Comments on: Column: Upholding the Open Meetings Act

By: Jack F

Jack F — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:02:30 +0000

You would think an ‘ethics’ policy would be on the top of the pile of things to do, that is if it’s important to Council. Amazing how some things can get added to the Agenda hours before meeting time and get voted on with a slam dunk but it takes ‘work’ to finalize an ethics policy that could have been cut and pasted from about a hundred thousand other American cities. Obvious it’s not a priority. Big surprise.

By: Sabra Briere

Sabra Briere — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 01:47:42 +0000

Council member Taylor’s ethics resolution was sent to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee, which meets semi-regularly in open session, has been word-smithing it to make it shorter and less-complicated. I am certain he wishes the committee members were satisfied with it.

By: mr dairy

mr dairy — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:37:51 +0000

What happened to Chris Taylor and council’s plans for an ethical code of conduct for elected officials?

By: John Dory

John Dory — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:18:54 +0000

The public needs to support vigorous enforcement of the Open Meetings Act.

I can recall Councilperson Marcia Higgins at a debate last year indicating that a full disclosure of all City Council e-mails would uncover “interesting” stuff.

There also needs to be a strict conflict of interest ordinance passed that would prevent blatant abuses that have occurred and continue to occur.

By: mr dairy

mr dairy — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 13:42:29 +0000

I would like to know what Mr Smith means by “self protective mode” and what would cause him to seek such a mode.

By: JOHN FLOYD

JOHN FLOYD — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 03:13:46 +0000

As someone seeking a city council seat, I demand that The Chronicle immediatly cease and desist from asking the public to imagine city council, nude. Some things really are best left in clothed session.

John Floyd
Republican for City Council
Ward 5

By: mr dairy

mr dairy — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:09:55 +0000

Ask yourself what are the reasons behind the need for the OMA and FOIA? What led us to the point where we found it necessary to legislate that elected and public officials to do the public’s business in the open for all to see?

By: Jack Eaton

Jack Eaton — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:39:13 +0000

First, thank you for pursuing this litigation. While the FOIA and the OMA are the governing law, the public must insist on lawful conduct from its Council.

Dave said: “The OMA doesn’t give us open government; the OMA can be worked around. What gives us open government is a commitment by elected officials to do the public’s work in public. If elected officials are committed to doing their work out of public view, they will absolutely find a way to do that — possibly in ways that completely conform with the OMA.”

I agree. The laws do not guarantee openness. Those laws, and the City Charter provisions which go even further, express the public intent that government be operated in the open. Elected officials who circumvent those laws are violating the express wishes of the electorate. Such officials should either not run for office or should work (openly) to repeal the laws with which they disagree.

A final thought – It would seem that having a lawyer in the room while conducting private sessions would provide a guide for the elected officials on following the letter of the law during those sessions.

By: Anon-U-Are

Anon-U-Are — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:36:28 +0000

@ Conan Smith: The Ann Arbor News did not ridicule the Council members; they did that to themselves.

We know you’d love to operate out of the public eye.

By: Jack F

Jack F — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:44:07 +0000

“I would certainly consider privatizing my communications to avoid FOIA in the future. That might not be in the public’s best interest, but it would certainly be in mine once I’m put into a self-protective mode.”

This statement makes me ill. If Mr. Smith feels this way, he needs to leave public office.