ABSTRACT: The 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report is uploaded. The OPEN GOVERNMENT section is reproduced.
Civil_Grand_Jury_2005_Final_Report
2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report
OPEN GOVERNMENT
SUMMARY
The Grand Jury investigated the procedures that city governments have in place to support openness in government and have focused on the actual experience the public has as these procedures are administered.
• Open government, in this context, means the ability of the public to submit items to their elected representatives to be agendized for discussion at future city council meetings and to have confidence these items will be responded to in a timely manner and with accountability as to follow-up and resolution.
Through interviews and observations, we concluded that the procedures where currently published appear to be adequate but may be circumvented or arbitrarily executed in certain instances resulting in lack of open debate, delayed or inadequate follow-up and no resolution.
The recommendations which follow generally go beyond current procedures and focus on changes or modifications that city governments can implement which would create an environment where topics or concerns can be brought forward for open discussion with a higher level of visibility and accountability: in effect, a more open government.
• Whether or not the public interest is being subverted through any covert process may be immaterial if the public has the perception their interests are not represented and outcomes are predetermined.
BACKGROUND
A number of complaints were received from residents and former employees of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. These complaints ranged from human resource issues resulting from the organizational downsizing that occurred in 2004 to issues of communications with the residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea and an alleged inaccessibility of elected officials to participate in open debate and timely resolution of issues.
This triggered the impetus for an investigation of how all city governments in Monterey County support an open and participative process. Procedures for all cities were reviewed, but the focus was on the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
• The objective was to improve the process as opposed to singling out any city for criticism.
INQUIRY PROCESS
The Grand Jury conducted 11 interviews. Complainants were interviewed to determine if a systemic or wide spread basis existed for such complaints. Additionally, Carmel-by-the-Sea citizens, public officials, city council members and employees were interviewed with the intent to gain a broader understanding of open government and how established procedures were administered.
Procedures for placing items on city council agendas and the process of tracking, responding to and resolving such items once the topic was presented were reviewed for several cities in Monterey County.
City council meetings on the Monterey Peninsula were attended with particular attention paid to how citizens are granted an audience to discuss topics of concern and how those topics were tracked and resolved.
FINDINGS
1. Interviews disclosed that a pattern of obstacles exist that make it difficult to schedule, discuss, document for the record, and gain appropriate resolution of topics or issues presented by the public.
2. All cities have a three-minute speaking limit at council meetings for individuals to bring issues to the attention of city councils on items not on the agenda. In certain cases, this allotted time might not be adequate for the topic by the public.
3. It is unclear what happens to a public comment topic if follow-up is necessary.
4. It is also unclear who determines if follow-up is justified, or if the topic might be placed on the agenda for future city council consideration.
5. Cities generally do not record three-minute public comment topics in the recording secretary’s minutes. Other than a videotaped record (if recording occurs), there generally is no written public record of the topic or any commitment to follow-up by city administrators.
6. All cities have a published procedure and a form for the public to place items on city council agendas. It is understood that, in the interests of time and efficiency, city councils cannot immediately schedule every topic for discussion. The setting of agendas is critical in determining what and when issues are discussed.
7. Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.) is the law that requires elected officials to let the public speak. Section 54954 of the Act governs Regular Meetings and includes conditions for scheduling and public notice, but it does not include requirements for scheduling agenda items from the public.
The recommendations which follow generally go beyond current procedures, including the Brown Act, and focus on changes or modifications that city governments can implement which will create an environment where topics or concerns can be brought forward for open discussion with a higher level of visibility and accountability: in effect, a more open government.
1. The public should be allowed to register topics and have them included on council agendas for discussion in the Public Comment period. The presentation of these topics should still be limited to reasonable time limits set by the cities.
2. Discussion topics should be recorded in council minutes so as to provide a written and time-stamped record of such discussion.
3. Within a reasonable time period, the topic should be assigned, if follow-up or resolution is required, to a city council person as a contact point to represent the citizen’s interest and work with city staff to attain an appropriate resolution.
4. A written public record of unresolved items, the status of the discussion topic, and responsible city council person should be provided.
5. The procedures and forms to be used by the public to place items on city agendas should be made available at council meetings.
REQUESTED RESPONSES
FINDINGS
City Councils of Monterey County
Findings Nos. 1-7
RECOMMENDATIONS
City Councils of Monterey County
Recommendations 1-5
(Source: 2005 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT, OPEN GOVERNMENT, pgs. 26 - 28)
1 comment:
If anything, Sue is worse now at overcontrolling the process than when this grand jury report was made public. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for a citizen group to delve into issues which constitute allegations of violations because they live among these people. And since the bar for forwarding information to the district attorney's office is so high, there can be serious ethical violations which go unreported in the pro-Sue press, which nonetheless constitute a violation of the public trust, but which the DA is not empowered to investigate or act on. So it is up to the voters to have an ethical conscience themselves and educate themselves and vote out of office anyone who has engaged in unethical conduct.
Post a Comment