Comments on: Open Meeting Law: What it means, what it doesn’t mean, what it might mean

By: Stephanie Henriksen

Stephanie Henriksen — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:26:16 +0000

Thanks, Kathie, for your analysis. Atty Hood may not be as bold in orchestrating moves against Northfield area townships that do not, as you say, “pass the smell test.” That would be a positive outcome.

I will be very interested in what Waterford’s attorney has to say as we come closer to the 30-day extension deadline.

By: Kathie Galotti

Kathie Galotti — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:26:38 +0000

Tracy:

Thank you for posting the articles and the commentary. It convinces me that the OML is not as simple and straightforward as one might wish.

That being said, it seems to me that elected officials ought to be smart enough and have enough integrity to live up to the spirit of the OML, whatever the legal niceties, subtleties, and intricacies. Serial meetings to get everyone “informed” or “on the same page” or whatnot really seem to me a fairly ham-handed way of avoiding the OML or at least what its basic purpose is. I understand that serial meetings might (or might not) be technically “legal”--but they don’t pass the smell test.

Especially at this point in Northfield’s history--with so many of us shaking our heads and wondering what’s up with our elected officials--my advice to them would be--don’t take these foolish risks. BE above board and avoid even the appearance of impropriety--especially on sensitive issues. Yes, meeting only in public venues is inefficient. Democracy, as my civics teacher once noted, is a VERY inefficient way to do things…

By: Randy Jennings

Randy Jennings — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:39:45 +0000

Tracy, thanks for an excellent summary of the Open Meeting Law. Your opening — that we not assume the worst — and your closing — that we learn together how to communicate better as a community — are spot on. In the middle is the law, which can never fully protect us from ourselves.

We elect council members to represent the interests of the community. They appoint citizen volunteers to boards and commissions to share the work and broaden the expertise on a wide range of issues. And they delegate to staff the responsibility to do the work of running the city. Sometimes this delegation is explicit: the council issues directives to staff to accomplish x, y, and z. Sometimes this delegation is implicit: we rely on staff to bring forward issues that are required by law, or are essential to the operation of the services the city provides, which might not otherwise be raised proactively by the council. In both cases, we rely on skilled professionals to do the jobs they are hired to do.

I never thought I’d quote Ronald Reagan, but maybe his sound bite about relations between the US and the Soviet Union is appropriate: trust, but verify. We need to work on the trust part first. We’ve already got plenty of citizen skeptics who delight in the “verify.”