from: Mary Morgan <mary.morgan@annarborchronicle.com>
to: spostema@a2gov.org

date: Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:51 PM
subject: Open Meetings Act compliance

Stephen,

At their Sept. 8 meeting, the Ann Arbor Greenbelt Advisory
Commission went into closed session, as they typically do,
to discuss land acquisitions. Apparently, they also have
the habit of adjourning in closed session, if there is no
additional business to conduct in open session. I learned
this because I was awaiting their return to the county
boardroom, where the open session had been held, when I
heard the sounds of people talking as they walked through
the lobby and out of the building. When I went out and told
them that they needed to adjourn the meeting in open
session, they were surprised – this has not been their
practice. (Also awaiting their return, by the way, were a
CTN staff member and representative from the clerk's
office.)

This is not the first time The Chronicle has encountered a
city body that's been inadequately informed about
compliance with the Open Meetings Act. When we first began
covering the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission, that group
was meeting in a private building – the offices of JJR –
that was inaccessible to the public after the start of the
meeting. It wasn't until I pointed this out that the venue
was changed.

And, of course, as you are aware, we had to insist that the
Ann Arbor City Council also comply with the OMA requirement
that meetings be adjourned in open session, rather than
simply open the door from their closed session before
adjourning. This was a practice that you had observed, but
did nothing to remedy, until The Chronicle insisted on full
compliance. Even now, compliance seems to be a matter to be
reluctantly tolerated, with most councilmembers not even
bothering to take their seats in open session before
adjournment.

It's also unclear whether this compliance is maintained
consistently, or only when it's perceived that members of
the public or media are on hand. Obviously, compliance is a
legal issue – and not contingent on whether someone is
there to observe it. This lack of discipline results in a
blurring of the lines between when meetings are in open
session, closed session or adjourned, and might well have
contributed to the OMA violation that we believe occurred
on July 19, 2010 – a violation that, unless acknowledged
and remedied, we are prepared to challenge in court, as you
are aware.

The council in particular has the opportunity – if not the
obligation – to set an example for all other city boards
and commissions, both in practice and in attitude. I don't
fault the members of these bodies, most of whom are not
politicians but are volunteers working hard on behalf of
the city. There is no reason to expect them to be experts
in the legal requirements of open government.

The responsibility for adequately educating elected and
appointed officials about the requirements of the Open
Meetings Act and Freedom of Information Act falls to the
city attorney's office. There is a disturbing lack of rigor
– intentional or not – in executing this task. It reflects
a culture of laxity regarding these laws that belies any
claims to a commitment to open government.

It is unacceptable.

I urge you to consider how you plan to enact specific
policies, procedures and educational efforts to enforce OMA
compliance, which is at minimum a legal requirement. Beyond
that, I would suggest that you find ways to demonstrate
that the city embraces the concept of open government,
rather than to approach OMA as simply a legal annoyance
that can be skirted if at all possible.

I understand that it's easier to conduct the public's
business out of public view. I understand that democracy
can be messy, inefficient and uncomfortable. I understand
the inevitable clubbiness and patronizing attitudes that
result from a select group of people having access to
information, because of their office, that's not available
to the general public.

And because I understand all this, I am doubly grateful
that I live in a country where safeguards are in place to
ensure that the privileges of power and the tendencies of
human nature don't thwart the greater good of the public –
open access to our government, its actions and information.
I take these safeguards seriously, and I hope that as the
leader of an office charged with upholding these
safeguards, you will begin to take them seriously, too.
Anything less, and you are not fulfilling the duties of
your position.

Regards,

Mary

Mary Morgan, Publisher
The Ann Arbor Chronicle