ABSTRACT: With the recent unanimous vote by the City Council to webcast City Council meetings, in addition to Mayor Sue McCloud’s enumerated “open communication” items, the definition of Open Government, as defined by the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury, is revisited. COMMENTS are made regarding open government, the Civil Grand Jury’s Report on Open Government and the Ralph M Brown Act.
Definition of Open Government: “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.”
“...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….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.”
(Source: 2005 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT, OPENGOVERNMENT SUMMARY http://www.monterey.courts.ca.gov/Grand_Jury_Report_2005/Civil_Grand_Jury_2005_Final_Report.pdf)
Therefore, in the context of the 2005 Civil Grand Jury Report on Open Government, where “the focus was on the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea,” open government includes, but is not limited to the following, as enumerated on Mayor Sue McCloud’s web site:
• Televised Council meetings (KMST Ch 26 on the Sunday following the Council meeting from 8 a.m. to noon).
• Added seating in the City Hall lobby with closed circuit TV for overflow audiences.
• Placed boxes at the Post Office for agendas of all Council, Commissions, Boards and Committee meetings.
• Established a City website http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us.
• Published a City Newsletter (two issues to date) for all homeowners as a means to provide facts on more complex issues: e.g. the budget.
• Prepared, delivered and mailed to all residents in 2005 the second annual Report on Achieving Council Objectives.
• Meet annually with some 40 commercial property owners in an effort to open regular communication with them on issues of mutual concern.
• Used first names at Council meetings to make our sessions seem more informal and the Council more approachable.
• Posted all correspondence which I receive and send on a Council read board for Council to review.
And recently, the City Council’s unanimously vote at their January 8, 2008 meeting to webcast City Council meetings.
COMMENTS:
• Apparently, Mayor Sue McCloud thinks all of the above enumerated items represent the sum and substance of open government. They do not, as the Civil Grand Jury’s Report on Open Government stipulates. In fact, none of the enumerated items address the deficiencies of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s government; namely “over-control” by the mayor resulting in the public interest being subverted through covert processes and predetermined outcomes. Numerous examples abound, including the selection of Karen Sharp as City Council Member; failures to inform the public at City Council meetings of the mayor’s role in the hiring of a consultant for advise on Robert Leidig’s Carmel Convalescent Hospital Redevelopment project, the hiring of an appellate attorney to advise on an appeal of the Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea lawsuit and the intention to file for an exception to the Ocean Plan for our storm water discharges into Carmel Bay, an Area of Biological Significance; the contracting and /or paying of consultants prior to items being placed on City Council Agendas; failures to respond and/or satisfactorily respond to residents written correspondences; et cetera.
• Moreover, it appears that Mayor Sue McCloud does not have a grasp of the spirit and intent of the Ralph M Brown Act, as follows:
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
• Lastly, openness in government is essential to ensuring that government is operating on behalf of its citizens. Too often, especially in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, elected officials and city employees forget or fail to understand that the information held by the government is owned by the public and only held in trust for them by the government. Moreover, without openness and the perception of openness, there is no trust and efficient government; there are no promotion of rights, fairness and the rule of law.
5 comments:
It is not only the public that has been unable to get any items onto the city council agenda (there have been some exceptions in cases of non-controversial items and items that the mayor has already thrown her support behind) but even city council members have been unable to get onto the agenda since McCloud became mayor. In some cases council members have never gotten an item onto the agenda.
It is rare that members of the public receive any response to items they raise at meetings of the City Council. When there is a response, it is usually very generalized and fails to directly address the concern, question etc. Certainly such non-responses ignore the concerns of the Grand Jury and probably fail to even meet the minimum requirements of published procedures.
The "City Newsletters" unlike the real newsletter that the city used to send out weekly prior to Sue McCloud's canceling them, have merely been public relations pieces for the mayor. There has been little attempt to use them to provide facts, real information or updates for the public although that's what they purport to do. The Annual Reports have been equally uninformative. Those who care about Carmel can only pine for the days when elected officials at least tried to do what was beneficial for the city, its residents and businesses and government was for the most part open and above board.
On paper the published procedures are adequate. At best, and far from always, they may meet the letter of the law but rarely, if ever, the spirit or intention of those published procedures. Routinely, this subverts not only the perception but the actual public interest.It would be difficult to imagine how Carmel could have more dreadful governance than is now the case
Oh Wow! A new city website to come and webcasting of council meetings. And that's a sign of open government from the most closed, secretive government in Carmel history, thanks to Sue McCloud. Sue's so modern and technology wise, except of course she doesn't read blogs, isn't that what she told a Monterey Weekly reporter? Come on Sue, you can't be that dense.
Post a Comment