HIGHLIGHTS of THE HERALD’S VIEW: Carmel’s extreme confidentiality:
• “Clearly, some members of the Carmel City Council don't want to talk about the future of City Administrator Rich Guillen, but that doesn't mean they can keep the public in the dark forever in hopes the matter just goes away.”
• “A vote on Guillen's fate was taken in executive session Sept. 21, but the result still hasn't been made public in seeming violation of the Brown Act.”
• “The Guillen matter has already dragged on too long, but it won’t truly be over until the council gives a reasonable accounting of what has transpired behind closed doors and provides a clear explanation of what happens next.”
• “As it stands, the council majority is being portrayed – fairly or unfairly – as intent on protecting a wrongdoer. It is hard to imagine that some overdue transparency would create any more troubles than those that have been created by so much secrecy.”
Sources: THE HERALD’S VIEW, Carmel’s extreme confidentiality, February 4, 2011, The Monterey County Herald, web and print editions
4 comments:
Let me get this straight. One councilman violated the Brown Act by disclosing a closed door meeting Sept. 21, 2010 where a vote was taken on Rich Guillen in order to try to prevent the entire council from violating the Brown Act. That Pine Cone letter writer had it about right, Carmel city government at city hall is a comedy-only the joke is on us.
It is not a violation of the Brown Act to bring to light the fact that a vote was taken and should have been disclosed to the public.
On the evening of 9-21-10 the city attorney, through a volunteer from the audience, conveyed to the crowd in City Hall that there was going to be an announcement that night and asked to hold their reactions. He too must have thought it was a vote to announce. The announcement didn't come, much to his embarrassment.
He was ready to announce it recently, too, and was in agreement with Burnett . . . that is until the mayor got to him and he "changed his mind."
Sue and Paula are in complete control of the situation, along with Karen's vote to block any closed session meeting to be held soon.
If you want news about what is going on at City Hall, skip the Pine Cone and go directly to the Herald, or go to KSBW Channel 8 news or KION, or the MC Weekly, all are better and more accurate sources for what is going on in Carmel.
Any council member could say “A vote was held in closed session and I voted for the dismissal of City Administrator Rich Guillen” as long as the vote was considered final by the council. If the council did not agree the vote was final then it is a violation of the Brown Act to disclose the fact that a vote was taken. In these cases, discretion is the better part of valor and ethics considering the language of the Brown Act underscores the idea that a decision to disclose information from closed sessions is the prerogative of the group of decision-makers, in this case the city council – and not simply one individual.
In any event it is difficult to see how a much belated, months after-the-fact announcement of a closed session vote on Rich Guillen’s employment could substantively change the status quo unless it is followed up with meaningful action, such as a recall petition.
Local reporting recounted the city attorney agreed with Jason on Monday, then Don Freeman spoke with the mayor and then on Tuesday afternoon he announced there would be no announcement at the meeting. So it appears Don Freeman decided prior to the meeting not to announce the closed session vote and had his “final vote” legal argument ready. By the way, Don Freeman cannot be embarrassed; only a tyro would not know that.
Post a Comment