers could go to the open meeting where there would be the usuals, that is, the proponents or the opponents of proposed legislation, those concerned about it, and the council would vote how they, the so-called representatives, had decided before listening to the public.
If it was as Barney wrote, “oppose legislation that would impose further restrictions on the action that a governing body can take in closed sessions.” then less of a problem since the quorum requirement would remain in force. That was not the tenor of Francisco's urgings or that of Hotchkiss and Self and Rowse.
In any event, the Brown Act would not be changed by the city council; this is but a recommendation. Still, it shows a strong mis-understanding, imho, of the fact that the councilmembers are representatives of the public.
at_large (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2011 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You actually think, John_Locke, that those private sessions would not include those special interests that are favored by the conservatives? Really? You're not that naive, are you?
SezMe (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2011 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I, for one will not forget this come election time.
pamackenzie (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2011 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Elitism at it's finest. And as Pamackenzie point out, voters have the power of their vote.
To the conservatives out there: This is an opportunity to present new candidates in the next election who share your political ideology but who unlike the current councilmembers, are for open government.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2011 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Typical all is black all is white reaction by the SB reactionaries. Why special interests favored by conservatives? Why not special interests favored by liberals? How 'bout we eliminate special interests from the governing process altogether? While we're at it, add an IQ test and tests for competence, integrity, logic, and finance to the requirements for public office. Maybe even an IQ test for voters.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2011 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sez, the most recent comment verifies all the more how JohnLocke indeed is naive, hypocritical and worse.
And what part of having a quorum of the elected council members meet in private to discuss upcoming votes is not a "meeting" by all legal meanings of the word.
Keep it up, dead philosopher; your ship is sinking faster and faster. Francisco is losing a hundred votes a week just on this.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2011 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A dead president arguing with a dead philospher. To that, I post this musical tribute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6YYcU...
billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2011 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JohnLocke, you're funny. You ride in here on your high horse complaining about black/white reactions by "reactionaries". Then you proceed to suggest the most absolute black/white solution one can think of, namely, to eliminate special interests. Do you even read the drivel you post?
BTW, what is a "reactionary"? How can I spot one here at the Indy?
Now to the "substance" of your post: There is absolutely nothing wrong with "special interests" attempting to influence the direction of government. Everybody, including you, is a member of a special interest group that has a particular perspective that they think should be shared by those in power. The only problem arises when such special interest groups don't play on a level field such as when wealthy groups/individuals use the power of their money to distort the actions of all three branches of government. Of course, the Citizens United case is Exhibit A for the distortion of power.
Finally, be careful what you wish for. If your tests are a gateway to voting, you'd be disenfranchising the entire Tea Party, half the GOP, half the Republican candidates and Paul Ryan. Sad, that.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2011 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reminds me of when Dick Cheney wouldn't divulge which big oil executives and lobbyists he was inviting to the White House to formulate energy policy. He pulled a similar stunt on email within the office of the VP.
Non-transparent governance is a bad deal - you don't need quotes from any dead colonial Americans to know that.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2011 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)